From editor@telecom-digest.org Tue Mar 2 13:30:55 2004 Received: (from ptownson@localhost) by massis.lcs.mit.edu (8.11.6p2/8.11.3) id i22IUtC01334; Tue, 2 Mar 2004 13:30:55 -0500 (EST) Date: Tue, 2 Mar 2004 13:30:55 -0500 (EST) From: editor@telecom-digest.org Message-Id: <200403021830.i22IUtC01334@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 V23 #101 TELECOM Digest Tue, 2 Mar 2004 13:31:00 EST Volume 23 : Issue 101 Inside This Issue: Editor: Patrick A. Townson Telecom Update (Canada) #422, March 1, 2004 (Angus TeleManagement) State Looks at False Bills From AT&T (Monty Solomon) Vonage Experience - Bad! (Phil) Digital Microphones Drives Performance Next-Generation Cells (R Ward) Re: More Re the GTE Side of Verizon (Sammy@nospam.biz) Re: More Re the GTE Side of Verizon (Steven J Sobol) V.17 Receiver (Alexis Deltour) Telecom Link Submit (Emox.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. =========================== Addresses herein are not to be added to any mailing list, nor to be sold or given away without explicit written consent. Chain letters, viruses, porn, spam, and miscellaneous junk is definitely unwelcome. We must fight spam for the same reason we fight crime: not because we are naive enough to believe that we will ever stamp it out, but because we do not want the kind of world that results when no one stands against crime. Geoffrey Welsh =========================== See the bottom of this issue for subscription and archive details and the name of our lawyer; other stuff of interest. ---------------------------------------------------------------------- Date: Tue, 02 Mar 2004 12:27:54 -0500 From: Angus TeleManagement Subject: Telecom Update (Canada) #422, March 1, 2004 ************************************************************ TELECOM UPDATE ************************************************************ published weekly by Angus TeleManagement Group http://www.angustel.ca Number 422: March 1, 2004 Publication of Telecom Update is made possible by generous financial support from: ** ALLSTREAM: www.allstream.com ** BELL CANADA: www.bell.ca ** CISCO SYSTEMS CANADA: www.cisco.com/ca ** CYGCOM INTEGRATED TECHNOLOGIES: www.cygcom.com ** GROUP TELECOM: www.360.net ** JUNIPER NETWORKS: www.juniper.net ** PRIMUS CANADA: www.primustel.ca ** SPRINT CANADA: www.sprint.ca ** TELUS: www.telus.com ************************************************************ IN THIS ISSUE: ** BCE Calls for New Communications Policies ** Microcell Sues Over Anti-Fido Ads ** Hotels Denied Payment for Toll-Free Calls ** Bell Asks CRTC to Stop Regulating Its High-Speed Data ** Cogeco Offers Small-Business Internet Plan ** Call-Net Sales Flat, Losses Down ** Aliant Extends High-Speed Internet ** GT Builds New Brunswick Research Net ** Globalive Offers Hosted IP Telephony ** Wireless Internet in Iqualuit ** Wi-Fi Offered on Montreal-Quebec Trains ** Growth of Data Access Market Slows ** Look Raises $10.7 Million ** SR Telecom Sales Decline ** Network Management Software Compared ============================================================ BCE CALLS FOR NEW COMMUNICATIONS POLICIES: BCE CEO Michael Sabia last week called for the "re-setting of the public policy framework" for the advent of IP-based competition in Canadian communications. New policies "must provide the same rules for all service providers," he said. (See Telecom Update #411) MICROCELL SUES OVER ANTI-FIDO ADS: Microcell has asked the Quebec Superior Court to bar Telus, Bell Mobility, and Rogers Wireless from making "discriminatory offers" targeting only Microcell customers. Microcell wants the court to also block the use of "Fido trademarks" and "dogs and other Fido-related images" in its rivals' advertising. (See Telecom Update #417) HOTELS DENIED PAYMENT FOR TOLL-FREE CALLS: CRTC Telecom Decision 2004-11 rejects a hotel industry proposal to have hotels receive payment for toll-free calls made from hotel telephones. The CRTC also declined to allow hotels to block or re-route toll-free calls. www.crtc.gc.ca/archive/ENG/Decisions/2004/dt2004-11.htm BELL ASKS CRTC TO STOP REGULATING ITS HIGH-SPEED DATA: Bell Canada has asked the CRTC to forbear from regulating high- speed, fibre-based digital services in some Ontario and Quebec markets, including in Montreal, Ottawa, and Toronto. Bell says it holds only about a third of the $240-million yearly high-speed data market in these two provinces. www.crtc.gc.ca/PartVII/eng/2004/8640/b2_200401506.htm COGECO OFFERS SMALL-BUSINESS INTERNET PLAN: Cogeco Cable's new Business Starter plan offers Ontario business customers Internet access at up to 5 Mbps (download) and 640 Kbps (upload) for $49.95/month. CALL-NET SALES FLAT, LOSSES DOWN: Call-Net Enterprises reports fourth quarter sales of $204 million, down 0.8% from the previous quarter and up 0.8% from a year earlier. Net losses were $16.2 million, compared to $24.4 million in the same period of 2002. Call-Net added 106,000 local lines in 2003, and had 12,800 wireless subscribers at year-end. ALIANT EXTENDS HIGH-SPEED INTERNET: Aliant says it is spending $12.6 million in the first half of 2004 to make high-speed Internet available to an additional 40,000 homes and 1,600 businesses in the Atlantic provinces. GT BUILDS NEW BRUNSWICK RESEARCH NET: Group Telecom has deployed C$3 million worth of equipment to expand the bandwidth of the New Brunswick/PEI Research Grid. The consortium responsible for the grid includes CANARIE, the National Research Council, the province of New Brunswick, and four universities. GLOBALIVE OFFERS HOSTED IP TELEPHONY: Toronto-based Globalive now offers hosted multimedia IP-based telephony using Nortel's MCS 5200 platform. WIRELESS INTERNET IN IQUALUIT: Nunanet Worldwide Communications and Inukshuk Internet have built a wireless broadband network for Internet access in Iqualuit, Nunavut, using Inukshuk's 2.5 GHz MCS spectrum. (See Telecom Update #420) WI-FI OFFERED ON MONTREAL-QUEBEC TRAINS: Spotnik Mobile and , Telus Mobility now offer wireless 802.11 Internet access is on selected Via Rail trains between Montreal and Quebec City. The service is free March 31. (See Telecom Update #391) GROWTH OF DATA ACCESS MARKET SLOWS: The Convergence Consulting Group says that the Canadian data/Internet access market grew by 6% in 2003 to $6.7 billion, about half the rate of growth of 2002. www.convergenceonline.com LOOK RAISES $10.7 MILLION: Look Communications says that investors have oversubscribed its offering of $10.7 million in convertible debentures. SR TELECOM SALES DECLINE: SR Telecom, a Montreal fixed wireless equipment maker, had 2003 revenue of $128 million, down 35% from the previous year. The net loss was $44.8 million, compared to $20.9 million in 2002. NETWORK MANAGEMENT SOFTWARE COMPARED: The March issue of Telemanagement includes a hands-on comparison review of six network management software packages, plus Part 2 of our in- depth report on IP telephony systems for branch offices, a report on new developments in wireless asset tracking, and proposals for speeding CRTC decision-making. ** Telemanagement Online subscribers can access this issue, and an extensive library of past issues, columns, editorials, and feature reports, at the Online Home Page. ** To subscribe, or to add online access to your existing subscription, go to the Online Subscription Page. Charter Subscriber Discounts are available for a limited time. www.angustel.ca/teleman/tm-sub-online.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 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 www.angustel.ca/update/privacy.html. =========================================================== COPYRIGHT AND CONDITIONS OF USE: All contents copyright 2004 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: Tue, 2 Mar 2004 12:24:52 -0500 From: Monty Solomon Subject: State Looks at False Bills From AT&T Company denies telemarket scheme By Peter J. Howe, Globe Staff, 3/2/2004 Massachusetts utility regulators said yesterday that they are investigating a pattern of AT&T Corp. allegedly sending bogus bills to people who are not customers of the company, then trying to sell them AT&T phone service when they call to complain. After similar concerns emerged in upstate New York last week, the Massachusetts Department of Telecommunications and Energy said yesterday it has received more than 30 complaints since January from Bay State residents who said they got bills from AT&T although they have never had AT&T service or canceled it months or years earlier. http://www.boston.com/business/globe/articles/2004/03/02/state_looks_at_false_bills_from_att/ [TELECOM Digest Editor's Note: I got one of those myself last week. AT&T sent a four page statement of what services I would get if I signed up for them with AT&T 'local service'. The bill went on to say I would be paying a 'basic rate' of $16.67 per month or $50 total for three months as the 'deposit', etc. I did not have time to respond; I just tossed it out. PAT] ------------------------------ From: phil_m_palmer@yahoo.com (Phil) Subject: Vonage Experience Date: 2 Mar 2004 09:43:14 -0800 Organization: http://groups.google.com I signed-up for Vonage Service. They charged my VISA for the startup fees -- np. I get the Motorola VT but it works only intermitantly. Support from Vonage is non-existent, at best. I called several times, mostly hanging-up after holding for 20 minutes. I emailed several times with no return emails. After a week of this crap, I called to cancel. The Vonage Rep said that he'd have to charge $41 bucks to give me an RMA and return address. I told him that is called extortion. He said both the startup fee and termination fee would be refunded when the equipment was returned. So I allowed him to charge my VISA. I am mailing the equipment back today and will followup with additional experience. ALSO, beware about Vonage's Terms of Service policy. It states that you have seven days after you recieve your credit card statement to file a dispute. And that you must notify them before you do so thru your credit card. According to VISA this total BS. Vonage cannot supercede VISA policy, it is called non-compliance. Phil VONAGE SUCKS! [TELECOM Digest Editor's Note: I am truly sorry you have had such bad experience with them. My experience has been quite good by comparison. Have you tried the various techniques presented here in recent weeks to get around some of the intermittent problems you have had? For example, since I made the adjustments in my Linksys firewall/router they recommended, I've had no further problems with loss of dialtone or non-receipt of incoming calls. I *will* agree their customer service holding queue is pretty outrageous at times as they begin to learn the business a little better also. And the Motorola box they are using now may possibly not be as good as the Cisco, I am not sure on that. If you have not yet returned the Motorola to them, consider trying some of the fixes described on the net and see if they help any. Even if you decide it is not working and you must return the equipment, *new* customers who have *not yet* sent in for/recieved an adapter box can get a free month of whatever service package they desire by using an e-coupon from me to start the process. The e-coupon gets you the *second* month of service for free. Email me and ask for it. ptownson@telecom-digest.org PAT] ------------------------------ From: rg_ward@lineone.net (R Ward) Subject: Digital Microphones Drives Performance for Next-Generation Cells Date: 2 Mar 2004 08:33:55 -0800 Organization: http://groups.google.com Zarlink Semiconductor today announced that it is the first to develop advanced digital microphone technology that boosts the performance of the next generation of cellular phones. Featuring ultra low-power mixed-signal design, Zarlink's new chip is the industry's only analog-to-digital converter to meet the stringent performance specifications demanded by cell phone manufacturers. For more info, visit: http://news.zarlink.com/archive/2004/Mar/02/March2-ZL70190-English.htm ------------------------------ From: Sammy@nospam.biz Subject: Re: More Re the GTE Side of Verizon Date: Tue, 02 Mar 2004 05:04:38 -0800 Organization: Cox Communications I think the Palms, Springs, California area was still a GTE LATA within a LATA when Verizon gobbled it all up. Mark J Cuccia wrote: > Steven Sobol wrote (in the thread of upstate-NY, Alltel, Centurytel, etc): >> Don't know how much of the Erie PA metro is Alltel. I'd assume that Erie >> itself is Verizon, but don't know for sure. > Erie PA is indeed Verizon, but not from Bell Atlantic. Erie PA (and > surrounding territory) is old GT&E and is actually a "LATA" unto > itself! > In the old BA states, at the time of the merger between GTE/Contel and > BA/NYNEX to form VeriZon, only PA and VA were states with old GTE > (some inlcuding old Contel). In addition to the Erie PA and > surrounding area being GTE and actually a *LATA* of its own, there are > other GTE areas in PA (and VA) which are simply within (legacy) Bell > Atlantic LATAs. Erie PA and vicinity is the only GTE area that is > also a GTE LATA, that exists in PA (or VA). > West Virginia (a legacy BA state) used to have some GTE (which was > also associated with GTE bordering in Virginia), but when GTE bought > out Contel in the early 1990s, they sold off the West Virginia > operations to Citizens' Telephone/Utilities. > None of the old NYNEX states had any remaining GTE. There seems to > have been some GT&E up there in the later 1950s, 1960s and even 1970s, > but it was all sold off, probably well before GTE took over Contel in > the early 1990s. > Large amounts of old GTE and old Contel was sold to Citizens' and > Alltel in the early 1990s when GTE took over Contel, probably to > comply with FTC/DOJ "antitrust". > mjc ------------------------------ From: Steven J Sobol Subject: Re: More Re the GTE Side of Verizon Date: Tue, 02 Mar 2004 10:05:24 -0600 Mark J Cuccia wrote: > Steven Sobol wrote (in the thread of upstate-NY, Alltel, Centurytel, etc): >> Don't know how much of the Erie PA metro is Alltel. I'd assume that Erie >> itself is Verizon, but don't know for sure. > Erie PA is indeed Verizon, but not from Bell Atlantic. Erie PA (and > surrounding territory) is old GT&E and is actually a "LATA" unto > itself! That explains why Erie was part of my home area with GTE back before the Great Wireless Merger of 2000. JustThe.net Internet & New Media Services, Apple Valley, CA Steven J. Sobol, Geek In Charge / 888.480.4NET (4638) / sjsobol@JustThe.net PGP: C57E 8B25 F994 D6D0 5F6B B961 EA08 9410 E3AE 35ED ------------------------------ From: adeltour@midisystem.fr (Alexis Deltour) Subject: V.17 Receiver Date: 2 Mar 2004 00:17:57 -0800 Organization: http://groups.google.com I'm working on V.17 fax project and I'm looking for fax training (long and short sequence of V.17 and TCF), timing, carrier recovery and trellis for rate 2/3 code on matlab ... Sincerely, Alexis Deltour Ingnieur R&D Telecoms MIDI SYSTEM 460, Avenue de la Quiera 105 Voie C, PA de l'Argile 06370 Mouans Sartoux France Tel : 04 92 92 59 09 Fax : 04 92 92 24 77 Email : adeltour@midisystem.fr ------------------------------ Date: Tue, 02 Mar 2004 15:15:56 +0200 From: Emox.com Subject: Telecom Link Submit Hi, We appreciate it if you add our link. Site Name: Karabakh Telecom Site URL: http://www.karabakhtelecom.com Site Description: Exclusive communication services provider in Nagorno Karabakh. Services include GSM, fixed telephony, Internet, voice services, data services & more. Regards, Emox.com http://www.emox.com ------------------------------ TELECOM Digest is an electronic journal devoted mostly but not exclusively to telecommunications topics. It is circulated anywhere there is email, in addition to various telecom forums on a variety of networks such as Compuserve and America On Line, Yahoo Groups, 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: 530-309-7234 Fax 3: 208-692-5145 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 fifty 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. If you donate at least fifty dollars per year we will send you our two-CD set of the entire Telecom Archives; this is every word published in this Digest since our beginning in 1981. 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 V23 #101 ****************************** From editor@telecom-digest.org Wed Mar 3 13:39:54 2004 Received: (from ptownson@localhost) by massis.lcs.mit.edu (8.11.6p2/8.11.3) id i23Idrg10914; Wed, 3 Mar 2004 13:39:54 -0500 (EST) Date: Wed, 3 Mar 2004 13:39:54 -0500 (EST) From: editor@telecom-digest.org Message-Id: <200403031839.i23Idrg10914@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 V23 #102 TELECOM Digest Wed, 3 Mar 2004 13:40:00 EST Volume 23 : Issue 102 Inside This Issue: Editor: Patrick A. Townson Phone Cos. to Counterattack Cable TV (Monty Solomon) Calypso's Patent Could Have an Immediate Impact on OEMs (Monty Solomon) SBC / DISH Network Rollout (Monty Solomon) Cablevision Satellite Spin-Off ; Financial Results (Monty Solomon) Comcast's Disney Bid Could Be Sign Of More Cable Deals (Monty Solomon) Court Tosses Rules for Phone Competition (Monty Solomon) PluggedIn: PC Makers Try Again With TV Computers (Monty Solomon) Re: More Re the GTE Side of Verizon (Steven J Sobol) Re: More Re the GTE Side of Verizon (John David Galt) Re: Vonage Experience (Sammy@nospam.biz) Re: Vonage Experience (Pete Romfh) Roam or Not Roam, Wireless With Verizon; How do I Really Know? (Roger) Unauthorized Bogus Charges Appear on Local Phone Bill (Joe Donaldson) Need to Block Outgoing Calls to Specific Numbers (Name Withheld) Re: Memories: Enterprise -vs- Zenith Numbers (Michael D. Sullivan) A Quick Technical Question (Eli) Archive Addition/Correction (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. =========================== Addresses herein are not to be added to any mailing list, nor to be sold or given away without explicit written consent. Chain letters, viruses, porn, spam, and miscellaneous junk is definitely unwelcome. We must fight spam for the same reason we fight crime: not because we are naive enough to believe that we will ever stamp it out, but because we do not want the kind of world that results when no one stands against crime. Geoffrey Welsh =========================== See the bottom of this issue for subscription and archive details and the name of our lawyer; other stuff of interest. ---------------------------------------------------------------------- From: Monty Solomon Subject: Phone Cos. to Counterattack Cable TV Date: Wed, 3 Mar 2004 08:57:26 -0500 By BRUCE MEYERSON AP Business Writer NEW YORK (AP) -- The battle lines in the cutthroat industry known as telecommunications are about to blur even further as the nation's biggest telephone companies launch a long-promised counterattack against the cable TV industry, whose new phone services have been stealing away customers. Starting Wednesday, SBC Communications Inc. will offer DISH Network satellite cable service to all of its residential customers in the 13 states where SBC is the dominant local phone provider. Next week, Verizon Communications Inc. will begin selling DirecTV satellite cable across New England and New York state. Qwest Communications, the Denver-based local phone company for much of the Rocky Mountain and Northwest, is already selling both DISH and DirecTV. And later this month, BellSouth Corp. plans to begin selling DirecTV through its Web site in advance of a full-fledged launch in its nine-state region slated for the summer. The phone companies are betting the marketing partnerships will help them keep existing customers, while convincing them to sign up for more services. - http://finance.lycos.com/home/news/story.asp?story=40738871 ------------------------------ Date: Wed, 3 Mar 2004 09:00:23 -0500 From: Monty Solomon Subject: Calypso's Patent Could Have an Immediate Impact on OEMs Calypso's Patent Could Have an Immediate Impact on the Way OEMs Do Business MIAMI LAKES, Fla.--(BUSINESS WIRE)--March 3, 2004-- New technology could dramatically boost global wireless handset sales - Calypso Wireless already in negotiations with a major OEM manufacturer Calypso Wireless, Inc. (OTC:CLYW), announced today that it is in the process of contacting all major OEMs in the wireless industry to notify them of the patent that could have a significant and immediate impact on the development of the industry, as well as major implications on the way OEM's such as Nokia (NYSE:NOK), Ericsson (Nasdaq:ERICY) and Motorola (NYSE:MOT) do business. Last week, Calypso Wireless announced it had been granted U.S. Patent #6,680,923 titled "Communication system and method", which covers the seamless roaming of voice, video and data between Wide Area Network access points, such as cellular towers (GSM/GPRS/EDGE, CDMA, WCMDA etc.) and short-range Internet access points (such as Wi-Fi, Bluetooth, etc.). Calypso Wireless is already in negotiations with a major OEM manufacturer to license its ASNAP(TM) technology. Due to the patent, even those OEM manufacturers that don't wish to license Calypso's technology at the time, but plan to create wireless devices that roam seamlessly between these networks, will have to obtain rights from Calypso Wireless. Calypso's patented technology enables mobile users to seamlessly switch between cellular and wireless IP networks via the WLAN, accelerating wireless broadband deployment. The technology could also provide significant savings to mobile carriers in additional frequency spectrum and infrastructure equipment by offloading capacity to the WLAN and IP networks while providing additional sources of revenues. Internet-ready devices, including wireless cellular phones, PDA's and notebooks - can seamlessly connect to either the mobile carriers cellular phone network or any wireless LAN, such as 802.11x (Wi-Fi). In other words, global connectivity of voice, video and data will be done through the most efficient connection point, at a lower cost to both the mobile carrier and the consumer. - http://finance.lycos.com/home/news/story.asp?story=40739162 ------------------------------ Date: Wed, 3 Mar 2004 08:55:29 -0500 From: Monty Solomon Subject: SBC / DISH Network Rollout SBC Communications Adds New 'Dish' To The Menu, Launches 'Quadruple Play' Bundle With Satellite TV SAN ANTONIO & ENGLEWOOD, Colo.--(BUSINESS WIRE)--March 3, 2004-- SBC/ DISH Network offers start at $29.99; Most complete, integrated bundle of local/long distance, wireless, broadband, TV available in SBC service area for about $125/month - a $380/year savings Tune in and stay tuned. In a move expected to reshape the telecommunications and television entertainment landscape, SBC Communications Inc. (NYSE:SBC) and EchoStar Communications Corp. (NASDAQ:DISH) today launched SBC/ DISH Network satellite TV service across the SBC service area - 13 states and 55 million telephone lines - offering consumers new choices, significant values and unmatched convenience. With the SBC/ DISH Network rollout, the SBC family of companies becomes the first major telecommunications provider in the nation to offer TV, wireless, broadband and local/long distance service, all with one call and one monthly bill - a "strategic quadruple play" that significantly enhances customer benefits. In the future, SBC and EchoStar companies plan to develop set-top boxes that combine the features of satellite TV, digital video recording, broadband, home networking and telecommunications services -- moving to truly integrated telecommunications and entertainment services that will provide greater interactivity, features and functionality for consumers. - http://finance.lycos.com/home/news/story.asp?story=40738492 ------------------------------ Date: Wed, 3 Mar 2004 10:00:33 -0500 From: Monty Solomon Subject: Cablevision Satellite Spin-Off; Financial Results Cablevision Sees Satellite Spin-Off Later This Year 2 March 2004, 1:52pm ET NEW YORK (Dow Jones)--Cablevision Systems Corp. Tuesday said its audit will be completed in a few weeks and reiterated its plans to spin off Rainbow DBS later this year. http://finance.lycos.com/qc/news/story.aspx?story=200403021852_DJB_000798 Cablevision Systems Corporation Reports Fourth Quarter and Full Year 2003 Results http://finance.lycos.com/qc/news/story.aspx?story=200403021322_BWR__BW5394 VOOM'S Leadership Position In HD Content Widens With the Addition of HBO and Cinemax 26 February 2004, 12:06pm ET VOOM Lineup Now Includes over 30 HD Channels and More than 70 SD Channels Eight Turner Networks Added Including CNN, TNT, TBS, CNNfn and Boomerang http://finance.lycos.com/qc/news/story.aspx?story=200402261706_PRN__NYTH126 Cablevision Adds New York's WNBC and Bravo HD+ to Its Expansive High-Definition Programming Slate 23 February 2004, 12:58pm ET http://finance.lycos.com/qc/news/story.aspx?story=200402231758_PRN__NYM190 ------------------------------ Date: Wed, 3 Mar 2004 09:59:38 -0500 From: Monty Solomon Subject: Comcast's Disney Bid Could Be Sign Of More Cable Deals NEW YORK (Dow Jones)--The specter of Walt Disney Co. ( DIS ) merging with Comcast Corp. (CMCSA, CMCSK) is reigniting interest in cable industry consolidation. Industry insiders have long seen consolidation on the horizon. But the abundance of recent merger talk could signal that more deals may be close at hand. http://finance.lycos.com/qc/news/story.aspx?story=200402262229_DJB_001222 ------------------------------ Date: Tue, 2 Mar 2004 21:55:00 -0500 From: Monty Solomon Subject: Court Tosses Rules for Phone Competition By JONATHAN D. SALANT Associated Press Writer WASHINGTON (AP) -- A federal appeals court on Tuesday struck down rules designed to foster competition for local telephone service, handing a major victory to Verizon, SBC, BellSouth and Qwest. A three-judge panel of the D.C. Circuit Court of Appeals unanimously overturned the rules adopted last August by the Federal Communication Commission. The judges said the FCC acted improperly by leaving it to state regulators to decide whether to spur competition between the former Bell companies and others wanting to provide local phone service. It's the third time courts have invalidated FCC attempts to write rules for local telephone service competition. The judges decried the FCC's "apparent unwillingness to adhere to prior judicial rulings." The court put its decision on hold for 60 days to hear motions to reconsider its decision. - http://finance.lycos.com/home/news/story.asp?story=40737618 ------------------------------ Date: Tue, 2 Mar 2004 22:20:52 -0500 From: Monty Solomon Subject: PluggedIn: PC Makers Try Again With TV Computers By Daniel Sorid SAN FRANCISCO, March 2 (Reuters) - Despite the best marketing efforts of big technology companies, personal computers have never felt much at home in the living room. But a new PC makeover by the likes of Intel and Gateway could soon give the home computer a central role in the way consumers watch television and listen to music. The device, which Intel calls the Entertainment PC, is designed to connect directly to the television, and will look more like a souped-up DVD player than a personal computer. Entertainment PCs could be on the shelves as early as the second half of this year, starting at $799. Controlled with a remote, the Entertainment PC can flip through and record television channels, play music and movies, and even connect to the Internet to download shows and songs not available from cable or satellite TV operators. Moreover, it can stream video from the living room to a PC elsewhere in the home, or even to a wirelessly connected handheld device. - http://finance.lycos.com/home/news/story.asp?story=40734376 ------------------------------ From: Steven J Sobol Subject: Re: More Re: the GTE Side of Verizon Date: Tue, 02 Mar 2004 12:45:33 -0600 Sammy@nospam.biz wrote: > I think the Palms, Springs, California area was still a GTE LATA > within a LATA when Verizon gobbled it all up. Who is responsible for Los Angeles (LATA 730)? Up here, we're all Verizon/GTE, and there are a number of GTE markets within the Los Angeles area. Anaheim, IIRC, is one of them, and I think there are some more down by LAX. JustThe.net Internet & New Media Services, Apple Valley, CA Steven J. Sobol, Geek In Charge / 888.480.4NET (4638) / sjsobol@JustThe.net PGP: C57E 8B25 F994 D6D0 5F6B B961 EA08 9410 E3AE 35ED ------------------------------ From: John David Galt Subject: Re: More Re: the GTE Side of Verizon Date: Tue, 02 Mar 2004 16:41:19 -0800 Organization: Diogenes the Cynic Hot-Tubbing Society Sammy@nospam.biz wrote: > I think the Palms, Springs, California area was still a GTE LATA > within a LATA when Verizon gobbled it all up. The Palm Springs area (an old GTE area that extends north and east to cover Morongo Valley, Yucca Valley, Joshua Tree, and 29 Palms) is a separate LATA (number 973, according to NANPA) and has been that way ever since LATAs have existed. It annoys me that phone books published by SBC and SureWest give the false impression that it is part of the Los Angeles LATA. ------------------------------ From: Sammy@nospam.biz Subject: Re: Vonage Experience Date: Wed, 03 Mar 2004 03:26:16 -0800 Organization: Cox Communications Too bad. I've had Vonage for almost a year and it works great. Phil wrote: > I signed-up for Vonage Service. They charged my VISA for the startup > fees -- np. > I get the Motorola VT but it works only intermitantly. Support from > Vonage is non-existent, at best. I called several times, mostly > hanging-up after holding for 20 minutes. I emailed several times with > no return emails. > After a week of this crap, I called to cancel. The Vonage Rep said > that he'd have to charge $41 bucks to give me an RMA and return > address. I told him that is called extortion. He said both the startup > fee and termination fee would be refunded when the equipment was > returned. So I allowed him to charge my VISA. > I am mailing the equipment back today and will followup with > additional experience. > ALSO, beware about Vonage's Terms of Service policy. It states that > you have seven days after you recieve your credit card statement to > file a dispute. And that you must notify them before you do so thru > your credit card. According to VISA this total BS. Vonage cannot > supercede VISA policy, it is called non-compliance. > Phil > VONAGE SUCKS! > [TELECOM Digest Editor's Note: I am truly sorry you have had such bad > experience with them. My experience has been quite good by comparison. > Have you tried the various techniques presented here in recent weeks > to get around some of the intermittent problems you have had? For > example, since I made the adjustments in my Linksys firewall/router > they recommended, I've had no further problems with loss of dialtone > or non-receipt of incoming calls. I *will* agree their customer > service holding queue is pretty outrageous at times as they begin to > learn the business a little better also. And the Motorola box they > are using now may possibly not be as good as the Cisco, I am not sure > on that. If you have not yet returned the Motorola to them, consider > trying some of the fixes described on the net and see if they help > any. Even if you decide it is not working and you must return the > equipment, *new* customers who have *not yet* sent in for/recieved > an adapter box can get a free month of whatever service package they > desire by using an e-coupon from me to start the process. The e-coupon > gets you the *second* month of service for free. Email me and ask for > it. ptownson@telecom-digest.org PAT] ------------------------------ From: Pete Romfh Subject: Re: Vonage Experience Date: Wed, 3 Mar 2004 07:09:12 -0600 Organization: Not Organized Phil wrote: > I signed-up for Vonage Service. They charged my VISA for > the startup fees -- np. > I get the Motorola VT but it works only intermitantly. > Support from Vonage is non-existent, at best. I called > several times, mostly hanging-up after holding for 20 > minutes. I emailed several times with no return emails. > After a week of this crap, I called to cancel. The Vonage > Rep said that he'd have to charge $41 bucks to give me an > RMA and return address. I told him that is called > extortion. He said both the startup fee and termination > fee would be refunded when the equipment was returned. So > I allowed him to charge my VISA. > I am mailing the equipment back today and will followup > with additional experience. > ALSO, beware about Vonage's Terms of Service policy. It > states that you have seven days after you recieve your > credit card statement to file a dispute. And that you > must notify them before you do so thru your credit card. > According to VISA this total BS. Vonage cannot supercede > VISA policy, it is called non-compliance. > Phil > VONAGE SUCKS! My experience with Vonage has been satisfactory for the 9 months I've had their service. I've tried calling a few times and experienced the same delays you did but my emails have been answered within a few days all three times I've sent them. I experience very few dropped calls or other interruptions mostly on international calls where the service is problematic on the non-US end of the connection. But VoIP isn't for everyone just yet. It's getting better but has a lot of growing to do before the technology and the providers are as reliable at the TDM world. Pete Romfh, Telecom Geek & Amateur Gourmet. promfh at Texas dot net ------------------------------ From: rogoflap@yahoo.com (Roger) Subject: Roam or Not Roam, Wireless With Verizon; How do I really know? Date: 2 Mar 2004 15:06:09 -0800 Organization: http://groups.google.com I have recently went from a Sony Ericson T61 phone to a Samsung A310 to a LG VX4400B. In my house, I could use the T61 with no "Roam" showing on my screen. Extended Network showed and was used. I then upgraded to the Samsung A310. It was nice, but not color. It would also not show Roam in my house. "Extended Network" was used and shown. Now I upgraded to the LG VX4400B and when calling from in my home, it shows Extended Network while dialing the number. I then stick the phone up to the ear to talk. While talking I noticed the "Roam" showing with the time moving. Why would this be the case? Also how do I know if I am roaming if the "Extended Network" is shown while dialing and ringing, but then "Roam" is shown while talking. Thanks, Rog ------------------------------ From: tryitoz@hotmail.com (Joe Donaldson) Subject: Unauthorized Bogus Phone Charges Appearing on Local Phone Bill? Date: 2 Mar 2004 15:41:16 -0800 Organization: http://groups.google.com My girlfriend has AOL. I have installed a firewall (Sygate lite version), SpyBot, Ad aware, and Norton Utilities. Her kids know to not answer Yes/No to pop-up ads but to "X" out of them. However I know this could also invoke a script as well. I clean her PC regularly of any spyware/malware and also immunized her PC with Spybot and the Block list at http://www.spywareguide.com/blockfile.php So I am doing my best. Her LOCAL phone company had multiple charges on it that were not authorized nor made by her or her children. Multiple calls on multiple days. This month it was to Guyana, obviously an international call. Previous month it was somewhere else. The company that showed up on her bill was "USBI" to Guyana billed on behalf of ONE CALL COMM dba Opticom. Alltel told her that somehow her PC is authorizing these calls and someone is using her number. It does not show up on her Long Distance carrier bill but on her local bill only. She has a modem, not a cable or DSL connection. I heard this can happen but see no posts in Google/Yahoo on this (perhaps using wrong keywords.) My suggestion to my girlfriend is the following: 1. Eliminate ability to dial international calls with Alltell. Alltel can block such calls. 2. Then use an MCI or ATT card only to make long distance or European calls. Any help appreciated. Thanks so very much in advance. The charges total $120. Alltel said they would remove the charges this one time but would not do it in the future. Very strange. Alltel said they could make it so no international calls are made; but my girlfriend does need to make a few to her family and Alltel said there is no way to restrict the account. [TELECOM Digest Editor's Note: I suggest she ask Alltel to completely restrict ALL international calls; and ALL long distance calls. In other words disallow all but purely local calls. She should also tell Alltel to put a collect/third-party billing block on the line. This means no one will able to charge anything to her phone line. She can get an 800 number from various vendors of same which is infinitly cheaper than any third party calls any time. If she has to dial '1010' plus a carrier plus the desired LD number that will help. She can also get a calling card from various carriers to use for what interna- tional calls she needs to make. Have the 800 number route into her number so if the kids are in trouble they can call home as can anyone who absolutely needs to call her on her nickel. She can use her calling card to call back from outside the house or the 1010 method to make calls at home when she is there. Combine all this with a complete cleanout of the computer looking for stealth dialers hidden it there somewhere. It also would not hurt to keep the computer unplugged from the phone line when no one is using it. Last but not least: are you *absolutely positive* the kids know nothing about any of this? What time of day/days of the week were this calls made? Any of them at a time when the kids might have been home alone? They might have very innocently (but carelessly) clicked on something going past on the screen, then forgotten about it, or been scared or embarassed to mention it later. PAT] ------------------------------ Date: Tue, 02 Mar 2004 23:33:58 -0600 From: Withheld at Users Request Reply-To: newsgroup Subject: Need to Block Outgoing Calls to Specific Numbers [PAT - In the interest of privacy, please delete my .sig and email address from this post. Thanks.] I'm looking for a way to block outgoing calls to three specific phone numbers. The problem is a relative with Alzheimer's who repeatedly calls a couple of neighbors (dozens of times a day), to the point that they're threatening to call the police. I'd like to be able to simply disallow calls to those numbers. Obviously we don't want to interfere with her ability to call 911, or call friends or family members. We really only need to shut down these three specific phone numbers. And yes, we're also taking steps to get her to stop trying to call these people in the first place. I'm pretty sure telco can block _incoming_ calls _from_ a certain number, and this might be an option -- I could offer to pay for this service on the neighbors' lines. But I'd rather handle it on the originating end if possible. I plan to call telco tomorrow and see if they offer an outbound-blocking feature. Barring that, is there a piece of hardware that can do this? I didn't see anything on sandman.com. Mike's got some restrictors but they look to be too general for what I want to do; I want to allow everything EXCEPT three specific phone numbers. [TELECOM Digest Editor's Note: I think Mike has 'toll restrictor' devices which are programmable. Ask him for specific details. If they are programmable -- to a deep enough level -- at least seven or eight digits -- you can accomplish this. If they can restrict all the way, then you have it made. If they can only restrict any six digits, then percievably you could catch those three numbers but *maybe* a 'good' number she calls might get caught as well. Also, consider a mechanical dialer to set next to the phone with eight or ten or twelve or more numbers (NOT the ones she is offending) then go inside the phone and disconnect the touch tones, so she has to use the dialer device to make all her calls. I do not think telco will disallow specific local numbers. You can reach Mike's office on 630-980-7710. I'd suggest yo ask Mike in confidence for details. Ask him how to program the toll restrictors to do what you need to have done. PAT] ------------------------------ From: Michael D. Sullivan Subject: Re: Memories: Enterprise -vs- Zenith Numbers Date: Wed, 03 Mar 2004 05:33:59 GMT In article , hancock4@bbs.cpcn.com says: > While we're on the subject of strange geography, there's a little > island off New Foundland, St. Pierre IIRC, that is completely part of > France with no connection to Canada. Two islands, in fact: St. Pierre and Miquelon. They are a Department of France (equivalent of a state). They are not part of the North American Numbering Plan, use the French country code and from points in North America must be dialed internationally via France, even from a few miles away in Newfoundland. > What I find peculiar is looking at a road map of Nevada, with > numerous areas outlined and marked "danger zone", but no explanation > of what the danger is or how one should stay safe and clear. Munitions test ranges, including nuclear. One stays safe and clear by staying on the public highway and not going into the "danger zone". > As to "Rhode Island and Planataions", could someone explain > that name? The official name of the state known as Rhode Island is "State of Rhode Island and Providence Plantations." http://www.state.ri.us/ Michael D. Sullivan Bethesda, MD, USA Delete nospam from my address and it won't work. ------------------------------ From: elitra@rock.com (Eli) Subject: A Quick Technical Question Date: 2 Mar 2004 23:52:19 -0800 Organization: http://groups.google.com Hello all, VoIP sounds to have settled already a stable framework. A question sparkled into my mind regarding video-stream transfer: Is there or will there be blue-prints for "Video over IP" framework? I mean in terms of networking protocol and compression algorithms. Thanks in advance for throwing some ideas. Eli PS Forgive my English :-) ------------------------------ Date: Tue, 2 Mar 2004 15:18:10 EST From: TELECOM Digest Editor Subject: Archive Addition/Correction I am pleased to announce a new addition to the Telecom Archives, in the history section. Bill Caughlin, the SBC Archivist who wrote the very interesting book 'Timelines' dealing with the history of Ameritech 1876 through 1999 has contributed a paper to our archives on the Evolution of Chicago telephone numbers from the earliest days through the 2L-5D days. It is very interesting reading. It should make a valuable research tool for persons studying the history of telephone numbers/names in the earliest times. Pick up your copy from http://telecom-archives.org in the history department. Look for 'Chicago Number History'. Thanks very much Mr. Caughlin! The other item is a correction or addendum to the Western Union Tech review files, in our technical section of the Archives. In the top directory of Western-Union-Technical-Review look for the revised contents file, contents2.pdf . Mr. Haynes, who originally made the WUTR archives available to us, recently sent along this additional part which had been left behind by accident orginally. So, if you had copied this WUTR section for your own archival material, please go fetch this latest correction installed just today. And in case you did not order your copy of Caughlin's book when it was reviewed here during February (volume 23 issue 87) here is another copy of the coupon to use: The SBC Archives and History Center is pleased to offer the book entitled, Snapshots in Time: A Photographic History of Ameritech. This 192-page soft-cover book chronicles the evolution of telecommunications in the SBC Midwest (former Ameritech) five-state region through select historical images. It offers more than 225 captioned photos of switchboard operators, crews with their vehicles and technicians testing central office equipment. The book begins with an 1876 portrait of Alexander Graham Bell and ends in 1999, on the eve of the SBC/Ameritech merger. The cost for each book is $25.00, plus $4.95 for shipping. To order, fill out the form below. If you have questions, please call Bill Caughlin at (210) 524-6192. Or send him an e-mail at wc2942@sbc.com --------------------------------------------------------------- ORDER FORM FOR Snapshots in Time: A Photographic History of Ameritech NAME __________________________________________________ BUSINESS UNIT ________________________________________ ADDRESS _______________________________________________ _______________________________________________ CITY _________________________ STATE _____ ZIP __________ PHONE NUMBER (______)_________________________ I would like to order _______ copy(ies) each at $25.00, plus $4.95 shipping, for a total of _____________. No cash, please. Make your check or money order payable to SBC Services, Inc. and send it to: SBC Archives and History Center 7990 IH-10 West Floor 1 San Antonio, Texas 78230 ------------------------------ 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, Yahoo Groups, 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: 620-402-0134 Fax 1: 775-255-9970 Fax 2: 530-309-7234 Fax 3: 208-692-5145 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 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 fifty 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. If you donate at least fifty dollars per year we will send you our two-CD set of the entire Telecom Archives; this is every word published in this Digest since our beginning in 1981. 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 V23 #102 ****************************** From editor@telecom-digest.org Thu Mar 4 02:40:16 2004 Received: (from ptownson@localhost) by massis.lcs.mit.edu (8.11.6p2/8.11.3) id i247eGt15564; Thu, 4 Mar 2004 02:40:16 -0500 (EST) Date: Thu, 4 Mar 2004 02:40:16 -0500 (EST) From: editor@telecom-digest.org Message-Id: <200403040740.i247eGt15564@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 V23 #103 TELECOM Digest Thu, 4 Mar 2004 02:40:00 EST Volume 23 : Issue 103 Inside This Issue: Editor: Patrick A. Townson First Symposium on Networked Systems Design and Implementation (Walker) SBC to Sell Rural Lines to Fund Cingular Deal (Wesrock@aol.com) FCC Needs To Learn From Court Decision (Eric Friedebach) Vonage with Modem and Fax (Alex) EFFector 17.7 (Monty Solomon) Scientific-Atlanta Mulling Video Game Set-Top Box (Monty Solomon) Latest Phishing Scam Most "Devious" Ever (Monty Solomon) Re: Unauthorized Phone Charges Appearing on Local Phone Bill (dold) Re: Unauthorized Phone Charges Appearing on Local Phone Bill (Joseph) Re: A Quick Technical Question (Phil McKerracher) Re: Missouri Bell (Al Gillis) Re: Memories: Enterprise -vs- Zenith Numbers (Michael D. Sullivan) Re: Phone Cos. to Counterattack Cable TV (Steven J Sobol) (Claims to Be) Cellular-Phone Dealer in Nigeria (Carl Moore) The Porn-Worm Explained Further (Patrick Townson) All contents here are copyrighted by Patrick Townson and the individual writers/correspondents. Articles may be used in other journals or newsgroups, provided the writer's name and the Digest are included in the fair use quote. By using -any name or email address- included herein for -any- reason other than responding to an article herein, you agree to pay a hundred dollars to the recipients of the email. =========================== Addresses herein are not to be added to any mailing list, nor to be sold or given away without explicit written consent. Chain letters, viruses, porn, spam, and miscellaneous junk is definitely unwelcome. We must fight spam for the same reason we fight crime: not because we are naive enough to believe that we will ever stamp it out, but because we do not want the kind of world that results when no one stands against crime. Geoffrey Welsh =========================== See the bottom of this issue for subscription and archive details and the name of our lawyer; other stuff of interest. ---------------------------------------------------------------------- Date: Wed, 03 Mar 2004 16:22:01 -0800 From: Alex Walker Subject: First Symposium on Networked Systems Design & Implementation (NSDI) March 29-31, 2004 San Francisco, CA, USA http://www.usenix.org/nsdi04/progb Sponsored by the USENIX Association in cooperation with ACM SIGCOMM and ACM SIGOPS Dear Colleague: We are writing to remind you that the pre-registration deadline for NSDI is approaching: if you register by March 8th you'll save $150. Visit http://www.usenix.org/events/nsdi04/progb to register today. NSDI '04 is a new conference focused on the design principles of large-scale distributed and networked systems. Our goal is to bring together researchers from across the system and networking communities to foster a cross-disciplinary approach to addressing common research challenges. We received 118 technical submissions, and from these the program committee selected 27 papers for inclusion in the conference. The resulting program includes a diverse collection of creative and well-developed papers in areas including sensor systems, network routing, peer-to-peer networks, storage systems, and security. In addition, NSDI '04 will feature a poster session where attendees can interact with researchers describing their current work in its formative stages and learn more about the leading edge of networked systems design. Finally, NSDI is pleased to feature a keynote address by Richard Lawrence, Director of Development Technology at Sony Online Entertainment, who will describe the unique systems challenges faced by builders of multiplayer online games. Please join us for this exciting new conference presenting the best of current networked systems research and practice. We look forward to seeing you there. Sincerely, Robert Morris, MIT Stefan Savage, University of California, San Diego NSDI '04 Program Chairs SAVE THE DATE! First Symposium on Networked Systems Design and Implementation (NSDI '04) March 29-31, 2004 San Francisco, CA, USA http://www.usenix.org/nsdi04/progb Sponsored by the USENIX Association in cooperation with ACM SIGCOMM and ACM SIGOPS ------------------------------ From: Wesrock@aol.com Date: Wed, 3 Mar 2004 20:10:12 EST Subject: SBC to Sell Rural Lines to Fund Cingular Deal Pat: I don't remember seeing this in the digest, and if it hasn't appeared it may be of interest. Verizon is not the only one selling things off. Wes Leatherock wesrock@aol.com NEW YORK -- SBC Communications Inc. (NYSE:SBC - News) is selling off about 650,000 telephone lines in rural Michigan and Texas, which could fetch about $1.5 billion, as it raises money to fund Cingular Wireless's planned acquisition of AT&T Wireless Services Inc. (NYSE:AWE - News) , people familiar with the matter told Monday's Wall Street Journal. SBC jointly owns Cingular Wireless with BellSouth Corp. (NYSE:BLS - News), and SBC needs to fund its share of the $41 billion in cash pledged by Cingular to buy AT&T Wireless. The lines are concentrated in Michigan's Upper Peninsula and East Texas. Potential buyers include a range of rural phone companies, such as CenturyTel Inc. (NYSE:CTL - News) , Monroe, La.; Alltel Corp. (NYSE:AT - News) , Little Rock, Ark.; or Commonwealth Telephone Enterprises Inc. (NasdaqNM:CTCO - News) , Dallas, Pa., the people familiar with the matter say. Wall Street Journal Staff Reporters Dennis K. Berman and Jesse Drucker contributed to this report. ------------------------------ From: friedebach@yahoo.com (Eric Friedebach) Subject: FCC Needs To Learn From Court Decision Date: 3 Mar 2004 11:38:44 -0800 Organization: http://groups.google.com Aude Lagorce, 03.03.04, Forbes.com NEW YORK - If the U.S. Federal Communications Commission learns anything from yesterday's court ruling, it should be this: It's time to be a leader, not a follower. The regulatory agency has gone for years without providing the strong guidance and clear-cut decisions the telecom industry needs for investment to pick up and the pace of recovery to accelerate. In the breach, the courts have stepped in to make the FCC's decisions for it. In the latest illustration of this gradual shift in leadership, yesterday a federal appeals court handed a huge victory to the four regional Bell telephone companies--Verizon Communications, BellSouth, Qwest Communications and SBC Communications--by striking down regulation that required them to lease part of their local networks to rival companies like AT&T or Sprint at prices determined by state commissions. http://www.forbes.com/networks/2004/03/03/cx_al_0303fcc.html Eric Friedebach /No Dirty Words On The Whiteboard/ ------------------------------ From: alex@totallynerd.com (Alex) Subject: Vonage with Modem and Fax Date: 3 Mar 2004 14:23:22 -0800 Organization: http://groups.google.com Hi all, I'm looking at maybe switching to Vonage for a second home line, and if it works out, switching my primary line to it as well (to have two lines). Problem is I need one line to be a modem line because I dial into my home network from work from time to time. Can anyone give comments on the quality of this? My cablemodem is Time Warner, which is 2-3 Megs down and 384K up, so this should be more then enough bandwidth. Thanks for any suggestions. Alex. [TELECOM Digest Editor's Note: I am assuming you already have a line with a modem attached for the occassions when you wish to do dial up sometimes. So do I. Vonage works on your cable modem line. Your other modem (used as a dialup on the phone line is a separate matter entirely. It rarely suits me to use dialup these days, but I can if I want to. From the keyboard I just turn on one or the other. You won't really have much luck using *two* Vonage lines on the same cable. It just stretches the limit a bit too far, IMO. But if you decide to try Vonage, you just attach the box to your cable modem right in between the cable modem and the computer. If you need to have both devices (Vonage and your dialup modem) in the line at the same time, there should be no trouble. Vonage works via the cable and your modem works via the phone line. If you decide to try TWO Vonage lines and your cable can handle it AND your computer is fast enough and sturdy enough, it still should have no affect on your dialup modem which is a separate thing entirely. One common mistake people often times make is in calling the 'cable modem' a modem. It really isn't a 'modem' in the sense a dialup thing attached to your phone line is. PAT] ------------------------------ Date: Wed, 3 Mar 2004 21:51:04 -0500 From: Monty Solomon Subject: EFFector 17.7 EFFector Vol. 17, No. 7 March 2, 2004 donna@eff.org A Publication of the Electronic Frontier Foundation ISSN 1062-9424 In the 279th Issue of EFFector: * Court Overturns Ban on Posting DVD Descrambling Code, Finds Free-Speech Violation * EFF Speaks on Privacy Perils of RFIDs in Libraries * Let the Sun Set on PATRIOT - Section 207 * 321 Studios Counts Down for Fair Use Rights * Record Companies Pay Millions for CD Price-Fixing - Send It to EFF! * Deep Links (17): Copyright Reform Goes Mainstream * Staff Calendar: 03.04.04 - Gwen Hinze speaks at Digital Divide: New Currents in Digital Downloading, Davis, CA; Kevin Bankston speaks at the Southeast Cybercrime Summit, Kennesaw, GA; Lee Tien speaks at RFID Forum, San Francisco Public Library, San Francisco, CA; 03.05.04 - Wendy Seltzer speaks at the NEA conference, Seattle, WA * Administrivia http://www.eff.org/effector/17/7.php ------------------------------ Date: Wed, 3 Mar 2004 23:47:43 -0500 From: Monty Solomon Subject: Scientific-Atlanta Mulling Video Game Set-Top Box NEW YORK, March 3 (Reuters) - Scientific-Atlanta (NYSE:SFA) on Wednesday said it is planning to develop television set-top boxes with high-performance video games capabilities, which could compete with game consoles such as Nintendo's GameCube and Sony's PlayStation 2. Scientific-Atlanta chief executive James McDonald, speaking at an investor conference in Dana Point, California, said developers are already building games for its Explorer series of set-top boxes. But he gave no timetable for when such a device might be available. - http://finance.lycos.com/home/news/story.asp?story=40747712 ------------------------------ Date: Wed, 3 Mar 2004 23:44:19 -0500 From: Monty Solomon Subject: Latest Phishing Scam Most "Devious" Ever By Andrew Colley, ZDNet Australia A prominent anti-virus vendor has described the latest e-mail fraud scheme targeted at Westpac bank customers as the most "devious" the company has ever encountered. The e-mail, distributed en-masse to Westpac customers, represents the latest example of "phishing scams," designed to catch the unwary and fool them into divulging their online banking security details. The architects of the latest scam also adopted a more insidious Web re-direction technique to bamboozle victims. Activating the link in the e-mail directs the victim to a fake version of the site but also opens an authentic copy of the site in a second browser window behind it. The fake version of the site asks for the victim's account access details but returns an error message if he or she attempts to use it. The victim is then sent to the real site unaware that they've been duped. http://www.zdnet.com.au/news/security/0,2000061744,39116416,00.htm ------------------------------ From: dold@Unauthoriz.usenet.us.com Subject: Re: Unauthorized Bogus Phone Charges Appearing on Local Phone Bill? Date: Wed, 3 Mar 2004 21:25:43 UTC Organization: a2i network Joe Donaldson wrote: > Alltel told her that somehow her PC is authorizing these calls and > someone is using her number. It does not show up on her Long Distance > carrier bill but on her local bill only. How does Alltel know that it is the computer authorizing the calls? What does "authorizing these calls" mean? Was the PC even turned on at the time that these calls were made? Is it a separate phone line for the computer? Are regular phones connected to this phone line? Is there an answering machine on the line? Are there any cordless phones in the house? Is the access point for telco outside the house in a secure area? Clarence A Dold - Hidden Valley (Lake County) CA USA 38.8-122.5 ------------------------------ From: Joseph Subject: Re: Unauthorized Bogus Phone Charges Appearing on Local Phone Bill? Date: Wed, 03 Mar 2004 18:48:20 -0800 Organization: Posted via Supernews, http://www.supernews.com Reply-To: JoeOfSeattle@yahoo.NONOcom On 2 Mar 2004 15:41:16 -0800, tryitoz@hotmail.com (Joe Donaldson) wrote: > My girlfriend has AOL. I have installed a firewall (Sygate lite > version), SpyBot, Ad aware, and Norton Utilities. > Her kids know to not answer Yes/No to pop-up ads but to "X" out of > them. However I know this could also invoke a script as well. > I clean her PC regularly of any spyware/malware and also immunized her > PC with Spybot and the Block list at > http://www.spywareguide.com/blockfile.php > So I am doing my best. > Her LOCAL phone company had multiple charges on it that were not > authorized nor made by her or her children. Multiple calls on multiple > days. This month it was to Guyana, obviously an international call. > Previous month it was somewhere else. The company that showed up on > her bill was "USBI" to Guyana billed on behalf of ONE CALL COMM dba > Opticom. > Alltel told her that somehow her PC is authorizing these calls and > someone is using her number. It does not show up on her Long Distance > carrier bill but on her local bill only. > She has a modem, not a cable or DSL connection. > I heard this can happen but see no posts in Google/Yahoo on this > (perhaps using wrong keywords.) > My suggestion to my girlfriend is the following: > 1. Eliminate ability to dial international calls with Alltell. Alltel > can block such calls. > 2. Then use an MCI or ATT card only to make long distance or European > calls. > Any help appreciated. > Thanks so very much in advance. > The charges total $120. Alltel said they would remove the charges this > one time but would not do it in the future. Very strange. Alltel said > they could make it so no international calls are made; but my > girlfriend does need to make a few to her family and Alltel said there > is no way to restrict the account. This has been in the news of late and here's something I found when referencing google: "When Your Computer Makes A Call ... Without Your Okay If you use the Internet, you're probably dialing a local phone number to get online. Chances are you know exactly what you pay for that local service. However, many consumers are surprised to find they've been charged for calls to destinations that aren't remotely local, simply remote. The calls were made through their modems without their knowledge or approval. How does it happen? According to the Federal Trade Commission (FTC), the nation's consumer protection agency, it's a scheme some Web sites use to trick consumers into paying to access "free" Internet content." Full reference: http://www.ftc.gov/bcp/conline/pubs/alerts/modmalrt.htm Also, you may want to be sure that you use programs that clean adware and malware from your computer such as Adaware or Spybot Search & Destroy and get a free program such as Zone Alarm (free version) for a software firewall remove NONO from .NONOcom to reply ------------------------------ From: Phil McKerracher Subject: Re: A Quick Technical Question Date: Wed, 03 Mar 2004 22:11:57 GMT Organization: blueyonder (post doesn't reflect views of blueyonder) Eli wrote in message news:telecom23.102.16@telecom-digest.org: > VoIP sounds to have settled already a stable framework. A question > sparkled into my mind regarding video-stream transfer: > Is there or will there be blue-prints for "Video over IP" framework? I > mean in terms of networking protocol and compression algorithms. They already exist. I guess VoIP is a misleading name; it should be "multimedia over IP" or something similar. The webcam facility in MSN Messenger is an example. Phil McKerracher www.mckerracher.org ------------------------------ From: Al Gillis Subject: Re: Missouri Bell Date: Wed, 3 Mar 2004 15:50:58 -0800 Organization: http://extra.newsguy.com Michael Chance wrote in message news:telecom23.100.8@telecom-digest.org: (Snip...) > The headquarters building that Missouri Bell built in the 1890s is > still standing at the corner of 10th and Olive in downtown St. Louis, > and is currently being renovated into loft condos named, > appropriately, The Bell Lofts. Here in Northeast Portland (Oregon) there is a smallish apartment building named "Exchange Apartments" ... It, too, was a Bell System building years and years ago. ------------------------------ From: Michael D. Sullivan Subject: Re: Memories: Enterprise -vs- Zenith Numbers Date: Thu, 04 Mar 2004 02:22:52 GMT In article , I shot my mouth off too soon and said: > Two islands, in fact: St. Pierre and Miquelon. They are a Department > of France (equivalent of a state). They are not part of the North > American Numbering Plan, use the French country code and from points in > North America must be dialed internationally via France, even from a few > miles away in Newfoundland. In fact, as had already been posted, they have their own country code, 508, instead of 33 (France) -- but I seem to recall that they were in France's code at some point. Also, they are a "Territorial Collectivity," one step down from being a Department. Thanks to John Levine for setting me straight in an email. Michael D. Sullivan Bethesda, MD, USA Delete nospam from my address and it won't work. ------------------------------ From: Steven J Sobol Subject: Re: Phone Cos. to Counterattack Cable TV Date: Wed, 03 Mar 2004 14:05:05 -0600 Monty Solomon wrote: > Starting Wednesday, SBC Communications Inc. will offer DISH Network > satellite cable service to all of its residential customers in the 13 > states where SBC is the dominant local phone provider. Heh. That's funny. Ameritech used to offer competing cable TV services in the Cleveland area -- in certain suburbs -- but had to divest the cable services when SBC borg'd them. JustThe.net Internet & New Media Services, Apple Valley, CA Steven J. Sobol, Geek In Charge / 888.480.4NET (4638) / sjsobol@JustThe.net PGP: C57E 8B25 F994 D6D0 5F6B B961 EA08 9410 E3AE 35ED [TELECOM Digest Editor's Note: You know, Steve, the more I read about SBC, the happier I am I got rid of them for good in my house. They seem to be less and less interested in providing good phone service and much more into becoming a media conglomerate these days. I got a piece of mail from them yesterday. Another one of their 'please, please come back to us' mailings, with all the usual cut rate deals they are offering for one year, only $25 dollars for this and only three cents per minute on that, free installation, a fifty dollar gift card, and how they have finally begun to take notice now that in their own words, sixty thousand Kansas residents have jumped ship on them and gone elsewhere. Trouble is, I just can't trust them. They seem to lie so much. I'm quite happy with Prairie Stream, thanks. PAT] ------------------------------ Date: Wed, 3 Mar 2004 16:18:47 EST From: Carl Moore Subject: (Claims to Be) Cellular-Phone Dealer in Nigeria I have edited some headers off. I am not in the activity of trying to sell cellular phones (on or off the net), and I have no way of knowing the legitimacy of the following email (even though it gives an address in Nigeria, it's coming off a French host). Yes, I do see this is not in the familiar scam categories. From: shopcellular Reply-To: shopcellular@voila.fr To: shopcellular@voila.fr Subject: buy Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=iso-8859-1 Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable Date: Wed, 3 Mar 2004 21:48:12 +0100 (CET) X-ARL-MailScanner: Found to be clean X-ARL-MailScanner-SpamCheck: not spam, SpamAssassin (score=4.054, required 5, BAYES_44 -0.00, RAZOR2_CF_RANGE_11_50 0.88, RAZOR2_CHECK 1.05, RCVD_IN_BL_SPAMCOP_NET 1.50, SUBJ_BUY 0.63, UPPERCASE_50_75 0.00) X-ARL-MailScanner-SpamScore: ssss SHOP CELLULAR COMMUNICATIONS 23, LADOKE STREET, OKOTA, LAGOS-NIGERIA. TEL: 234-8033823918. E-mail: shopcellular1@yahoo.fr=20 =20 HELLO, SPECIAL/CHEAPER CELLULAR PHONES OFFER. =20 WE ARE A INTERNATIONAL DEALERS, EXPORTERS AND SUPPLIERS OF CELLULAR PHONES = AND ACCESSORIES IN NIGERIA. WE HAVE LARGE QUANTITY OF CELLULAR PHONES FOR S= ALE. ALL OUR CELL PHONES ARE TESTED WORKING AND FINAL PRICE COULD BE NEGOTI= ATED ACCORDING TO YOUR ORDER QUANTITY. THE QUOTATION BELOW INCLUDE BATTERY,= CHARGER, MANUALS, ORIGINAL BOX. IF YOU ARE INTERESTED IN BUYING SOME CELLU= LAR PHONES OR ACCESSORIES FROM US, CONTACT OUR SALES DEPARTMENT @: shopcell= ular1@yahoo.fr TEL: 234-8033823918. =20 REGARDS, MRS. KATE OBY. =20 SHOP CELLULAR COMMUNICATIONS. =20 =20 =20 VIEW OUR PRICE LIST BELOW -- ALL BRAND NEW: =20 UNITS: MODELS: PRICE: QUANTITY AV= AILABLE IN STOCK: NOKIA 2100-- US$55 690 pcs NOKIA 3210-- US$25 980 pcs NOKIA 3310-- US$29 1700 pcs NOKIA 3330-- US$30 840 pcs NOKIA 3410-- US$35 840 pcs NOKIA 3510-- US$40 840 pcs NOKIA 3510i-- US$45 750 pcs NOKIA 3530-- US$110 600 pcs = =20 NOKIA 3650-- US$185 990 pcs NOKIA 5100-- US$80 550 pcs NOKIA 5210-- US$55 550 pcs NOKIA 5510-- US$55 590 pcs NOKIA 6090-- US$135 400 pcs NOKIA 6100-- US$60 630 pcs NOKIA 6210-- US$60 550 pcs NOKIA 6250-- US$60 400 pcs NOKIA 6510-- US$45 350 pcs NOKIA 6310-- US$65 550 pcs NOKIA 6310i-- US$65 500 pcs NOKIA 6610-- US$65 555 pcs NOKIA 6800-- US$100 490 pcs NOKIA 7110-- US$60 300 pcs NOKIA 7210 Turquoise-- US$100 650 pcs NOKIA 7250-- US$120 650 pcs NOKIA 7650-- US$125 650 pcs NOKIA 8310-- US$90 800 pcs NOKIA 8910 Titanium-- US$95 800 pcs NOKIA 8850 SPECIAL EDITION-- US$105 450 pcs NOKIA 8850 GOLD EDITION-- US$99 400 pcs NOKIA 8910 Black-- US$100 660 pcs NOKIA 9210 Communicator-- US$195 720 pcs NOKIA 9210i Communicator-- US$195 700 pcs NOKIA 8910i-- US$190 600 pcs SONY ERICSSON T200-- US$25 450 pcs =20 SONY ERICSSON T100-- US$30 450 pcs SONY ERICSSON R600-- US$35 450 pcs SONY ERICSSON T20e-- US$35 450 pcs SONY CMD-J70-- US$40 720 pcs SONY ERICSSON T20s-- US$39 300 pcs SONY ERICSSON T28s-- US$39 780 pcs SONY ERICSSON T28 World-- US$45 780 pcs SONY ERICSSON T29s-- US$49 700 pcs SONY ERICSSON T600-- US$49 500 pcs SONY CMD-J7-- US$40 584 pcs=20 SONY CMD-J6-- US$40 250 pcs SONY ERICSSON T300-- US$45 400 pcs SONY ERICSSON T68i-- US$105 780 pcs SONY ERICSSON T65-- US$100 290 pcs SONY CMD-J5-- US$30 350 pcs SONY CMD-Z7-- US$35 350 pcs SONY ERICSSON T310-- US$40 350 pcs SONY ERICSSON T39m-- US$60 420 pcs SONY ERICSSON T66-- US$85 250 pcs SONY ERICSSON R520m-- US$100 200 pcs SONY CMD-Z5-- US$90 340 pcs =20 SONY ERICSSON R380 World-- US$90 380 pcs SONY ERICSSON R380s-- US$105 340 pcs=20 SONY ERICSSON T68m-- US$110 380 pcs=20 SONY ERICSSON T610-- US$130 440 pcs SONY CMD-MZ5-- US$155 340 pcs=20 SONY ERICSSON P800-- US$185 750 pcs MOTOROLA Talkabout 191-- US$25 555 pcs MOTOROLA C330-- US$30 555 pcs MOTOROLA V66-- US$60 640 pcs MOTOROLA v66i-- US$60 650 pcs MOTOROLA Talkabout192-- US$45 1000 pcs MOTOROLA V51-- US$50 555 pcs MOTOROLA V50-- US$50 660 pcs MOTOROLA V70-- US$70 700 pcs = =20 MOTOROLA V60-- US$70 700 pcs MOTOROLA V60i-- US$70 570 pcs MOTOROLA T720-- US$65 670 pcs MOTOROLA Accompli 008-- US$49 400 pcs MOTOROLA Timeport 280-- US$80 403 pcs SAMSUNG SGH-N620-- US$40 500 pcs SAMSUNG SGH-A800-- US$45 800 pcs=20 SAMSUNG SGH-A300-- US$45 670 pcs SAMSUNG SGH-R210-- US$45 500 pcs =20 SAMSUNG SGH-N100-- US$65 623 pcs SAMSUNG SGH-N400-- US$69 650 pcs=20 SAMSUNG SGH-T100-- US$55 650 pcs SAMSUNG SGH-A400-- US$55 650 pcs=20 SAMSUNG SGH-S100-- US$55 447 pcs SAMSUNG SGH-A200-- US$55 300 pcs=20 SAMSUNG SGH-T400-- US$39 390 pcs SAMSUNG SGH-S300-- US$60 490 pcs SAMSUNG SGH-A500-- US$105 580 pcs SAMSUNG SGH-T500 Champagne-- US$110 500 pcs SAMSUNG SGH-V200-- US$115 700 pcs =20 SAMSUNG SGH-T200-- US$125 700 pcs ALCATEL One Touch 501-- US20 450 pcs ALCATEL One Touch 311-- US$25 150 pcs ALCATEL One Touch 701-- US$30 150 pcs ALCATEL One Touch 511-- US$30 150 pcs ALCATEL OT525-- US$39 450 pcs ALCATEL One Touch 512-- US$40 686 pcs ALCATEL One Touch 715-- US$45 574 pcs PANASONIC GD35-- US$20 589 pcs PANASONIC GD52-- US$25 150 pcs PANASONIC GD67-- US$30 234 pcs PANASONIC GD92-- US$40 300 pcs PANASONIC GD90-- US$40 350 pcs PANASONIC GD93-- US$55 250 pcs PANASONIC GD75-- US$65 389 pcs PANASONIC GD55-- US$145 155 pcs PANASONIC GD95-- US$69 450 pcs=20 PANASONIC GD87-- US$70 760 pcs SIEMENS C45-- US$25 850 pcs SIEMENS C55-- US$30 578 pcs SIEMENS M35i-- US$35 345 pcs SIEMENS M50-- US$40 300 pcs SIEMENS S45i-- US$60 770 pcs SIEMENS S40-- US$85 600 pcs = =20 SIEMENS SL42-- US$90 600 pcs SIEMENS ME45-- US$65 410 pcs SIEMENS SL45-- US$45 440 pcs SIEMENS SL45i-- US$45 250 pcs SIEMENS S55-- US$55 330 pcs SIEMENS S55 Camera-- US$55 195 pcs PHILIPS Fisio 120-- US$25 350 pcs PHILIPS Fisio 311-- US$30 300 pcs PHILIPS Fisio 620-- US$35 289 pcs PHILIPS Fisio 825-- US$35 200 pcs PHILIPS Oz=E9o 8@8-- US$45 400 pcs PHILIPS X=E9nium-- US$45 400 pcs PHILIPS Fisio 820 + Kit Blue-- US$49 409 pcs =20 Nextel i90- $59 6= 70 pcs Nextel i95cl- $70 72= 0 pcs Nextel i60c- $40 72= 0 pcs Nextel 6510TM- $110 230 pcs= =20 =20 NOTE: ALL PHONES ARE IN FACTORY SEALED BOXES, WITH CHARGERS, ACCESSORIES, M= ANUALS INCLUDED. =20 SHOP CELLULAR COMMUNICATIONS. ------------------------------------------ Faites un voeu et puis Voila ! www.voila.fr=20 [TELECOM Digest Editor's Note: I didn't even bother to edit this trash, although that is what I am paid to do around here, I guess. Had this come from a name I had not recognized, it would have directly in the trash, like several of these do each day. Since Carl Moore sent it in, I guess he wanted you all to see it. Their prices look good, but I doubt you get anything for your money except grief. I do not think they fill orders or respond to inquires. The last five or six copies of this I received were all junked. And before anyone writes to me accusing me of hawking worthless cell phones through spam email using a French mail drop and a Nigerian merchant, please read the final message in this issue coming up next. Thse Nigerians have even started a Telecom Digest beleive it or not (check Google). *They* won't cease and desist copying from my stuff, but neither will the other imposters and frauds. I hope *they* run porn-worm also, so their attitudes about the 'American Satan' will be confirmed. PAT] ------------------------------ From: Patrick Townson Subject: The Porn Worm Explained Further Date: Wed, 3 Mar 2004 21:25:38 -0500 A *nice person* from the east coast wrote to me today asking that the message be kept private and the name not be used. I will honor that request. The message, in reference to the Porn Worm program of a few days ago essentially was "why did you run that message?" I answered the person saying it was an editorial comment essentially for a reader who said to me about a year ago 'the net has gotten to be so bad, all there is left on it these days are three things, spam, porn and the TELECOM Digest'. That (first) person was obviously exagerating a little, but not, it would seem, very much. The net has gotten to be pretty awful in the past year or two. I asked the (latest) writer, "have you tried the porn worm?" "Nope", they said,"and don't intend to." The (latest) writer concluded their comments by saying "if you are going to run something like that, you should really add some editorial context to it so people do not get the wrong idea about what you are doing to the Digest." Well, fair enough ... so when I heard one of another of our readers on the radio last week talking about the generally vile condition of the net in recent times (*yes* he reads the Digest most days, and *yes* he is a sort of big shot with the American Family Association, and *yes* he wants to keep his personal life and picadillos private, just like old Joe McCarthy, the Republican from Wisconsin in the 1950's), my thought was "if its vile you want, then vile you'll get." And Porn-Worm just hit the spot! I would have thought you could all see my tongue in cheek as that message was printed, if not, then 30-45 minutes of allowing the worm to run through the internet gathering up stuff and carefully depositing it in a directory where you could later bash it all with ease would have demonstrated it, five or ten thousand .jpg and .avi files later. Literally, if you let it run for 24 hours, the porn would be spilling out all over. The nastiest of the nasty. That's how bad the net has gotten. And although there were more than ten million downloads of the worm when it was first released by AGWAC Studios Company (and in fact I have had three hundred plus downloads of it under its new resurrection in a couple of days) AGWAC went bankrupt because they could not get anyone to pay $20 or whatever they asked to 'register' it. I do not know if that fact speaks favorably for the position of the American Family Association or not. In any event, if you did not get the joke the first time around, I hope you will now. Personally, I don't think it confirms anything the AFA has to say about the net, but more about the cheapness of many of the users of the net. Oh, it was http://porn-worm.us.tf in case you forgot. Now please, no more about it. Either use it or forget about it. 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, Yahoo Groups, 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: 620-402-0134 Fax 1: 775-255-9970 Fax 2: 530-309-7234 Fax 3: 208-692-5145 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 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 fifty 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. If you donate at least fifty dollars per year we will send you our two-CD set of the entire Telecom Archives; this is every word published in this Digest since our beginning in 1981. 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 V23 #103 ****************************** From editor@telecom-digest.org Thu Mar 4 17:07:21 2004 Received: (from ptownson@localhost) by massis.lcs.mit.edu (8.11.6p2/8.11.3) id i24M7LH22360; Thu, 4 Mar 2004 17:07:21 -0500 (EST) Date: Thu, 4 Mar 2004 17:07:21 -0500 (EST) From: editor@telecom-digest.org Message-Id: <200403042207.i24M7LH22360@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 V23 #104 TELECOM Digest Thu, 4 Mar 2004 17:07:00 EST Volume 23 : Issue 104 Inside This Issue: Editor: Patrick A. Townson Re: Unauthorized Phone Charges Appearing on Local Phone Bill? (S Cline) Re: Unauthorized Phone Charges Appearing on Local Phone Bill? (SJ Sobol) Re: Memories: Enterprise -vs- Zenith Numbers (Linc Madison) Re: Roam or Not Roam, Wireless With Verizon; How do I Know? (Stan Cline) Re: (Claims to Be) Cellular-Phone Dealer in Nigeria (Steven J Sobol) Re: (Claims to Be) Cellular-Phone Dealer in Nigeria (Joseph) Re: Vonage with Modem and Fax (Alex) Vonage 14-day Warrenty (Alex) Re: Vonage Experience (Phil) Re: Wireless / Internet Phones not Yet Reliable For 911 (Sammy@nospam) How Tiny Swiss Cellphone Chips Helped Track Global Terror Web (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. =========================== Addresses herein are not to be added to any mailing list, nor to be sold or given away without explicit written consent. Chain letters, viruses, porn, spam, and miscellaneous junk is definitely unwelcome. We must fight spam for the same reason we fight crime: not because we are naive enough to believe that we will ever stamp it out, but because we do not want the kind of world that results when no one stands against crime. Geoffrey Welsh =========================== See the bottom of this issue for subscription and archive details and the name of our lawyer; other stuff of interest. ---------------------------------------------------------------------- From: Stanley Cline Subject: Re: Unauthorized Bogus Phone Charges Appearing on Local Phone Bill? Organization: Roamer1 Communications - Dunwoody, GA, USA Reply-To: sc1-news@roamer1.org Date: Thu, 04 Mar 2004 06:37:27 GMT On 2 Mar 2004 15:41:16 -0800, tryitoz@hotmail.com (Joe Donaldson) wrote: > Her LOCAL phone company had multiple charges on it that were not > authorized nor made by her or her children. Multiple calls on multiple > days. This month it was to Guyana, obviously an international call. > Previous month it was somewhere else. The company that showed up on > her bill was "USBI" to Guyana billed on behalf of ONE CALL COMM dba > Opticom. > Alltel told her that somehow her PC is authorizing these calls and > someone is using her number. It does not show up on her Long Distance That sounds about right ("porn dialer")...although I find the choice of carrier (Opticom is much, much better known as an operator service provider) a bit odd. The call involved was definitely a 1+/011+ call since USBI and not ZPDI, both of which are names used by Billing Concepts, billed for it on behalf of Opticom. (USBI = 1+/011+; ZPDI = 0+) > 1. Eliminate ability to dial international calls with Alltell. Alltel > can block such calls. > 2. Then use an MCI or ATT card only to make long distance or European > calls. That sounds like a good plan. I'd also suggest running anti-spyware and antivirus software on the PC involved ... :) Stanley Cline -- sc1 at roamer1 dot org -- http://www.roamer1.org/ "Never put off until tomorrow what you can do today. There might be a law against it by that time." -/usr/games/fortune ------------------------------ From: Steven J Sobol Subject: Re: Unauthorized Bogus Phone Charges Appearing on Local Phone Bill? Date: Thu, 04 Mar 2004 10:21:54 -0600 Joseph wrote: > This has been in the news of late and here's something I found when > referencing google: Why doesn't she just block direct-dialed international calls and use a service that offers cheap international calling where you must use an 800 number and a PIN? JustThe.net Internet & New Media Services, Apple Valley, CA Steven J. Sobol, Geek In Charge / 888.480.4NET (4638) / sjsobol@JustThe.net PGP: C57E 8B25 F994 D6D0 5F6B B961 EA08 9410 E3AE 35ED ------------------------------ Subject: Re: Memories: Enterprise -vs- Zenith Numbers Date: Wed, 03 Mar 2004 21:11:38 -0800 From: Linc Madison Reply-To: lincmad@suespammers.org Organization: California resident; nospam; no unsolicited e-mail allowed In article , Michael D. Sullivan wrote: > In article , hancock4@bbs.cpcn.com > says: >> While we're on the subject of strange geography, there's a little >> island off New Foundland, St. Pierre IIRC, that is completely part of > Two islands, in fact: St. Pierre and Miquelon. They are a Department > of France (equivalent of a state). They are not part of the North > American Numbering Plan, use the French country code and from points in > North America must be dialed internationally via France, even from a few > miles away in Newfoundland. Almost, but not quite. St. Pierre and Miquelon have an international country code all to themselves, +508. When calling from within France, or other French DOM/TOMs (overseas departments and territories), or within St. Pierre et Miquelon, you dial 0508 xx xx xx, but from the rest of the world, you dial +508 5 08 xx xx xx. For example, from the USA, you would dial 011 + 508 + 5 08 xx xx xx, *not* 011 + 33 + 5 08 xx xx xx. Linc Madison * San Francisco, California * lincmad@suespammers.org * primary e-mail: Telecom at LincMad dot com All U.S. and California anti-spam laws apply, incl. CA BPC 17538.45(c) This text constitutes actual notice as required in BPC 17538.45(f)(3). DO NOT SEND UNSOLICITED E-MAIL TO THIS ADDRESS. You have been warned. ------------------------------ From: Stanley Cline Subject: Re: Roam or Not Roam, Wireless With Verizon; How do I Really know? Organization: Roamer1 Communications - Dunwoody, GA, USA Reply-To: sc1-news@roamer1.org Date: Thu, 04 Mar 2004 06:35:30 GMT On 2 Mar 2004 15:06:09 -0800, rogoflap@yahoo.com (Roger) wrote: > Now I upgraded to the LG VX4400B and when calling from in my home, it > shows Extended Network while dialing the number. I then stick the > phone up to the ear to talk. While talking I noticed the "Roam" > showing with the time moving. Why would this be the case? This is a known bug with the 4400. > Also how do I know if I am roaming if the "Extended Network" is shown > while dialing and ringing, but then "Roam" is shown while talking. No triangle displayed = VZW network Flashing triangle = Extended Network Solid triangle = roaming Stanley Cline -- sc1 at roamer1 dot org -- http://www.roamer1.org/ "Never put off until tomorrow what you can do today. There might be a law against it by that time." -/usr/games/fortune ------------------------------ From: Steven J Sobol Subject: Re: (Claims to Be) Cellular-Phone Dealer in Nigeria Date: Thu, 04 Mar 2004 10:23:12 -0600 Carl Moore wrote: > I have edited some headers off. I am not in the activity of trying to > sell cellular phones (on or off the net), and I have no way of knowing > the legitimacy of the following email (even though it gives an address > in Nigeria, it's coming off a French host). Yes, I do see this is not > in the familiar scam categories. I get a lot of these, presumably because I'm active in the cellular news groups. They may be legitimate. I LART them anyway. Incidentally, I don't believe any of those phones are usable in the USA. JustThe.net Internet & New Media Services, Apple Valley, CA Steven J. Sobol, Geek In Charge / 888.480.4NET (4638) / sjsobol@JustThe.net PGP: C57E 8B25 F994 D6D0 5F6B B961 EA08 9410 E3AE 35ED [TELECOM Digest Editor's Note: I also get a lot of them and do the same thing. You doubted the phones were usable in the USA. I doubt they even get here to the USA. PAT] ------------------------------ From: Joseph Subject: Re: (Claims to Be) Cellular-Phone Dealer in Nigeria Date: Thu, 04 Mar 2004 09:16:41 -0800 Organization: Posted via Supernews, http://www.supernews.com Reply-To: JoeOfSeattle@yahoo.NONOcom On Wed, 3 Mar 2004 16:18:47 EST, Carl Moore wrote: > I have edited some headers off. I am not in the activity of trying to > sell cellular phones (on or off the net), and I have no way of knowing > the legitimacy of the following email (even though it gives an address > in Nigeria, it's coming off a French host). Yes, I do see this is not > in the familiar scam categories. > From: shopcellular > Reply-To: shopcellular@voila.fr > To: shopcellular@voila.fr > Subject: buy > Mime-Version: 1.0 > Content-Type: text/plain; charset=iso-8859-1 > Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable > Date: Wed, 3 Mar 2004 21:48:12 +0100 (CET) > X-ARL-MailScanner: Found to be clean > X-ARL-MailScanner-SpamCheck: not spam, SpamAssassin (score=4.054, required 5, > BAYES_44 -0.00, RAZOR2_CF_RANGE_11_50 0.88, RAZOR2_CHECK 1.05, > RCVD_IN_BL_SPAMCOP_NET 1.50, SUBJ_BUY 0.63, UPPERCASE_50_75 0.00) > X-ARL-MailScanner-SpamScore: ssss > SHOP CELLULAR COMMUNICATIONS > 23, LADOKE STREET, OKOTA, > LAGOS-NIGERIA. > TEL: 234-8033823918. > E-mail: shopcellular1@yahoo.fr=20 >=20 >HELLO, > SPECIAL/CHEAPER CELLULAR PHONES OFFER. >=20 >WE ARE A INTERNATIONAL DEALERS, EXPORTERS AND SUPPLIERS OF CELLULAR PHONES = >AND ACCESSORIES IN NIGERIA. WE HAVE LARGE QUANTITY OF CELLULAR [Lots of trash deleted] First of all how much faith can someone have for an ALL CAPS post. Second of all this is *obviously* a scam. Common knowledge says don't do business with Nigeria, Indonesia or Romania when dealing with mobile phones. The old addage of if it looks too good to be true it probably is. remove NONO from .NONOcom to reply [TELECOM Digest Editor's Note: You may have noticed (if you use Google a lot) there is now a new 'Telecom Digest' in Nigeria although the one in Malasia took a short vacation. Telecom Digest seems to be popping up all over the globe these days. Asking them to honor copyrights is futile of course. PAT] ------------------------------ From: alex@totallynerd.com (Alex) Subject: Re: Vonage with Modem and Fax Date: 4 Mar 2004 06:27:24 -0800 Organization: http://groups.google.com alex@totallynerd.com (Alex) wrote in message news:: > Hi all, > I'm looking at maybe switching to Vonage for a second home line, and > if it works out, switching my primary line to it as well (to have two > lines). Problem is I need one line to be a modem line because I dial > into my home network from work from time to time. Can anyone give > comments on the quality of this? My cablemodem is Time Warner, which > is 2-3 Megs down and 384K up, so this should be more then enough > bandwidth. > Thanks for any suggestions. > Alex. > [TELECOM Digest Editor's Note: I am assuming you already have a line > with a modem attached for the occassions when you wish to do dial up > sometimes. So do I. Vonage works on your cable modem line. Your other > modem (used as a dialup on the phone line is a separate matter > entirely. It rarely suits me to use dialup these days, but I can if > I want to. From the keyboard I just turn on one or the other. You > won't really have much luck using *two* Vonage lines on the same > cable. It just stretches the limit a bit too far, IMO. But if you > decide to try Vonage, you just attach the box to your cable modem > right in between the cable modem and the computer. If you need to have > both devices (Vonage and your dialup modem) in the line at the same > time, there should be no trouble. Vonage works via the cable and your > modem works via the phone line. If you decide to try TWO Vonage lines > and your cable can handle it AND your computer is fast enough and > sturdy enough, it still should have no affect on your dialup modem > which is a separate thing entirely. One common mistake people often > times make is in calling the 'cable modem' a modem. It really isn't > a 'modem' in the sense a dialup thing attached to your phone line is. > PAT] Hi Pat, I'm an old school computer user, so when I say 'modem', I'm talking about literally an analog modem that goes to an analog POTS phone line -- same technology used in BBSes for 25+ years. I called Vonage yesterday, and told them my scenario. It took four people before I got to someone 'technical' who knew what a regular ol' modem was (not a broadband cablemodem). I'm not sure if anyone is understanding my questions because they never did give me a clear answer. I'm talking about running a regular modem, such as a Zoom, USR, etc, over a Vonage phoneline. I'm assuming if a standard telephone works over the Vonage lines then a standard analog modem would as well, which uses the same basis. I understand that all 'calls' via Vonage go over my broadband cablemodem, but instead of receiving a voice telephone call, I want to dial my home number from my laptop when traveling or from work to connect into my home network via standard PPP. Though this would go over my cablemodem via Vonage, it is totally seperate. Just as now, my dialup works via my SBC line and has nothing to do with my broadband. As for PC speed, using a standard analog modem (mine's a 28.8 USRobotics), doesn't matter, even if I'm dialing into a 286 or 8088 system. This technology is the same as it's been for 25 years. You dial the phone number, computer gives a carrier 'via modem', your modem handshakes, authenticates, and you're on. Maybe my first question wasn't too clear, but basically I want to know if with compression, or whatever Vonage uses, will impeed a data carrier signal from working properly. They say Fax machines will work, but Faxes are generally 9600 bps. I need 28,800 bps for a good PPP connection. Thanks for your time, Alex. [TELECOM Digest Editor's Note: I am defining 'modem' the same way as you, and in my computers they are all built into the computer itself, at either 28.8 baud or 56K. I've never tried what I think you are suggesting (and correct me if I am still wrong) of taking the output from the Vonage adapter and plugging it *into* a 'modem' so that the 'modem' hears *Vonage* dial tone, dials against it, and then converses through the Vonage line. That should be an interesting experiment to try, but I will make sure no actual CO line (from a telco somewhere) comes in contact with the Vonage adapter in the process. Now, I have tried something similar, plugging a traditional 'modem' and computer into a cell-socket device (to use cellular phone via a regular phone instrument) and I can tell you that was pretty crappy at best. At 300 baud it barely worked (in hyperterm, pecking on a few keys and auditing the output for accuracy) but not in a more controlled BBS type setting. Higher baud rates were totally unusable. Of course, cell phones are not Vonage phones, and that *may* work. I'll try to have a report on my experience with it in the next issue. PAT] ------------------------------ From: alex@totallynerd.com (Alex) Subject: Vonage 14-day Warranty Date: 4 Mar 2004 07:49:11 -0800 Organization: http://groups.google.com Hi all, Sorry for so many posts on this topic ... I'm kind of posting as I go :) I called Vonage to sign-up, and I had to call three times before someone answered I could understand. Do they use folks overseas to do their phones? Also, there's a bad delay, like two seconds, between when I talk and the customer service rep hears me. I can hear my echo from their ear piece (I assume), so we keep speaking on top of one another. This isn't standard with Vonage, is it? Anyway, the person I spoke with said it takes 5-7 days to receive the router, yet my 14 day trial begins today, if I sign-up today. So literally my trial is only 7-9 days (14 - shipping time). Granted this still would probably be long enough to test the router, but if for whatever reason the router is delayed for any reason, or if I have problems getting it going, I want the full 14 days of testing. I love the idea of Vonage, but they've yet to really impress me. Thanks for any info or insight. Alex. [TELECOM Digest Editor's Note: Vonage, like a lot of companies doing business over the internet winds up with a huge amount of credit card fraud, which partly accounts for why they take such a 'tough guy' stance in dealing with potential customers. But in actual practice, your 14 day trial starts out 3-4 days *after* you place your order, or about the time you sign for the UPS/Fedex delivery. And if you keep the box a full 14 days and then return it, they are not going to say 'oops, you are a day or two days too late in the return'. They have 'customers' (I use that term loosely) who order adapters with fraud credit cards, get the box, then deny it arrived or that they had anything to do with the fraud. If you order the adapter, recieve it and sign for it without playing games, and give it a fair trial, you are not going to hear a lot out of them about returning it anytime. And you do get a free month of service with an e-coupon (mine or anyone else who offers them) which largely offsets any losses you might suffer from having supplied them a good credit card to start with. Even if I for example, decided now to quit Vonage and send them back the box I could do so, less the month of service I owed them. About that echo: Vonage does use their own system to run their customer service department. I had a case once when talking to them that the customer service person said "I cannot hear you very well", I responded I am on *your* phone system; he said obviously you need an adjustment, and walked me through it then and there, after he called my back on my landline using *his* cellular phone. Try not to be so harsh on them being as new as they are in business. PAT] ------------------------------ From: phil_m_palmer@yahoo.com (Phil) Subject: Re: Vonage Experience Date: 4 Mar 2004 10:10:04 -0800 Organization: http://groups.google.com Sammy@nospam.biz wrote in message news:: > Too bad. I've had Vonage for almost a year and it works great. > Phil wrote: >> I signed-up for Vonage Service. They charged my VISA for the startup >> fees -- np. >> I get the Motorola VT but it works only intermitantly. Support from >> Vonage is non-existent, at best. I called several times, mostly >> hanging-up after holding for 20 minutes. I emailed several times with >> no return emails. >> After a week of this crap, I called to cancel. The Vonage Rep said >> that he'd have to charge $41 bucks to give me an RMA and return >> address. I told him that is called extortion. He said both the startup >> fee and termination fee would be refunded when the equipment was >> returned. So I allowed him to charge my VISA. >> I am mailing the equipment back today and will followup with >> additional experience. >> ALSO, beware about Vonage's Terms of Service policy. It states that >> you have seven days after you recieve your credit card statement to >> file a dispute. And that you must notify them before you do so thru >> your credit card. According to VISA this total BS. Vonage cannot >> supercede VISA policy, it is called non-compliance. >> Phil >> VONAGE SUCKS! >> [TELECOM Digest Editor's Note: I am truly sorry you have had such bad >> experience with them. My experience has been quite good by comparison. >> Have you tried the various techniques presented here in recent weeks >> to get around some of the intermittent problems you have had? For >> example, since I made the adjustments in my Linksys firewall/router >> they recommended, I've had no further problems with loss of dialtone >> or non-receipt of incoming calls. I *will* agree their customer >> service holding queue is pretty outrageous at times as they begin to >> learn the business a little better also. And the Motorola box they >> are using now may possibly not be as good as the Cisco, I am not sure >> on that. If you have not yet returned the Motorola to them, consider >> trying some of the fixes described on the net and see if they help >> any. Even if you decide it is not working and you must return the >> equipment, *new* customers who have *not yet* sent in for/recieved >> an adapter box can get a free month of whatever service package they >> desire by using an e-coupon from me to start the process. The e-coupon >> gets you the *second* month of service for free. Email me and ask for >> it. ptownson@telecom-digest.org PAT] PAT -- I am paying for a service -- Vonage should be the one trying fixes found on the Net -- not me! As I said before -- VONAGE SUCKS!! And since you are selling their wares YOU SUCK TOO! [TELECOM Digest Editor's Note: Well, thank you for that compliment! Actually, you are NOT 'paying for a service', you are getting a month of service for free; not paying for it. Consider it like an 'extended warranty' or extended free trial. Instead of a 14 day (give or take a day or three) warranty on the box,etc you actually getting a *month plus 14 days*. But I do not want to be an apologist for Vonage. I cannot help how they do their customer service, etc. I could make some suggestions, but they have not asked me. Because I am generally impressed with their service, and because VOIP seems to be the way telephone service is going in the future, I agreed to hand out their e-coupons, and share 'fixit' tips I know about. I am not making much of an effort to sell their wares. PAT] ------------------------------ From: Sammy@nospam.biz Subject: Re: Wireless and Internet Phones not Yet Reliable For 911 Date: Thu, 04 Mar 2004 09:48:19 -0800 Organization: Cox Communications In the case of wireless service, if the user has half a brain they should understand that 911 is a crap shoot when away from home. If they have a fully functioning brain they should realize that all local and county police have a 10-digit number that will go to emergency dispatch 24 hours a day. Most of the time such numbers are listed. If they aren't they can be found easily by calling the cop's listed business number and asking. Even though I have standard wireline service at home, I have the local cop's 10-digit emergency number programmed into my cell phone in case I have a need to call them while anywhere in town. [TELECOM Digest Editor's Note: Yeah, Sammy. I have to wonder how the same people survived before 911 was invented (in the early 1970's). Basically, 911 is a speed dial service to reach police which may or may not work as you want it to. PAT] ------------------------------ Date: Thu, 4 Mar 2004 08:55:01 -0500 From: Monty Solomon Subject: How Tiny Swiss Cellphone Chips Helped Track Global Terror Web By DON VAN NATTA Jr. and DESMOND BUTLER LONDON, March 2 - The terrorism investigation code-named Mont Blanc began almost by accident in April 2002, when authorities intercepted a cellphone call that lasted less than a minute and involved not a single word of conversation. Investigators, suspicious that the call was a signal between terrorists, followed the trail first to one terror suspect, then to others, and eventually to terror cells on three continents. What tied them together was a computer chip smaller than a fingernail. But before the investigation wound down in recent weeks, its global net caught dozens of suspected Qaeda members and disrupted at least three planned attacks in Saudi Arabia and Indonesia, according to counterterrorism and intelligence officials in Europe and the United States. The investigation helped narrow the search for one of the most wanted men in the world, Khalid Shaikh Mohammed, who is accused of being the mastermind of the Sept. 11 attacks, according to three intelligence officials based in Europe. American authorities arrested Mr. Mohammed in Pakistan last March. For two years, investigators now say, they were able to track the conversations and movements of several Qaeda leaders and dozens of operatives after determining that the suspects favored a particular brand of cellphone chip. The chips carry prepaid minutes and allow phone use around the world. Investigators said they believed that the chips, made by Swisscom of Switzerland, were popular with terrorists because they could buy the chips without giving their names. http://www.nytimes.com/2004/03/04/international/europe/04PHON.html ------------------------------ TELECOM Digest is an electronic journal devoted mostly but not exclusively to telecommunications topics. It is circulated anywhere there is email, in addition to various telecom forums on a variety of networks such as Compuserve and America On Line, Yahoo Groups, 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: 620-402-0134 Fax 1: 775-255-9970 Fax 2: 530-309-7234 Fax 3: 208-692-5145 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 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 2004 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 fifty 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. If you donate at least fifty dollars per year we will send you our two-CD set of the entire Telecom Archives; this is every word published in this Digest since our beginning in 1981. 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 V23 #104 ****************************** From editor@telecom-digest.org Fri Mar 5 02:20:05 2004 Received: (from ptownson@localhost) by massis.lcs.mit.edu (8.11.6p2/8.11.3) id i257K5l25928; Fri, 5 Mar 2004 02:20:05 -0500 (EST) Date: Fri, 5 Mar 2004 02:20:05 -0500 (EST) From: editor@telecom-digest.org Message-Id: <200403050720.i257K5l25928@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 V23 #105 TELECOM Digest Fri, 5 Mar 2004 02:20:00 EST Volume 23 : Issue 105 Inside This Issue: Editor: Patrick A. Townson Re: Phone Cos. to Counterattack Cable TV (Tony P.) Re: Need to Block Outgoing Calls to Specific Numbers (Sammy@nospam.biz) Re: Memories: Enterprise -vs- Zenith Numbers (Laura Halliday) Re: Vonage with Modem and Fax (John Levine) Re: Wireless and Internet Phones not Yet Reliable For 911 (Griswold Jr.) Re: (Claims to Be) Cellular-Phone Dealer in Nigeria (Steven J Sobol) Re: Verizon Wireless/Verizon Airfone Offer 10 Cents/Minute (Novosielski) Re: Unauthorized Phone Charges Appearing on Local Phone Bill (Donaldson) Re: More Re: the GTE Side of Verizon (Linc Madison) All contents here are copyrighted by Patrick Townson and the individual writers/correspondents. Articles may be used in other journals or newsgroups, provided the writer's name and the Digest are included in the fair use quote. By using -any name or email address- included herein for -any- reason other than responding to an article herein, you agree to pay a hundred dollars to the recipients of the email. =========================== Addresses herein are not to be added to any mailing list, nor to be sold or given away without explicit written consent. Chain letters, viruses, porn, spam, and miscellaneous junk is definitely unwelcome. We must fight spam for the same reason we fight crime: not because we are naive enough to believe that we will ever stamp it out, but because we do not want the kind of world that results when no one stands against crime. Geoffrey Welsh =========================== See the bottom of this issue for subscription and archive details and the name of our lawyer; other stuff of interest. ---------------------------------------------------------------------- From: Tony P. Subject: Re: Phone Cos. to Counterattack Cable TV Organization: ATCC Date: Thu, 04 Mar 2004 20:11:10 GMT In article , TELECOM Digest Editor Noted in response to sjsobol@JustThe.net: > [TELECOM Digest Editor's Note: You know, Steve, the more I read about > SBC, the happier I am I got rid of them for good in my house. They > seem to be less and less interested in providing good phone service > and much more into becoming a media conglomerate these days. I got a > piece of mail from them yesterday. Another one of their 'please, > please come back to us' mailings, with all the usual cut rate deals > they are offering for one year, only $25 dollars for this and only > three cents per minute on that, free installation, a fifty dollar gift > card, and how they have finally begun to take notice now that in their > own words, sixty thousand Kansas residents have jumped ship on them > and gone elsewhere. Trouble is, I just can't trust them. They seem to > lie so much. I'm quite happy with Prairie Stream, thanks. PAT] That sounds almost like what Cox is doing here in Rhode Island. You see - I ditched them a couple months ago because of their predatory pricing model. Went DSL and Sat and spend less per month. In any case -- while I had Cox Digital cable you never saw a sat ad, only ads for Cox services. I know why -- they were putting their own ads over the sat ads. Nice huh? Now they're even blasting their ads on the local channels offering half off for the first 3 to 6 months, etc. And I'm seeing sat dishes popping up everywhere. It's a beautiful thing to see Cox running scared. [TELECOM Digest Editor's Note: I just now realized I misquoted the letter from Southwestern Bell. They did NOT say 'sixty thousand Kansas residents had jumped ship on them. They said about sixty thousand *former* customers (who had left earlier) had decided to return. I am sure there were many others who have not returned, so the total number of ship jumpers would be how many ever jumped less the sixty thousand who had come back. That's Kansas alone. I think that Prairie Stream/Terraword got most of those. That's great! PAT] ------------------------------ From: Sammy@nospam.biz Subject: Re: Need to Block Outgoing Calls to Specific Numbers Date: Thu, 04 Mar 2004 12:57:21 -0800 Organization: Cox Communications The only way you can solve that problem is to pay for call rejection service for those three folks. Then, they can set the list (usually a maximum of 10 numbers) to reject calls from your number. Withheld at Users Request wrote: > [PAT - In the interest of privacy, please delete my .sig and email > address from this post. Thanks.] > I'm looking for a way to block outgoing calls to three specific phone > numbers. The problem is a relative with Alzheimer's who repeatedly > calls a couple of neighbors (dozens of times a day), to the point that > they're threatening to call the police. I'd like to be able to simply > disallow calls to those numbers. > Obviously we don't want to interfere with her ability to call 911, or > call friends or family members. We really only need to shut down > these three specific phone numbers. And yes, we're also taking steps > to get her to stop trying to call these people in the first place. > I'm pretty sure telco can block _incoming_ calls _from_ a certain > number, and this might be an option -- I could offer to pay for this > service on the neighbors' lines. But I'd rather handle it on the > originating end if possible. I plan to call telco tomorrow and see if > they offer an outbound-blocking feature. > Barring that, is there a piece of hardware that can do this? I didn't > see anything on sandman.com. Mike's got some restrictors but they look > to be too general for what I want to do; I want to allow everything > EXCEPT three specific phone numbers. > [TELECOM Digest Editor's Note: I think Mike has 'toll restrictor' > devices which are programmable. Ask him for specific details. If they > are programmable -- to a deep enough level -- at least seven or eight > digits -- you can accomplish this. If they can restrict all the way, > then you have it made. If they can only restrict any six digits, then > percievably you could catch those three numbers but *maybe* a 'good' > number she calls might get caught as well. Also, consider a mechanical > dialer to set next to the phone with eight or ten or twelve or more > numbers (NOT the ones she is offending) then go inside the phone and > disconnect the touch tones, so she has to use the dialer device to > make all her calls. I do not think telco will disallow specific local > numbers. You can reach Mike's office on 630-980-7710. I'd suggest yo > ask Mike in confidence for details. Ask him how to program the toll > restrictors to do what you need to have done. PAT] ------------------------------ From: marsgal42@hotmail.com (Laura Halliday) Subject: Re: Memories: Enterprise -vs- Zenith Numbers Date: 4 Mar 2004 13:40:28 -0800 Organization: http://groups.google.com > [TELECOM Digest Editor's Note: Speaking of the old Nevada Bell, did > you ever see their telephone book? One book *only* for the entire > state... I was recently in Costa Rica on vacation, and the entire country is one phone book. Two volumes: residential white pages in one volume, business white pages and yellow pages in the other, published by Verizon. The phone numbers are 7 digits, with no area codes. You just dial the number, with no indication of local or long distance. The white pages are divided up by province, from Alajuela to San Jose. Like much of Latin America the Costa Ricans don't use house numbers, so the addresses in the phone book tended to be cryptic. The hotel I stayed at in San Jose gave its full street address (250m west of the Escazu Country Club, old highway to Santa Ana, San Rafael de Escazu) only in the yellow pages. In B.C. we used Zenith numbers, by the way. Yes, BCTel was owned by GTE ... Laura Halliday VE7LDH "Que les nuages soient notre Grid: CN89mg pied a terre..." ICBM: 49 16.05 N 122 56.92 W - Hospital/Shafte ------------------------------ Date: 4 Mar 2004 23:05:29 -0000 From: John Levine Subject: Re: Vonage with Modem and Fax Organization: I.E.C.C., Trumansburg NY USA > I'm talking about running a regular modem, such as a Zoom, USR, etc, > over a Vonage phoneline. I'm assuming if a standard telephone works > over the Vonage lines then a standard analog modem would as well, Forget it. > They say Fax machines will work, but Faxes are generally 9600 bps. > I need 28,800 bps for a good PPP connection. I find that faxes usually work, but their compression scheme is written with faxes in mind. If you need 28K dialup, you need a real phone. I like my Vonage phone just fine, but I wouldn't want it as the only phone in the house because it doesn't work when the power fails, and its 911 service is inferior to that on a real phone. Regards, John Levine johnl@iecc.com Primary Perpetrator of The Internet for Dummies Information Superhighwayman wanna-be, http://iecc.com/johnl, Sewer Commissioner "I dropped the toothpaste", said Tom, crestfallenly. [TELECOM Digest Editor's Note: I tried this experiment as I promised I would do in the last issue. When I tried plugging a fax machine directly into the Vonage adapter, it worked fine. When I plugged in one of the (computer) modems directly to the Vonage adapter, it worked mostly okay at 300-1200 baud, or even 9600 baud. But it just would not do any better. So my suggestion would be to put Vonage on for your main line and also keep one telco line as an overflow for the Vonage and for your incoming dialup sessions. PAT] ------------------------------ From: Clark W. Griswold, Jr. <73115.1041@compuserve.com> Subject: Re: Wireless and Internet Phones not Yet Reliable For 911 Date: Thu, 04 Mar 2004 18:03:51 -0700 Organization: Posted via Supernews, http://www.supernews.com Sammy@nospam.biz wrote: > In the case of wireless service, if the user has half a brain they > should understand that 911 is a crap shoot when away from home. If > they have a fully functioning brain they should realize that all local > and county police have a 10-digit number that will go to emergency > dispatch 24 hours a day. Most of the time such numbers are listed. > If they aren't they can be found easily by calling the cop's listed > business number and asking. It's not just 911 wireless that is a crap shoot. The shall be nameless metroplex (>500K population) I live in has a 911 center that appears to be run as a patronage make work, social services department for the local government. Articles regularly appear in the local paper about callers being hung up on and insufficient staffing. Considering that more than enough funds should be available from the 911 phone tax to support such a center, one doesn't have to wonder very hard about what is going on. A few years back, the police dispatch office was moving from one location to another. The new office was served by a different CO and thus the very easy to remember direct line to the dispatchers who knew how to handle a call was going to change. The city tried to make the argument that since the public should be using 911, dropping the old direct line number wasn't a problem. They received so much flack from the public that they ordered remote call forwarding for the old number. ------------------------------ From: Steven J Sobol Subject: Re: (Claims to Be) Cellular-Phone Dealer in Nigeria Date: Thu, 04 Mar 2004 19:46:30 -0600 Joseph wrote: > [Lots of trash deleted] > First of all how much faith can someone have for an ALL CAPS post. > Second of all this is *obviously* a scam. > Common knowledge says don't do business with Nigeria, Indonesia or > Romania when dealing with mobile phones. The old addage of if it > looks too good to be true it probably is. Um, I'd like to clarify my post: I agree with this. I receive offers to buy bulk cellphones/PINs/etc from the USA, and I suspect that at least some of THEM are legitimate. Not the ones from Nigeria. JustThe.net Internet & New Media Services, Apple Valley, CA Steven J. Sobol, Geek In Charge / 888.480.4NET (4638) / sjsobol@JustThe.net PGP: C57E 8B25 F994 D6D0 5F6B B961 EA08 9410 E3AE 35ED ------------------------------ From: Gary Novosielski Subject: Re: Verizon Wireless and Verizon Airfone Offer 10 Cents-a-Minute Date: Fri, 05 Mar 2004 03:30:24 GMT Here's another opportunity to get ripped off by believing what the news release says. And yes, if one were inclined to be suspicious, one might conclude that the language is intentionally misleading. A quick reading (come to think of it, even a CAREFUL reading) of this news release makes it seem as though VZW customers who want the $.10/min rate must subscribe to the $10/month service, while customers who want the $.69/min rate (with no other charges) need do nothing. THIS IS NOT THE CASE! You need to "sign up" for EITHER the subscription or the non-subscription feature. If you do nothing and place a call from an AirFone handset, you'll be charged the normal ~$4/min rate. What Verizon could have stated clearly, but chose not to, but which I've managed to drag out of the customer service drones is the following: The plan has two rate levels: 10 cents per AirFone minute with a $10 monthly fee (frequent user) 69 cents per AirFone minute with no monthly fee (occasional user) To sign up for EITHER plan, you dial *611 from your VZW handset, which MUST be TXT-message compatible. Once you get a human, you tell them you want to sign up for the "AirFone for Verizon Wireless Customers" feature. If you want the $.69/min plan, you tell them you want the "Flat Rate-No Monthly Charge" option. Yes, that's a misleading name too, because it's not "Flat Rate" it's $.69/min. Just make sure you're not signing up for the $10/month plan by mistake. You should expect them to be completely unfamiliar with this feature and to have to go looking up memos or consulting with their supervisor, but they will eventually figure it out. Once they punch the proper code to add the feature to your account (it's available on all Verizon rate plans except pre-paid) you should, within seconds, receive a TXT-message to your handset containing your password (actually a four-digit PIN number). SAVE THIS NUMBER. This is the number you will need to enter on the AirFone seatback handset to avoid the ~$4/min charges, and to start forwarding your mobile number to your seatback while in flight. The forwarding lasts until you cancel it, or it times out (based on the length of the flight), or until you power on your wireless handset, whichever occurs first. This PIN will undoubtedly be different from any other PIN you have, such as voice mail or web access, and IT CANNOT BE CHANGED. Better write that puppy down and keep it in a safe place, especially if you're on the "infrequent flier" plan. AirFone minutes used will show up on your VZW bill as "roaming" minutes. =Gary Monty Solomon wrote: > In-Flight Calls And Discounted JetConnect Services > 'Excuse me, I believe the call on the seatback phone is for you.' > Airfone(R) Service for Verizon Wireless Plan Lets Customers Make and > Receive In-Flight Calls and Charge Them to Their Verizon Wireless > Bills > BEDMINSTER, N.J., March 1 /PRNewswire/ -- Verizon Wireless, the > nation's largest wireless service provider and operator of the most > reliable wireless network, today announced it is teaming up with > Verizon Airfone to offer discounted in-flight calls for Verizon > Wireless customers. Beginning today, Verizon Wireless frequent flyers > can stay connected while in flight for just 10 cents-a-minute when > they sign up for the new Airfone Service for Verizon Wireless $10 > monthly subscription plan. > Verizon Wireless customers who want to make and receive calls while in > flight need only register as a user on a Verizon Airfone handset to > make and receive calls for 10 cents-a-minute with a monthly > subscription or 69 cents-a- minute with no subscription. Callers > dialing the customer's Verizon Wireless phone number will reach them > on board any of the more than 2,000 planes served by Verizon Airfone > nationwide. Charges will be billed directly to the customer's Verizon > Wireless bill. > - http://finance.lycos.com/home/news/story.asp?story=40725518 [TELECOM Digest Editor's Note: So whatever happened to all the dire warnings about using your cell phone when in flight? PAT] ------------------------------ From: tryitoz@hotmail.com (Joe Donaldson) Subject: Re: Unauthorized Bogus Phone Charges Appearing on Local Phone Bill? Date: 4 Mar 2004 19:57:36 -0800 Organization: http://groups.google.com Yes she now has blocked International calls with her local provider and is using a long distance provider via an 800 number for international calls. Thanks, Joe Steven J Sobol wrote in message news:: > Joseph wrote: >> This has been in the news of late and here's something I found when >> referencing google: > Why doesn't she just block direct-dialed international calls and use a > service that offers cheap international calling where you must use an > 800 number and a PIN? > JustThe.net Internet & New Media Services, Apple Valley, CA > Steven J. Sobol, Geek In Charge / 888.480.4NET (4638) /sjsobol@JustThe.net > PGP: C57E 8B25 F994 D6D0 5F6B B961 EA08 9410 E3AE 35ED ------------------------------ Subject: Re: More Re: the GTE Side of Verizon Date: Thu, 04 Mar 2004 21:17:05 -0800 From: Linc Madison Reply-To: lincmad@suespammers.org Organization: California resident; nospam; no unsolicited e-mail allowed In article , John David Galt wrote: > Sammy@nospam.biz wrote: >> I think the Palms, Springs, California area was still a GTE LATA >> within a LATA when Verizon gobbled it all up. > The Palm Springs area (an old GTE area that extends north and east to > cover Morongo Valley, Yucca Valley, Joshua Tree, and 29 Palms) is a > separate LATA (number 973, according to NANPA) and has been that way > ever since LATAs have existed. It annoys me that phone books > published by SBC and SureWest give the false impression that it is > part of the Los Angeles LATA. The San Francisco area SBC directories show the Palm Springs area as a large black blob in the Los Angeles LATA, with a notation "Palm Springs Area -- Other Company." However, they incorrectly state that California has 10 LATAs. In fact, there are 11, not counting minor "border incursions" with neighboring states. Our LATA maps, even in directories that include the affected area, also make the incorrect claim that the San Francisco LATA includes all of area codes 408, 415, 510, 650, 707, and 925, plus the northern portion of 831. In fact, there is one small part of 707 that is in the Sacramento LATA. It has always been in the Sacramento LATA, although it has only much more recently become area code 707. The town of Dixon, along I-80 in Solano County, switched from 916 to 707 instead of 916 to 530, since the rest of Solano County was already 707. However, the LATA boundary was not changed. The rest of the area code information in this year's directory (Nov 2003 San Francisco) is also of embarrassingly poor quality. The maps look like they were faxed to the printer, and the text listings were obviously printed on a computer that didn't have the correct fonts. Still, it doesn't quite compare to last year's directory, on whose cover SBC actually misspelled one of the cities in the directory area! It says "San Francisco Including Brisbane, Colma, and Daily City." Umm, folks, that's DALY City, not DAILY City. They did at least get that one fixed this year. Linc Madison * San Francisco, California * lincmad@suespammers.org * primary e-mail: Telecom at LincMad dot com All U.S. and California anti-spam laws apply, incl. CA BPC 17538.45(c) This text constitutes actual notice as required in BPC 17538.45(f)(3). DO NOT SEND UNSOLICITED E-MAIL TO THIS ADDRESS. You have been warned. ------------------------------ 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, Yahoo Groups, 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: 620-402-0134 Fax 1: 775-255-9970 Fax 2: 530-309-7234 Fax 3: 208-692-5145 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 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 fifty 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. If you donate at least fifty dollars per year we will send you our two-CD set of the entire Telecom Archives; this is every word published in this Digest since our beginning in 1981. 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 V23 #105 ****************************** From editor@telecom-digest.org Fri Mar 5 18:46:22 2004 Received: (from ptownson@localhost) by massis.lcs.mit.edu (8.11.6p2/8.11.3) id i25NkM604513; Fri, 5 Mar 2004 18:46:22 -0500 (EST) Date: Fri, 5 Mar 2004 18:46:22 -0500 (EST) From: editor@telecom-digest.org Message-Id: <200403052346.i25NkM604513@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 V23 #106 TELECOM Digest Fri, 5 Mar 2004 18:46:00 EST Volume 23 : Issue 106 Inside This Issue: Editor: Patrick A. Townson Report on Investigation Into Improper Access to Senate (Monty Solomon) TiVo Triples Subscription Additions and Reports Positive Cash (Solomon) EchoStar May Need Partner Down Road / Comcast-Disney Union (M. Solomon) Microsoft Gadget Keeps Record of Your Life (Monty Solomon) Firms Look to Limit Liability for Online Security Breaches (M.Solomon) Document Shows SCO Prepped Lawsuit Against B of A (Monty Solomon) Re: Vonage with Modem and Fax (Hank Karl) Re: Vonage with Modem and Fax (Ray Normandeau) Re: Flexion X300 PABX (Duncan Fisken) Re: Need to Block Outgoing Calls to Specific Numbers (Carl Navarro) Re: Need to Block Outgoing Calls to Specific Numbers (DevilsPGD) Re: Memories: Enterprise -vs- Zenith Numbers (Saint-P) (John R. Covert) Re: Verizon Wireless / Verizon Airfone Offer 10 Cents-a-Minute (Joseph) Avaya/Nortel Users ATTN!!! (redG) Old Pay Phones Sold as Novelty Items (Joe Wineburgh) 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. =========================== Addresses herein are not to be added to any mailing list, nor to be sold or given away without explicit written consent. Chain letters, viruses, porn, spam, and miscellaneous junk is definitely unwelcome. We must fight spam for the same reason we fight crime: not because we are naive enough to believe that we will ever stamp it out, but because we do not want the kind of world that results when no one stands against crime. Geoffrey Welsh =========================== See the bottom of this issue for subscription and archive details and the name of our lawyer; other stuff of interest. ---------------------------------------------------------------------- Date: Fri, 5 Mar 2004 17:05:12 -0500 From: Monty Solomon Subject: Report on the Investigation Into Improper Access to the Senate REPORT ON THE INVESTIGATION INTO IMPROPER ACCESS TO THE SENATE JUDICIARY COMMITTEE'S COMPUTER SYSTEM http://judiciary.senate.gov/testimony.cfm?id=1085&wit_id=2514 http://judiciary.senate.gov/testimony.cfm?id=1085&wit_id=3088 http://news.findlaw.com/hdocs/docs/senate/pickle30404rpt1.html http://news.findlaw.com/hdocs/docs/senate/pickle30404rpt2.html ------------------------------ Date: Fri, 5 Mar 2004 17:36:24 -0500 From: Monty Solomon Subject: TiVo Triples Subscription Additions and Reports Positive Cash TiVo Triples Subscription Additions and Reports Positive Cash Flow in Q4; Raises Annual Guidance to Reflect Doubling of Subscription Base - Mar 4, 2004 04:06 PM (PR Newswire) - Subscription base grew to more than 1.3 million; Revenues 85% - higher than Q4 of last year; $143 million cash position - strongest in 3 years; Announces $50 million plan that is - expected to result in a doubling of subscription base and - enables TiVo to achieve sustainable profitability by the end of - next year. SAN JOSE, Calif., March 4 /PRNewswire-FirstCall/ -- TiVo (Nasdaq: TIVO), the creator of and a leader in television services for digital video recorders (DVRs), reported today that it added a record 330,000 subscriptions in the fourth quarter, nearly triple the number added in Q4 of last year. The Company's total subscription base more than doubled during the fiscal year to over 1.3 million. Net revenue for the quarter increased 85% to $42.6 million, compared with $23.0 million for the three months ended January 31, 2003. Net loss for the quarter was ($12.4) million, or ($0.18) per share, an improvement from a net loss of ($32.5) million, or ($0.56) per share, for the three months ended January 31, 2003. Excluding non-cash items related to the conversion of Notes Payable during the periods, TiVo's net loss for the quarter was ($7.9) million, or ($0.12) per share, an improvement from a net loss of ($14.7) million, or ($0.25) per share, for the three months ended January 31, 2003. Cash Flow From Operations during the quarter was a positive $13.4 million, compared with $2.4 million in Q4 of last year. For the year ended January 31, 2004 net revenue was $141.1 million and net loss was ($32.0) million or ($0.48) per share. TiVo also reported its first full year of positive Adjusted EBITDA.* TiVo ended the quarter and its fiscal year with $143.2 million in cash, compared to $44.2 million a year ago. This represents TiVo's largest cash balance and strongest capital position in over three years. With retailers offering ten digital video recorder models powered by TiVo this past quarter, TiVo enjoyed its most successful holiday season ever. Of the 330,000 net new subscriptions added in the quarter, approximately 200,000 resulted from TiVo's relationship with DIRECTV, demonstrating 33% sequential growth, and five times the number of new DIRECTV subscriptions added in Q4 of last year. The remaining 130,000 net new subscription additions represented more than double the growth in TiVo Service subscriptions experienced in the previous quarter. TiVo Announces $50 million Growth Plan That is Expected to Result in Doubling of Subscription Base, 40% Higher Annual Subscription Adds Than Prior Guidance, and Sustainable Profitability by the end of Fiscal Year 2006. - http://finance.lycos.com/home/news/story.asp?story=40756085 ------------------------------ Date: Fri, 5 Mar 2004 17:31:36 -0500 From: Monty Solomon Subject: EchoStar May Need Partner Down Road / Comcast-Disney Union Comcast-Disney union could compel change, Ergen says By Kris Hudson Denver Post Business Writer WASHINGTON - EchoStar Communications Corp. chairman Charlie Ergen said Thursday that his company may have no choice but to consider a merger or acquisition if Comcast Corp. successfully engulfs the Walt Disney Co. http://www.denverpost.com/Stories/0,1413,36~33~1997143,00.html ------------------------------ Date: Fri, 5 Mar 2004 17:34:53 -0500 From: Monty Solomon Subject: Microsoft Gadget Keeps Record of Your Life By ALLISON LINN AP Business Writer REDMOND, Wash. (AP) -- SenseCam, touted as a visual diary of sorts by Microsoft Corp., is designed to be worn around the neck and take up to 2,000 images a 12-hour day automatically. The prototype responds to changes such as bright lights and sudden movements and might one day even respond to other stimuli such as heart rate or skin temperature _ to track medical problems as easily as to record a Hawaiian vacation. And it could eventually link with other technology, such as face recognition to remind wearers when they've seen someone before. - http://finance.lycos.com/home/news/story.asp?story=40753831 ------------------------------ Date: Fri, 5 Mar 2004 09:30:15 -0500 From: Monty Solomon Subject: Firms Look to Limit Liability for Online Security Breaches By Jonathan Krim Washington Post Staff Writer In the face of ongoing attacks by computer hackers, some companies that store their customers' personal data are adopting a new defensive tactic: If your information is stolen, they're not legally responsible. Across the Internet, retailers and other service providers that handle consumer transactions are requiring customers to agree to waive any right to sue the companies if the businesses are hacked, regardless of how secure their systems are. The waivers are contained in lengthy terms-of-use agreements that consumers often click to accept without reading closely. http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/articles/A31874-2004Mar4.html [TELECOM Digest Editor's Note: How odd ... so if a company does a real schlocky job of maintaining their computer systems and the customer database all leaks out, you cannot blame the company any longer. PAT] ------------------------------ Date: Fri, 5 Mar 2004 09:54:30 -0500 From: Monty Solomon Subject: Document Shows SCO Prepped Lawsuit Against B of A By Stephen Shankland and Scott Ard Staff Writer, CNET News.com The SCO Group filed lawsuits this week against DaimlerChrysler and AutoZone, but the Unix seller's attorneys also had prepared a complaint against Bank of America, according to a document. A Microsoft Word document of SCO's suit against DaimlerChrysler, seen by CNET News.com, originally identified Bank of America as the defendant instead of the automaker. This revision and others in the document can be seen through powerful but often forgotten features in Microsoft Word known as invisible electronic ink. A feature in the word-processing software tracks changes to documents, who made those changes, and when they were made. These notations typically are invisible to someone reading a Word document. But as some lawyers, businesspeople and politicians have learned the hard way, Word can also display so-called metadata in the document -- including the original version and all subsequent changes. This information is available by viewing the document under "original showing markup" or "final showing markup." The presence of hidden text in the SCO document is just the latest example of this workplace issue. According to a study by market research firm Vanson Bourne titled "The Cost of Sharing," 90 percent of documents in circulation began as something else, but 57 percent of respondents were not aware that metadata may still exist in the their document. Microsoft addresses the issue on its Web site but adds that its 2003 version of Office provides a feature that lets users "permanently remove" the hidden text from Word. http://news.com.com/2100-7344-5170073.html ------------------------------ From: Hank Karl Subject: Re: Vonage With Modem and Fax Date: Fri, 05 Mar 2004 11:41:21 -0500 Organization: NETPLEX Internet Services - http://www.ntplx.net/ > [TELECOM Digest Editor's Note: I tried this experiment as I promised I > would do in the last issue. When I tried plugging a fax machine > directly into the Vonage adapter, it worked fine. When I plugged in > one of the (computer) modems directly to the Vonage adapter, it worked > mostly okay at 300-1200 baud, or even 9600 baud. But it just would not > do any better. So my suggestion would be to put Vonage on for your > main line and also keep one telco line as an overflow for the Vonage > and for your incoming dialup sessions. PAT Vonage uses several TAs. You may have an older Cisco ATA 186 or a newer Motorola VT1000. The capabilities of the TA and how you set the options make a major difference in the ability to send data. If you have a perfect line (no jitter, no packet loss, low end-to-end delay) you should be able to get 28.8 and possibly more on G.711. (Turn off packet loss concealment, or PLC). All codecs throw away parts of the signal, the hope is that it will sound "good enough" to the user. When sending data, you want to throw away as little as possible, or have the TA demodulate the modem output and have some other device on the other end remodulate it. Another suggestion for the OP is to set up a VPN. ------------------------------ From: rayta@msn.com (Ray Normandeau) Subject: Re: Vonage with Modem and Fax Date: 5 Mar 2004 09:31:05 -0800 Organization: http://groups.google.com > [TELECOM Digest Editor's Note: > instrument) and I can tell you that was pretty crappy at best. At 300 > baud it barely worked (in hyperterm, pecking on a few keys and > auditing the output for accuracy) but not in a more controlled BBS I am glad to see hyperterm mentioned. In my WIN ME machine I have never used it. On my DOS 386 machine I have Procomm Plus that I can set up as a mini BBS. Could I connect both computers with a null modem cable and transfer data by using hyperterm to "call into" my DOS Procmm system? MSN addy above is dead. [TELECOM Digest Editor's Note: I guess you could, but I would use Laplink for that job instead. That is much faster if you do not have a LAN and 'Network Neighborhood' on both computers. Actually, if you have a null modem cable you would have a network neighborhood, I think, as long as you had the appropriate drivers on each end. I am a little angry with hyperterm, maybe it is my fault. I needed to induce the weather mechanicals on my roof to produce a database display so that I could tell someone (the writer of the weather station software) the protocol it was using. I thought I could use hyperterm to do the job: tell hyperterm to talk to a given COM port to which the weather station control box was attached. I did the proper events to 'tickle it' into producing a line of output but it never arrived. I went through a half-dozen baud rates, and parity settings with no success. Then at some point I discovered that hyperterm had caused the Windows 98 machine to freeze up. I never did succeed at this project, although the weather station *is* up and running okay with some other software for it (to do the FTP from me to the server), at http://weatherforecast.n3.net or http://weatherforecast.us.tf if anyone is interested in the readings for Independence, KS which I sort of doubt. A camera 'street scene' is even included during the daytime hours. PAT] ------------------------------ From: duncan.fisken@blueyonder.co.uk (Duncan Fisken) Subject: Re: Flexion X300 PABX Date: 5 Mar 2004 04:38:43 -0800 Organization: http://groups.google.com Check out www.voxent.com - they now own BusinessGuardian. Duncan ------------------------------ From: Carl Navarro Subject: Re: Need to Block Outgoing Calls to Specific Numbers Date: Fri, 05 Mar 2004 07:32:39 -0500 On Thu, 04 Mar 2004 12:57:21 -0800, Sammy@nospam.biz wrote: > The only way you can solve that problem is to pay for call rejection > service for those three folks. Then, they can set the list (usually a > maximum of 10 numbers) to reject calls from your number. Sigh, I've got 5 or 6 Mitel Smar1 boxes in the warehouse that would do the trick. I might even have at least one 2 port (vs. 4 port) box. Since they've been there awhile, I can let one go pretty reasonable. I even have a full copy of the manual. The original poster may e-mail me off line for particulars. Carl Navarro ------------------------------ From: DevilsPGD Subject: Re: Need to Block Outgoing Calls to Specific Numbers Date: Fri, 05 Mar 2004 22:59:14 GMT In message <> Sammy@nospam.biz did ramble: > The only way you can solve that problem is to pay for call rejection > service for those three folks. Then, they can set the list (usually a > maximum of 10 numbers) to reject calls from your number. That's not "the only way", there are telcos out there that offer flexible toll restriction, and include the ability to block specified nontoll (including local) numbers. Politicians, like diapers, have to be changed frequently, and for the very same reason. ------------------------------ Date: Fri, 5 Mar 2004 12:08:11 EST From: John R. Covert Subject: Re: Memories: Enterprise -vs- Zenith Numbers (Saint-Pierre) Linc Madison wrote: > from the rest of the world, you dial +508 5 08 xx xx xx. Nope. Just +508 xx xx xx. See http://www.st-pierre-et-miquelon.com/ /john ------------------------------ From: Joseph Subject: Re: Verizon Wireless and Verizon Airfone Offer 10 Cents-a-Minute Date: Fri, 05 Mar 2004 09:36:00 -0800 Organization: Posted via Supernews, http://www.supernews.com Reply-To: JoeOfSeattle@yahoo.NONOcom On Fri, 05 Mar 2004 03:30:24 GMT, Gary Novosielski wrote: > [TELECOM Digest Editor's Note: So whatever happened to all the dire > warnings about using your cell phone when in flight? PAT] You *still* can't use your mobile phone *in* flight. It's assumed that you will make arrangements for the transfer of your calls and account setup whether the "a la carte" 69 cent plan or the frequent traveler $10/month plan from your mobile phone to Airphone before the flight leaves. This is about Airphone and not about Verizon Wireless in flight. remove NONO from .NONOcom to reply ------------------------------ From: dave@burr.net (redG) Subject: Avaya/Nortel Users ATTN!!! Date: 5 Mar 2004 10:03:44 -0800 Organization: http://groups.google.com I have found this site very very useful for me. Just wanted to share. http://www.pbxtech.info/index.php?referrerid=951 ------------------------------ From: Joe Wineburgh Subject: Old Pay Phones Sold as Novelty Items Date: Fri, 5 Mar 2004 14:22:39 -0500 -----Original Message----- From: owner-ip@v2.listbox.com [mailto:owner-ip@v2.listbox.com]On Behalf Of Dave Farber Sent: Thursday, March 04, 2004 8:26 PM To: Ip Subject: [IP] : Old pay phones sold as novelty items -----Original Message----- From: Steve Barsh Date: Thu, 04 Mar 2004 19:57:04 To:dave@farber.net Cc:"'Kevin Werbach'" Subject: For [IP] if you wish: Old pay phones sold as novelty items For IP if you think others would find it of interest ... I can't remember the last time I actually used a payphone ... From http://www.cnn.com/2004/TECH/ptech/03/04/relic.phones.ap/index.html ATLANTA, Georgia (AP) -- Old pay phones are selling like they're going out of style. Collectors have made an online rush to buy BellSouth's boxy old pay phones that have been refurbished for home use, after the Atlanta-based company decided to pull out of a coin-operated phone business that had withered in the wireless age. "It's a novelty. You just don't usually see pay phones in people's homes," said Hugh Bowen, a retired Atlanta police officer who bought one of the 30-pound phones. "I thought it was so neat and I always wanted one. When I saw this opportunity I jumped on it." About 500 orders for the $135 phones were filled in the two months they've been for sale, and now there's a waiting list of about 300 more people. Cell phones have increasingly pushed aside the once-ubiquitous pay phones. More than six out of 10 Americans now own cell phones, said Patrick Comack, an analyst with Guzman & Co. in Miami. Pay phones have lost so much market share to wireless, it's no longer a moneymaking business, he said. So the big phones are going the way of rotary phones, crank phones and early model brick-sized cell phones. When BellSouth became the first major phone company to shutter its languishing pay phone business two years ago, volunteers with the phone company decided to refurbish the phones for home use and resell them to raise money for charity. The phones were rewired so they can plug into a wall outlet and to work without coins. About $18,000 has been raised from the $35 in profit from each phone, which will go toward groups like Habitat for Humanity and the American Red Cross. Other companies will continue to operate some pay phones, but their numbers will continue to decrease. The total number of pay phones nationwide has dropped 29.5 percent in the last five years, including a 32.9 percent drop in pay phones operated by local phone companies, according to the Federal Communications Commission. "My grandchildren and great-grandchildren won't know what it is," said Bill Ray, who bought one of the pay phones and keeps it atop a filing cabinet in his Memphis, Tennessee, BellSouth office. "I thought I'd get it for the nostalgia, and it will be a conversation piece for years to come." Thanks, Steve Barsh steve@barsh.com http://www.barsh.com 610.668.8182 Office 215.888.2101 Cell 610.668.8750 Fax Archives at: http://www.interesting-people.org/archives/interesting-people/ ------------------------------ 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, Yahoo Groups, 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: 620-402-0134 Fax 1: 775-255-9970 Fax 2: 530-309-7234 Fax 3: 208-692-5145 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 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 fifty 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. If you donate at least fifty dollars per year we will send you our two-CD set of the entire Telecom Archives; this is every word published in this Digest since our beginning in 1981. 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 V23 #106 ****************************** From editor@telecom-digest.org Sat Mar 6 15:25:28 2004 Received: (from ptownson@localhost) by massis.lcs.mit.edu (8.11.6p2/8.11.3) id i26KPRT12308; Sat, 6 Mar 2004 15:25:28 -0500 (EST) Date: Sat, 6 Mar 2004 15:25:28 -0500 (EST) From: editor@telecom-digest.org Message-Id: <200403062025.i26KPRT12308@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 V23 #107 TELECOM Digest Sat, 6 Mar 2004 15:25:00 EST Volume 23 : Issue 107 Inside This Issue: Editor: Patrick A. Townson Circuit City to Carry Vonage Phones in 600 Stores (Monty Solomon) Review: Proving That a PC Can Rival TiVo (Monty Solomon) Patent Central to Microsoft Case Invalidated (Monty Solomon) TiVo to Webcast Investor/Analyst Day on March 5, 2004 (Monty Solomon) TiVo Expects to Top 10 mln Subscribers in 3-4 Years (Monty Solomon) Re: Verizon Wireless/Verizon Airfone Offer 10 Cents-a-Minute (M Solomon) Echostar, Viacom Deadlocked But Hope Seen in Dispute (Monty Solomon) Re: Saint Pierre, was Memories (John Levine) Re: Firms Look to Limit Liability for Online Security Breach (Landsberg) Re: Vonage with Modem and Fax (Alex) Voip Setup (Maxspd) A Mobile Media Mogul (Eric Friedebach) 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. =========================== Addresses herein are not to be added to any mailing list, nor to be sold or given away without explicit written consent. Chain letters, viruses, porn, spam, and miscellaneous junk is definitely unwelcome. We must fight spam for the same reason we fight crime: not because we are naive enough to believe that we will ever stamp it out, but because we do not want the kind of world that results when no one stands against crime. Geoffrey Welsh =========================== See the bottom of this issue for subscription and archive details and the name of our lawyer; other stuff of interest. ---------------------------------------------------------------------- Date: Fri, 5 Mar 2004 18:45:24 -0500 From: Monty Solomon Subject: Circuit City to Carry Vonage Phones in 600 Stores By Eric Auchard NEW YORK, March 4 (Reuters) - Vonage, which provides inexpensive phone service as an add-on for customers with high-speed Internet lines, on Thursday said that it has reached its first deal with a national retailer to sell its services. Vonage, of Edison, New Jersey, said that Circuit City Stores, Inc. (NYSE:CC) will begin selling its services in 600 retail outlets as well as online. Vonage, which has sold more than 100,000 of its innovative Internet phones since it began offering service two years ago, now expects upward of 300,000 customers by the end of this year, higher than its previous goal of 250,000 for 2004. Retail exposure should attract additional subscribers, founder and Chief Executive Jeffrey Citron said. - http://finance.lycos.com/home/news/story.asp?story=40757074 ------------------------------ Date: Fri, 5 Mar 2004 19:00:14 -0500 From: Monty Solomon Subject: Review: Proving That a PC Can Rival TiVo By MATTHEW FORDAHL AP Technology Writer SnapStream Media Inc.'s latest software is an excellent example of how a personal computer can improve on a TV set: It offers more choices, more information and, most important, more control over the viewing experience. The program is similar to the TV features in Microsoft Corp.'s Windows XP Media Center Edition, but SnapStream offers more features _ without the purchase of a so-called multimedia computer. It even gives the standalone personal video recorder from TiVo Inc. a run for its money. The SnapStream software has undergone some major reworking, including a name change from "Personal Video Station" to "Beyond TV 3." It's addressed past annoyances by adding much-needed support for mouse pointing devices, better program guide integration and greater reliability. - http://finance.lycos.com/home/news/story.asp?story=40758597 ------------------------------ Date: Fri, 5 Mar 2004 19:10:19 -0500 From: Monty Solomon Subject: Patent Central to Microsoft Case Invalidated By Reed Stevenson SEATTLE, March 5 (Reuters) - The U.S. Patent and Trademark Office has invalidated a claim to Web browser technology central to a case against Microsoft Corp. (NASDAQ:MSFT), a move that could spare the software giant from paying more than half a billion dollars in damages, according to documents obtained on Friday. The patent agency's preliminary decision, if upheld, also means that Microsoft will not be required to make changes to its Internet Explorer Web browser that would have crippled the program's ability to work with mini-programs that work over the Internet, such as the Quicktime and Flash media players. Last year, an Illinois jury delivered a $521 million verdict against Microsoft for infringing on technology developed by a privately held firm, Eolas Technologies Inc., and the University of California. - http://finance.lycos.com/home/news/story.asp?story=40766065 ------------------------------ Date: Fri, 5 Mar 2004 19:02:20 -0500 From: Monty Solomon Subject: TiVo to Webcast Investor/Analyst Day on March 5, 2004 NEW YORK, March 5 /PRNewswire-FirstCall/ -- TiVo Inc. (Nasdaq: TIVO) will be webcasting its Investor/Analyst Day Presentations on Friday, March 5, 2004. The live webcast can be viewed by going to http://www.shareholder.com/TiVo/medialist.cfm . An archive of the webcast will be available within 24 hours of the end of the event and can be viewed at http://www.shareholder.com/TiVo/medialist.cfm . - http://finance.lycos.com/home/news/story.asp?story=40759838 ------------------------------ Date: Fri, 5 Mar 2004 19:08:57 -0500 From: Monty Solomon Subject: TiVo Expects to Top 10 mln Subscribers in 3-4 Years NEW YORK, March 5 (Reuters) - TiVo Inc. (NASDAQ:TIVO) on Friday said it expects subscribers to its television recording service to increase dramatically and revenues to grow as much as 80 percent annually over the next three to four years, fueled by growing consumer acceptance of the technology. At a meeting with analysts, Chief Executive Michael Ramsey said he expects the service, which lets users customize `qtelevision viewing by recording shows on a built-in computer hard drive for playback later, to have more than 10 million subscribers -- up from its current total of 1.3 million. - http://finance.lycos.com/home/news/story.asp?story=40762038 ------------------------------ Date: Fri, 5 Mar 2004 19:43:09 -0500 From: Monty Solomon Subject: Re: Verizon Wireless and Verizon Airfone Offer 10 Cents-a-Minute More details are on their web site http://www22.verizon.com/airfone/vzw/vzw_airfone_service.html Monty ------------------------------ Date: Sat, 6 Mar 2004 02:15:20 -0500 From: Monty Solomon Subject: Echostar, Viacom Deadlocked But Hope Seen in Dispute By Kenneth Li NEW YORK, March 5 (Reuters) - Viacom Inc. (NYSE:VIAb) and EchoStar Communications Corp. (NASDAQ:DISH) said on Friday they were deadlocked but held out hope of resolving a contract dispute before a Monday deadline that would leave EchoStar subscribers in major cities without CBS programming. After four months of deadlocked contract negotiations, EchoStar in January filed a lawsuit in federal court in a bid to block Viacom from pulling its broadcasts of local CBS stations from its subscribers in New York, Los Angeles and 13 other media markets. A judge last week gave EchoStar and Viacom until midnight Pacific Time on Monday to reach a pact on broadcasting the CBS stations in those markets. The dispute also affects Viacom-owned cable networks such as MTV, VH1 and Nickelodeon. The No. 2 U.S. satellite service, based in Englewood, Colorado, has balked at what it has described as Viacom's demands that it carry new additional channels such as the new Nicktoons channel in exchange for the rights to broadcast CBS. Viacom has dismissed EchoStar's legal claims and has called its lawsuit an attempt to strong-arm the broadcaster in the long-running contract talks. - http://finance.lycos.com/home/news/story.asp?story=40767309 ------------------------------ Date: 6 Mar 2004 03:53:11 -0000 From: John Levine Subject: Re: Saint Pierre, was Memories Organization: I.E.C.C., Trumansburg NY USA > Nope. Just +508 xx xx xx. See http://www.st-pierre-et-miquelon.com/ Actually +508 41 xx xx, since it's a rather small exchange. The local ISP, which belongs to the telco, is at http://www.cheznoo.net. They offer all the usual stuff, dialup, cable modem (they own the cable TV network), web hosting. Near the upper right of their home page the "Annuaire" link takes you to the local phone book along with service numbers like 15 for ambulance. The spmtelecom.com site describes their Ameris mobile phone system which has good coverage but is rather pricey and has the usual politically goofy rates, e.g., E1.10 to the US, but E0.68 to French Guyana because it's domestic. By the way, a traceroute to cheznoo.net reveals that they're connected via Newfoundland, not via France. I don't know whether voice or other traffic also takes that route. John R. Levine, IECC, POB 727, Trumansburg NY 14886 +1 607 330 5711 johnl@iecc.com Village Trustee and Sewer Commissioner http://iecc.com/johnl Member, Provisional board, Coalition Against Unsolicited Commercial E-mail ------------------------------ From: Nick Landsberg Reply-To: hukolau@NOSPAM.att.net Subject: Re: Firms Look to Limit Liability for Online Security Breaches Date: Sat, 06 Mar 2004 00:46:23 GMT Organization: AT&T Worldnet Monty Solomon wrote: > By Jonathan Krim > Washington Post Staff Writer > In the face of ongoing attacks by computer hackers, some companies > that store their customers' personal data are adopting a new defensive > tactic: If your information is stolen, they're not legally > responsible. > Across the Internet, retailers and other service providers that handle > consumer transactions are requiring customers to agree to waive any > right to sue the companies if the businesses are hacked, regardless of > how secure their systems are. > The waivers are contained in lengthy terms-of-use agreements that > consumers often click to accept without reading closely. > http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/articles/A31874-2004Mar4.html > [TELECOM Digest Editor's Note: How odd ... so if a company does a real > schlocky job of maintaining their computer systems and the customer > database all leaks out, you cannot blame the company any longer. PAT] I'm not a lawyer, but I believe the principle of "due diligence" would apply here. If they sat on their rumps and did nothing to prevent the information from being stolen, even with the TOU agreements, then you would probably have a case. Then again, what's with the thousand line "terms of use" (TOU) agreements? I was on a site the other day which advertised something I *might* be interested in. I clicked on the link, and up popped a page which asked me to sign up. The TOU agreement was in a 2.5 line scroll box, maybe 20 characters wide. Obviously readable only by anal-retentives. To read the whole thing you had to scroll down through well over 50 lines (I stopped at about 50). No options to open a separate page with the whole agreement there. No options to print it out, etc. I called the number and asked for a copy of the TOU agreement before signing up. The droid said ... "You have to sign up and then we will send you the terms of use agreement if you request it." Thanks but no thanks. Now, this is the same stuff that spammers do. They comply with the "letter of the law" but not the spirit. In something like real-estate contracts, I thought it was now illegal to hide the details in the small print. This is tantamount to hiding the details in the small print. "It is impossible to make anything foolproof because fools are so ingenious" - A. Bloch ------------------------------ From: alex@totallynerd.com (Alex) Subject: Re: Vonage with Modem and Fax Date: 5 Mar 2004 06:03:15 -0800 Organization: http://groups.google.com John and Pat, Thanks for the info ... but after contacting Vonage via email, they said they don't have my area yet but should soon. So, I'll hold-off until they're around here before pursuing it further. Thanks for your time and info on this, Alex John Levine wrote in message news:: >> I'm talking about running a regular modem, such as a Zoom, USR, etc, >> over the Vonage lines then a standard analog modem would as well, > Forget it. >> They say Fax machines will work, but Faxes are generally 9600 bps. >> I need 28,800 bps for a good PPP connection. > I find that faxes usually work, but their compression scheme is written > with faxes in mind. If you need 28K dialup, you need a real phone. > I like my Vonage phone just fine, but I wouldn't want it as the only > phone in the house because it doesn't work when the power fails, and > its 911 service is inferior to that on a real phone. > Regards, > John Levine johnl@iecc.com Primary Perpetrator of The Internet for Dummies > Information Superhighwayman wanna-be, http://iecc.com/johnl, > Sewer Commissioner > "I dropped the toothpaste", said Tom, crestfallenly. > [TELECOM Digest Editor's Note: I tried this experiment as I promised I > would do in the last issue. When I tried plugging a fax machine > directly into the Vonage adapter, it worked fine. When I plugged in > one of the (computer) modems directly to the Vonage adapter, it worked > mostly okay at 300-1200 baud, or even 9600 baud. But it just would not > do any better. So my suggestion would be to put Vonage on for your > main line and also keep one telco line as an overflow for the Vonage > and for your incoming dialup sessions. PAT] [TELECOM Digest Editor's Note: As far as 'not having lines yet in your area', I'd not waste a lot of time, but check in every day or three and see how long it takes them to get in your area. When I first started with Vonage (last April), they were only serving basically the west and east coasts with scattered 'pops' in the middle west, but nothing I could use. They did not send out any special announcements about moving into the central states area, but one day I decided to check (assuming I would still find nothing useful in the midwest), but lo-and-behold, this time they had 'pops' all over Missouri, Kansas and Oklahoma, so I swapped out my San Francisco line for a much closer one in Winfield, Kansas (620 area, same as myself). They seem to be very rapidly expanding, just as MCI/Sprint did in the early part of the 1970's. So keep watching. They also offer 800 numbers now. If you have any line of theirs, you can get a 'virtual' 800 number for five dollars per month with a hundred minutes of talk time per month included. So something like that might work for you also. PAT] ------------------------------ From: maxspd01@hotmail.com (Maxspd) Subject: Voip Setup Date: 5 Mar 2004 15:27:46 -0800 Organization: http://groups.google.com I was wondering what it take to setup a phone company like Vonage? (Highly technical description is fine). [TELECOM Digest Editor's Note: Well, let's start with the money. You'll need a lot of it, maybe a bank can help you on that. You will need a truckload of DID lines, preferably in every single phone exchange everywhere, unless you were planning to build your own exchanges. Until/unless/ever you get to the point where all your traffic stays on your own network, you'll need to have good credit with the various telcos to pay some humongous billings for your off-net traffic (both in and out) which will be 90 percent or more of it. You'll need a vendor for your VOIP boxes, such as Cisco or Motorola, and have enough money to get your way with them regards how the adapter boxes are to be programmed, etc. Assume all the above will actually have to happen months or even a year before you are actually in a position to begin selling your service. That's for starters. PAT] ------------------------------ From: friedebach@yahoo.com (Eric Friedebach) Subject: A Mobile Media Mogul Date: 5 Mar 2004 16:01:52 -0800 Organization: http://groups.google.com Arik Hesseldahl, 03.05.04, Forbes.com NEW YORK - Mobile phones are quickly turning into something more than what you use to talk to other people. They are increasingly becoming a source of entertainment. They're taking pictures. They're playing music. They're displaying video. And they're becoming an ever-more-popular platform for playing video games. All these new features are intended to boost the number that wireless carriers live by, known as ARPU -- average revenue per user. The trick is to convince customers to use their phones for a lot more than talking. In Europe and Japan this has worked out a lot better than in the United States, at least so far. Americans still like to spend most of their time talking on their phones, and aren't as likely to use them to send messages with pictures attached. http://www.forbes.com/technology/2004/03/05/cx_ah_0305tentech.html Note from Eric: I've received something new on my mobile handset this past week; spam. I think they knew what they were sending *to* since the character limit was not exceeded. Just a quick note saying I could have the figure of a supermodel if I called an 800 number. Eric Friedebach /No Dirty Words On The Whiteboard/ ------------------------------ 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, Yahoo Groups, 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: 620-402-0134 Fax 1: 775-255-9970 Fax 2: 530-309-7234 Fax 3: 208-692-5145 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 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 fifty 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. If you donate at least fifty dollars per year we will send you our two-CD set of the entire Telecom Archives; this is every word published in this Digest since our beginning in 1981. 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 V23 #107 ****************************** From editor@telecom-digest.org Sun Mar 7 19:34:31 2004 Received: (from ptownson@localhost) by massis.lcs.mit.edu (8.11.6p2/8.11.3) id i280YUi20795; Sun, 7 Mar 2004 19:34:31 -0500 (EST) Date: Sun, 7 Mar 2004 19:34:31 -0500 (EST) From: editor@telecom-digest.org Message-Id: <200403080034.i280YUi20795@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 V23 #108 TELECOM Digest Sun, 7 Mar 2004 19:35:00 EST Volume 23 : Issue 108 Inside This Issue: Editor: Patrick A. Townson The Price of Email is Constant Vigilance (Rob Slade) Spam Going Out Under My Name (TELECOM Digest Editor) Compensation For Telephones Sold Programmed to Call my Phone (MLM List) Should I Use 66-block (John) Re: Verizon Wireless/Verizon Airfone Offer 10 Cents-Minute (Novosielski) Re: Verizon Wireless/Verizon Airfone Offer 10 Cents-Minute (Steve Sobol) Re: Vonage with Modem and Fax (John Levine) Re: Need to Block Outgoing Calls to Specific Numbers (name withheld) Re: Quest to Offer "Naked DSL" (David S. Roland) 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. =========================== Addresses herein are not to be added to any mailing list, nor to be sold or given away without explicit written consent. Chain letters, viruses, porn, spam, and miscellaneous junk is definitely unwelcome. We must fight spam for the same reason we fight crime: not because we are naive enough to believe that we will ever stamp it out, but because we do not want the kind of world that results when no one stands against crime. Geoffrey Welsh =========================== See the bottom of this issue for subscription and archive details and the name of our lawyer; other stuff of interest. ---------------------------------------------------------------------- From: Rob Slade Organization: Vancouver Institute for Research into User Date: Sat, 6 Mar 2004 16:37:19 -0800 Subject: The Price of Email is Constant Vigilance Peter Wilson's article on spam and viruses (on Saturday, March 6, 2004) lists a number of antispam measures that are currently being promoted. He also retails Bill Gates' confident prediction that spam will be a thing of the past by 2006. Remember that prophecy, because Bill Gates is going to be proven wrong. An examination of the measures listed in the article demonstrates why. SPF (sender-permitted format) is currently garnering the greatest interest. The description of SPF as a kind of caller-ID is not quite correct. All email carries caller-ID in the form of the information about who the message is from, and information about the Internet Protocol (IP) address that originated the message. SPF is actually an attempt to contact the site that is supposed to have originated the message, and verify that these two pieces of information match, or, at least, are likely. Spammers, when creating spoofed addresses, don't bother to make sure that they do. Or, at least, they haven't up until now. Microsoft's own version seems to be either an attempt to compete or an attempt to derail SPF: SPF is primarily promoted by AOL, and the two companies have never played particularly well together. Microsoft's plan is derided by the SPF camp for being proprietary. It is true that SPF uses features and functions that make more effective use of the email protocols that are currently in use on the Internet. The configuration of factors is not universal, though, and some of the activities will require new programming for everyone who participates in SPF. Which may mean that the Internet might become split into the camp of those who use SPF, and those who don't. I have seen this in action already. I have a number of accounts. (And, of course, get tons of spam.) One is through Vancouver CommunityNet, which does not have very much in the way of spam detection or prevention. Because of the volume of spam this account receives (particularly during the Sobig flood last summer), I forwarded the account to a service that does spam and virus filtering. One of the functions that the service uses is similar to the SPF protocol. A great deal of the spam that was being forwarded was unverifiable, and so the service simply refused to accept it. This meant that a volume of email built up on Vancouver CommunityNet, to the point that it affected the mail system as a whole. (Vancouver CommunityNet, despite being informed of all the details, and my own actions to rectify the situation, has handled the whole matter in a very sloppy manner.) SPF has promise, and it may be possible (unlike the Microsoft proposal) to provide workarounds for a variety of systems, platforms, and applications. However, there are a number of issues that still have to resolved, such as email aliases, third-party services, and applications such as mailing lists, which operate in a wide variety of forms. The difficulties are not insurmountable, but an enormous amount of work still has to be done. Microsoft's micropayments strategy is apparently the most recent one, but has been raised many times over the history of the nets. (One of the popular programs providing Usenet news, a type of topical discussion, used to remind anyone who attempted to post a message that it would possibly cost thousands of dollars to send this to everyone: did they really want to do that?) Unfortunately, the issue of mailing lists comes up almost immediately. Even if we assume one cent per message, if I send a message to a popular list such as the RISKS-FORUM Digest, with a possible hundred thousand subscribers, am I charged a thousand dollars for that message? Is the list moderator charged? In the case of RISKS, it is also redistributed by a number of sub-mailing lists: do those costs get charged to the accounts of the local administrators? The list moderator? Me? (The obvious second question is: who *gets* the money? The Internet Engineering Task Force? Some bloated bureaucracy parcelling out the cash to the various national telecom carriers? Charity? Microsoft? The recipient? Hmmm. Maybe I should rethink my objection to the micropayment system. At one point I was getting 8,000 [yes, eight thousand] copies of spam from one system in China. Per hour. Same message.) And, of course, in order to provide for such a micropayment system, everybody is going to have to use a Microsoft mailer. With a Microsoft payment system. And a Microsoft account. This sounds like an attempt to resurrect the (justly derided and roundly condemned) Passport and Palladium systems. The challenge-response system is already being used by a number of outfits providing spam filtering and other services. It is a nuisance. It can create a great deal of annoyance in a number of situations, not least being mailing lists. It also doesn't work. The most common challenge response systems present a graphical image of a word. This word is supposed to be entered in a field on a web page in order to create permission for the message to go through. People can read the word easily, but machines have difficulty with this type of task, so this makes it impossible for spammers to automate the sending of email: they have to read and respond to every challenge. That's the theory. In fact, spammers have already been found to be "automating" the process -- using Internet web surfers. A number of web pages have been set up promising access to pornography. In order to access the files, you have to respond to a challenge. The challenges are, of course, those that are being presented on the antispam filtering sites. Those challenges are simply extracted, presented to the surfers wanting access to pornographic images, solved by the user, and the solution fed back to the antispam site. The same problems apply to computational puzzles: they are simply another form of challenge-response. In fact, most of these antispam technologies fail in the face of the problem of spam nets set up by viruses. Spam sent from infected machines could simply use the name of the owner, thus verifying the identity. Spam sent from infected machines could use the micropayment "wallet" on the infected machine, thus creating not only problems of clean-up for the owner, but also a real cost. Infected machines could be used to crack computational puzzles, or the owner could be presented with challenges to respond to, in a variety of ways. Spam has passed the stage of being a nuisance. Email is a means of communication that is starting to rival the phone, and spam is seriously degrading the effectiveness and utility of email. Antispam measures are badly needed, but we cannot accept any proposed solution uncritically. Dividing the Internet into isolated camps of incompatible (and rival) antispam technologies takes us back to the early days of online systems, when lots of people had email, but nobody could talk to each other. There is no easy fix, and there is no easy answer. Administrators have to ensure that they are not providing open relays that can be used for spam. Email filtering services are checking for inappropriate inbound email, but must also check what is going out. ISPs (Internet Service Providers) must be more vigilant in regard to the use being made of the net to which they provide access. Computer users at all levels have to check for malicious software, unpatched vulnerabilities, open ports and services, and what is going out of their systems as well as what is coming in. Everybody needs to become more aware of what is going on, and keep up with the changes in threats around us all. And anyone who tells you it is not going to be painful is selling something. ====================== (quote inserted randomly by Pegasus Mailer) rslade@vcn.bc.ca slade@victoria.tc.ca rslade@sun.soci.niu.edu If you like laws and sausage, you should never watch either being made. - Otto von Bismarck http://victoria.tc.ca/techrev or http://sun.soci.niu.edu/~rslade ------------------------------ Date: Sun, 7 Mar 2004 18:00:44 EST From: TELECOM Digest Editor Subject: Spam Going Out Under My Name I had pretty much (foolishly) assumed my name (Patrick A. Townson) and Editor, both e-residing @telecom-digest.org was immune from being used in outgoing spam and virii attacks. I found out yesterday and today that was *not* the case, when I began receiving here at telecom a ton of spam sent here from 'Patrick_A_Townson@telecom-digest.org' and/or 'ptownson@telecom-digest.org' addressed to the same name and/or Editor. I am sure many of you have recieved the same baloney in your own email. Some virii likewise is being sent around the net claiming to be from 'editor@telecom-digest.org' I guess one way of getting someone out of business you dislike is by sending a load of trash under their name, and hope that most readers do not take the trouble to investigate it. I suppose I should get a signature encryption, slap an 'iron clad' (as that goes) copyright on all my work, including this Digest, etc, but I just do not have the energy to go to all that work. I do have a good idea where much of the trash is coming from originally, but proving it of course, is another thing entirely. Those of you who have been annoyed by the same trash bearing my name please be assured it is NOT coming from me, even as clever as the forger seems to be. The spam has dealt with everything from work at home schemes through other get rich on the net plans and penis enlargement plans. I do hope the two people (primarily) who raised the biggest stink about the Porn Worm thing and claimed it (porn) was the 'direction the Digest was going' won't wind up getting this other stuff and get hysterical about it also. Patrick Townson ------------------------------ From: MLM Moderator Subject: Compensation For Telephones Sold Programmed to Call my Telephone Date: Sun, 07 Mar 2004 15:14:09 -0500 Approved for misc.legal.moderated Bernie Cosell moderator: misc.legal.moderated From: ConsultingServices2004@yahoo.com (Consultant) Subject: Compensation for telephones sold programmed to call my mobile telephone. Date: 5 Mar 2004 18:46:54 -0800 What do you think of this? A USA Telecom company sold phones that were programmed wrong so they call my mobile phone instead of voicemail. The problem is the number that was programmed in was only valid for one place in the USA. When that phone is used in my state, people call my business mobile phone (instead of their voicemail). I have had HUNDREDS of these calls to my mobile phone. It took me some time to get one of the callers from these seemingly random numbers to let me know they were trying to reach voicemail. I put enough pieces of information together that I called the telecom company and spent several hours getting to the right person who would understand what I was saying. I had to ask callers who called me for more information before I diagnosed exactly what was happening. Today someone from the company called and said they would like to compensate me. The people I've dealt with at the company have been nice. I don't want to be unfair in dealing with them, but I'm wondering what should reasonably request as remuneration. Is what they did illegal? Would the FCC consider this any sort of violation? Could this be considered harrassing calls (even though the telecom company didn't actually place the calls, simply provided the incorrectly programmed equipment)? What do YOU think? [TELECOM Digest Editor's Note: After dealing with this situation first hand on one occassion (but thank God, in the early 1970's when there was still a legitimate phone company [Illinois Bell] with reasonably intelligent people working for it who had genuine concerns about service) in the Chicago-Beverly ESS cutover when I spend a day getting bombed with calls for Sears, Roebuck, and seeing a few anecdotal cases where a bank (First National of Chicago) misprogrammed their auto-dial Fax machine and other cases, it is very hard for me to approach this without some bias. On the one hand, I would say take them to Small Claims Court (telcos [and banks] absolutely despise that place, and the people who resort to using those places) but you can get very good satisfaction from it. What they did to you is not illegal, unless being a stupid person is against the law (I sometimes think it should be) and any court would resent being asked to function as your collection agency. You would definitly need to document exactly how much inconvenience you suffered. You might be able to sue for negligence on the telco's part, in not properly supervising the employee who programmed the phone. But if telco is being nice about it, and has ended the problem, then I would think a new cellphone for free, and a few hundred dollars would suffice. Are *they* asking you to name the amount? Have they hinted at any amount they think is fair? PAT] ------------------------------ From: johnfofawn@hotmail.com (John) Subject: Should I Use 66-Block? Date: 7 Mar 2004 11:20:18 -0800 Organization: http://groups.google.com I only have one POTS phone line. I just re-wired my basement and I used CAT5 wire in running all my POTS lines. I now have 8 POTS jacks in the basement that I need to connect to the phone system. I bought a 66-block (Leviton 4066-M50) at Home Depot and I assumed (incorrectly) that I could put the red, green, yellow, and black on each column and then wire the extensions (TIA 568A) to each of the rows. I now understand a 66-block doesn't work this way. Is there something better I can do other than twisting 8 wires together for each of the 4 colors? I looked at a Leviton catalog and I understand how patch panels work, but it's just too expensive. Advice? Thanks, John ------------------------------ From: Gary Novosielski Subject: Re: Verizon Wireless and Verizon Airfone Offer 10 Cents-a-Minute Date: Sat, 06 Mar 2004 03:02:57 GMT Joseph wrote: > You *still* can't use your mobile phone *in* flight. Correct. > It's assumed that you will make arrangements for the transfer of > your calls and account setup whether the "a la carte" 69 cent plan > or the frequent traveler $10/month plan from your mobile phone to > Airphone before the flight leaves. This is about Airphone and not > about Verizon Wireless in flight. As long as you have an assigned AirFone/VZW PIN number, you don't need to do anything with the mobile handset before the flight leaves. Once you're onboard the plane, before or after takeoff, you can program the seatback AirFone handset with your special PIN number. At that point your wireless number will begin to forward to the AirFone at your seat, using the "roaming" rate you've signed up for. When you land, you turn your mobile phone back on. The forwarding is cancelled as soon as the network sees your mobile handset checking back into the net. ------------------------------ From: Steven J Sobol Subject: Re: Verizon Wireless and Verizon Airfone Offer 10 Cents-a-Minute Date: Fri, 05 Mar 2004 09:56:45 -0600 Gary Novosielski wrote: > THIS IS NOT THE CASE! You need to "sign up" for EITHER the > subscription or the non-subscription feature. If you do nothing and > place a call from an AirFone handset, you'll be charged the normal > ~$4/min rate. The press release is just a press release. I'm sure whatever literature the company releases will state that ... VZW is pretty good about disclosing everything. JustThe.net Internet & New Media Services, Apple Valley, CA Steven J. Sobol, Geek In Charge / 888.480.4NET (4638) / sjsobol@JustThe.net PGP: C57E 8B25 F994 D6D0 5F6B B961 EA08 9410 E3AE 35ED Domain Names, $9.95/yr, great service: http://DomainNames.JustThe.net/ ------------------------------ Date: 6 Mar 2004 22:30:54 -0000 From: John Levine Subject: Re: Vonage with Modem and Fax Organization: I.E.C.C., Trumansburg NY USA > Thanks for the info ... but after contacting Vonage via email, they > said they don't have my area yet but should soon. That means they don't have local numbers in your area. They work fine on any broadband connection. For a second line that's used mostly for outgoing calls, the number doesn't much matter. If you have friends or relatives somewhere else, get a number there and they can call you for free. If you tell them where you want a number, they'll let you know when they have numbers there and let you change your number at that time for free. By the way, I see that Vonage just adjusted their international rates downward by quite a lot. Calls to the UK, France, and Hong Kong are 2 cpm, Mexico City is 5 cpm, etc. Regards, John R. Levine, IECC, POB 727, Trumansburg NY 14886 +1 607 330 5711 johnl@iecc.com Village Trustee and Sewer Commissioner http://iecc.com/johnl Member, Provisional board, Coalition Against Unsolicited Commercial E-mail ------------------------------ Date: Sat, 06 Mar 2004 22:26:07 -0600 From: Name Withheld at Users Request Subject: Re: Need to Block Outgoing Calls to Specific Numbers Earlier, I wrote: > [PAT - In the interest of privacy, please delete my .sig and email > address from this post. Thanks.] Do it again, please? > I'm looking for a way to block outgoing calls to three specific phone > numbers. > I'm pretty sure telco can block _incoming_ calls _from_ a certain > number, and this might be an option -- I could offer to pay for this > service on the neighbors' lines. But I'd rather handle it on the > originating end if possible. I plan to call telco tomorrow and see if > they offer an outbound-blocking feature. Lo and behold, they do! There's a service called "Call Control" that allows blocking of specific numbers, even local numbers. So we've ordered that. We also ordered "Call Screening" to block incoming calls from some "charities" who solicit her for cash donations weekly. I'll also be contacting Carl and Mike, in case the Telco solution doesn't work out for some reason ... Thanks, folks. ------------------------------ From: David S. Roland Subject: Re: Quest to Offer "Naked DSL" Date: Sun, 07 Mar 2004 14:39:31 -0700 This may have been dealt ... distance as the crow flies, is not the same as wire length especially, when the provider tries to find an open cable pair. maybe the only way to get a pair to you is by way of a backup cable coming from the other direction. We got a dry copper pair installed which came out initially at 13,000ft. after the sdsl modems came in ... we tested out at 27,000ft. that was 30 days later. Tony P. wrote: > In article , epg1@comcast.net > says: >> McWebber (mcwebber@my-deja.com) wrote: >>> Verizon recently caved and now allows DSL only subscriptions, so I'm >>> sure Qworst looked at that before making the decision. >> Can anyone provide details of DSL-only subscriptions through Verizon >> (in Eastern Massachusetts, if it matters)? I would love to tell >> Comcast where to shove their overpriced service. >> [TELECOM Digest Editor's Note: Well, if you think the telephone >> company is going to give you a better deal *and* stick to their word, >> you might need to review your premises. (in other words, think again.) >> PAT] > Somewhat true -- I was promised 1.5MBps service and got 760KBps but know > what, it's as fast or faster in many cases than Cox own 2MBps service > promise. > just go to http://www.verizon.net and on that page I believe there's a > script that will tell you if you qualify for DSL. > ** WARNING ** The folks at Verizon DSL are a little bit brain dead. I > was told I was 27K feet from the CO when I know that's not the case. > Turns out I'm actually 9K feet from the CO, or 1/3 the distance. > Their records are notoriously bad. So don't accept a no answer without > first calling repair and asking them to run a loop length test. Then > call the Verizon DSL folks and explain that you called repair and they > verified the distance recorded in the Verizon DSL database is wrong. <<--Ask me about the Residential (ISDN based) Information Appliance -->> Roland Projects, Inc. P.O. Box 370745 Denver, Colorado 80237-0745 Telecommunication Application and System Software Office: (303) 340-3090 ------------------------------ 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, Yahoo Groups, 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: 620-402-0134 Fax 1: 775-255-9970 Fax 2: 530-309-7234 Fax 3: 208-692-5145 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 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 fifty 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. If you donate at least fifty dollars per year we will send you our two-CD set of the entire Telecom Archives; this is every word published in this Digest since our beginning in 1981. 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 V23 #108 ****************************** From editor@telecom-digest.org Mon Mar 8 02:09:58 2004 Received: (from ptownson@localhost) by massis.lcs.mit.edu (8.11.6p2/8.11.3) id i2879vN23231; Mon, 8 Mar 2004 02:09:58 -0500 (EST) Date: Mon, 8 Mar 2004 02:09:58 -0500 (EST) From: editor@telecom-digest.org Message-Id: <200403080709.i2879vN23231@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 V23 #109 TELECOM Digest Mon, 8 Mar 2004 02:10:00 EST Volume 23 : Issue 109 Inside This Issue: Editor: Patrick A. Townson Earthlink to Test Caller ID for E-Mail (Monty Solomon) Experts Question Microsoft's Caller ID Plans (Monty Solomon) "Preventing the Internet Meltdown" (Monty Solomon) Liberty May be Weighing Break-Up - Barron's (Monty Solomon) Snapshots in Time ... (Al Gillis) Re: Should I Use 66-Block? (Carl Navarro) Re: Compensation For Telephones Sold Incorrectly Programmed (Berkowitz) Re: Spam Going Out Under My Name (jmayson@nyx.net) Re: Spam (Allen McIntosh) Last Laugh! What a Deal! (zxe@hotmail.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. =========================== Addresses herein are not to be added to any mailing list, nor to be sold or given away without explicit written consent. Chain letters, viruses, porn, spam, and miscellaneous junk is definitely unwelcome. We must fight spam for the same reason we fight crime: not because we are naive enough to believe that we will ever stamp it out, but because we do not want the kind of world that results when no one stands against crime. Geoffrey Welsh =========================== See the bottom of this issue for subscription and archive details and the name of our lawyer; other stuff of interest. ---------------------------------------------------------------------- Date: Mon, 8 Mar 2004 00:29:25 -0500 From: Monty Solomon Subject: Earthlink to Test Caller ID for E-Mail New systems could fight spam and Internet scams, company says. Paul Roberts, IDG News Service ISP Earthlink will soon begin testing new e-mail security technology, including Microsoft's recently released Caller ID technology, a company executive says. Earthlink will be experimenting "very soon," with "sender authentication" technology including Caller ID and a similar plan called Sender Policy Framework (SPF). The Atlanta-based ISP will be evaluating other e-mail security proposals as well, but is not backing any specific technology, says Robert Sanders, chief architect at Earthlink. Plans to secure e-mail by verifying the source of e-mail messages have garnered much attention in recent months, as the volume of spam has swelled and the number of Internet scams has increased. Spammers and Internet-based criminals often fake, or "spoof," the origin of e-mail messages to trick recipients into opening them and trusting their content. Sender authentication technologies attempt to stop spoofing by matching the source of e-mail messages with a specific user or an approved e-mail server for the Internet domain that the message purports to come from. http://www.pcworld.com/news/article/0,aid,115094,00.asp ------------------------------ Date: Mon, 8 Mar 2004 00:31:17 -0500 From: Monty Solomon Subject: Experts Question Microsoft's Caller ID Plans Is the software giant trying to profit from the proposed e-mail security system? Paul Roberts, IDG News Service Just a week after Microsoft's Chairman and Chief Software Architect Bill Gates unveiled a plan for securing e-mail communications, leading e-mail authorities, legal experts, and at least one Internet service provider are expressing concerns about the e-mail sender authentication plan, known as Caller ID. Some experts agree that the technology is promising. However, Microsoft's claim that it owns patents around Caller ID and its decision to license the technology to third parties, rather than submit it to an Internet standards body, have riled e-mail experts and domain owners, some of whom say they worry about a power grab by the Redmond, Washington, company and are wary of signing on to the new system. Caller ID allows Internet domain owners to publish the IP (Internet Protocol) address of their outgoing e-mail servers in an XML format e-mail "policy" in the DNS (Domain Name System) record for their domain. E-mail servers can query the DNS record and match the source IP address of incoming e-mail messages to the address of the approved sending servers, Microsoft says. The goal is to reduce spam for end users. Speaking at the RSA Conference last month in San Francisco, Gates set out an ambitious agenda for deploying Caller ID, saying it would be "very easy for people to apply," and that Microsoft hoped to have Caller ID in place by the third quarter, provided it could reach "the right agreements" with ISPs and e-mail providers. Gates did not elaborate on what those agreements might involve, but said that Microsoft had some patents related to "the fundamentals" of Caller ID which is "royalty free, available for everyone to use," according to a transcript of his RSA speech. http://www.pcworld.com/news/article/0,aid,115095,00.asp ------------------------------ Date: Sun, 7 Mar 2004 22:49:09 -0500 From: Monty Solomon Subject: "Preventing the Internet Meltdown" PFIR Conference Announcement "Preventing the Internet Meltdown" Spring/Summer 2004 Los Angeles, California, USA --------------------------------- March 6, 2004 People For Internet Responsibility (PFIR) is pleased to preliminarily announce an "emergency" conference aimed at preventing the "meltdown" of the Internet -- the risks of imminent disruption, degradation, unfair manipulation, and other negative impacts on critical Internet services and systems in ways that will have a profound impact on the Net and its users around the world. http://www.pfir.org/meltdown ------------------------------ Date: Sun, 7 Mar 2004 22:40:23 -0500 From: Monty Solomon Subject: Liberty May be Weighing Break-up - Barron's NEW YORK, March 7 (Reuters) - Liberty Media Corp. (NYSE:L), could be weighing a break-up amid renewed speculation the company may be nearing a financial restructuring that could unlock some of its value, Barron's reported in its online edition on Sunday. Barron's said there is a growing sense on Wall Street that the company has become too complex, with dozens of media- and telecom-related properties. Liberty's Class A shares, at around $11.60, are well below their peak of $30 in early 2000 and currently stand no higher than they did in late 1998. Liberty, a holding company, now trades at a nearly 25 percent discount to its asset value, Barron's said. - http://finance.lycos.com/home/news/story.asp?story=40771644 ------------------------------ From: Al Gillis Subject: Snapshots in Time ... Date: Sun, 7 Mar 2004 19:44:00 -0800 Organization: http://extra.newsguy.com Well, On Friday a Uniformed Agent of the United States Government came to my home to deliver my new copy of Snapshots in Time, A Photographic History of Ameritech. As Pat promised it's quite a nice book with few words and lots of photos of Bell System history from the five states that made up Ameritech. Those companies are Illinois Bell, Indiana Bell, Michigan Bell, Ohio Bell and Wisconsin Telephone (their corresponding states of operation should be obvious to the casual observer). I would have liked to see a little more on the technology, particularly Step by Step, which was so pervasive across America (and the world, too) as well as Crossbar systems. Do you suppose Mr. Caughlin has another book in him? The people made a lot of the book more interesting, especially their manner of dress (compare the operators on pages 58 and 138, for example) and the hair styles (Boy! Those sideburns in the middle 1970s!). Vehicles also changed substantially, of course. An oddity that would probably never happen in this age is reviewed on pages 83-85. Moving the Indianapolis headquarters building of Indiana Bell WHILE IT'S STILL IN OPERATION as an office and Central Office building! Those guys were gutsy! Anyway, thanks again Pat for pointing this book out to us. If you're interested in Bell System history you should have this book. Oh, does anyone know if other Bell entities have published similar books? Al [TELECOM Digest Editor's Note: Let's ask Mr. Caughlin right now ... is there a possibility of another book of pictures like your last one anytime soon ? In case you did not order your copy and want to do so now, here is the address and an order coupon once again: The SBC Archives and History Center is pleased to offer the book entitled, Snapshots in Time: A Photographic History of Ameritech. This 192-page soft-cover book chronicles the evolution of telecommunications in the SBC Midwest (former Ameritech) five-state region through select historical images. It offers more than 225 captioned photos of switchboard operators, crews with their vehicles and technicians testing central office equipment. The book begins with an 1876 portrait of Alexander Graham Bell and ends in 1999, on the eve of the SBC/Ameritech merger. The cost for each book is $25.00, plus $4.95 for shipping. To order, fill out the form below. If you have questions, please call Bill Caughlin at (210) 524-6192. Or send him an e-mail at wc2942@sbc.com --------------------------------------------------------------- ORDER FORM FOR Snapshots in Time: A Photographic History of Ameritech NAME __________________________________________________ BUSINESS UNIT ________________________________________ ADDRESS _______________________________________________ _______________________________________________ CITY _________________________ STATE _____ ZIP __________ PHONE NUMBER (______)_________________________ I would like to order _______ copy(ies) each at $25.00, plus $4.95 shipping, for a total of _____________. No cash, please. Make your check or money order payable to SBC Services, Inc. and send it to: SBC Archives and History Center 7990 IH-10 West Floor 1 San Antonio, Texas 78230 ------------------------------ From: Carl Navarro Subject: Re: Should I Use 66-Block? Date: Sun, 07 Mar 2004 20:31:29 -0500 Organization: Airnews.net! at Internet America On 7 Mar 2004 11:20:18 -0800, johnfofawn@hotmail.com (John) wrote: > I only have one POTS phone line. I just re-wired my basement and I > used CAT5 wire in running all my POTS lines. I now have 8 POTS jacks > in the basement that I need to connect to the phone system. > I bought a 66-block (Leviton 4066-M50) at Home Depot and I assumed > (incorrectly) that I could put the red, green, yellow, and black on > each column and then wire the extensions (TIA 568A) to each of the > rows. I now understand a 66-block doesn't work this way. > Is there something better I can do other than twisting 8 wires > together for each of the 4 colors? I looked at a Leviton catalog and I > understand how patch panels work, but it's just too expensive. ^^^^^^^^ The 66 block you are holding is the least expensive solution. There's always something better. For about $25 (Leviton 47603-110) you can buy the residential module that will accept 10 Cat-5 cables in a bunching block. You might have to go across the street to Lowes for their brand of Home Center stuff and/or mount it with some ummm good old fashioned engineering. If you leave the cables a bit longer for when you change your mind and want to put in a real patch panel, you can always terminate the cables on the 66 block. You keep the cable jacket together and terminate all cables on the A or D row (6 cables on one side and 2 cables on the other). You bring out the first pair, fan it between pins 1 and 2 and terminate the white/blue up and the blue/white down. Then you fan the orange pair between pins 3 & 4 and do the same thing and so on down the line. I'd like to tell you that I can e-mail examples to you, but the truth is I have only terminaed Cat-5 on a 66 block once :-) After you get your 8 cables on the 66 block, the looping part of the tool can be used to get the wiring to the first pairs of each cable. Carl Navarro ------------------------------ From: Gene S. Berkowitz Subject: Re: Compensation For Telephones Sold Incorrectly Programmed Date: Sun, 7 Mar 2004 22:14:04 -0500 In article , mlmmod@rev.net says: > Approved for misc.legal.moderated > Bernie Cosell > moderator: misc.legal.moderated > From: ConsultingServices2004@yahoo.com (Consultant) > Subject: Compensation for telephones sold programmed to call my > mobile telephone. > Date: 5 Mar 2004 18:46:54 -0800 > What do you think of this? > A USA Telecom company sold phones that were programmed wrong so they > call my mobile phone instead of voicemail. > The problem is the number that was programmed in was only valid for > one place in the USA. When that phone is used in my state, people > call my business mobile phone (instead of their voicemail). I have > had HUNDREDS of these calls to my mobile phone. > It took me some time to get one of the callers from these seemingly > random numbers to let me know they were trying to reach voicemail. I > put enough pieces of information together that I called the telecom > company and spent several hours getting to the right person who would > understand what I was saying. I had to ask callers who called me for > more information before I diagnosed exactly what was happening. > Today someone from the company called and said they would like to > compensate me. The people I've dealt with at the company have been > nice. I don't want to be unfair in dealing with them, but I'm > wondering what should reasonably request as remuneration. > Is what they did illegal? > Would the FCC consider this any sort of violation? > Could this be considered harrassing calls (even though the telecom > company didn't actually place the calls, simply provided the > incorrectly programmed equipment)? > What do YOU think? > [TELECOM Digest Editor's Note: After dealing with this situation first > hand on one occassion (but thank God, in the early 1970's when there was > still a legitimate phone company [Illinois Bell] with reasonably > intelligent people working for it who had genuine concerns about service) > in the Chicago-Beverly ESS cutover when I spend a day getting bombed > with calls for Sears, Roebuck, and seeing a few anecdotal cases where > a bank (First National of Chicago) misprogrammed their auto-dial Fax > machine and other cases, it is very hard for me to approach this > without some bias. On the one hand, I would say take them to Small > Claims Court (telcos [and banks] absolutely despise that place, and > the people who resort to using those places) but you can get very > good satisfaction from it. > What they did to you is not illegal, unless being a stupid person is > against the law (I sometimes think it should be) and any court would > resent being asked to function as your collection agency. You would > definitly need to document exactly how much inconvenience you > suffered. You might be able to sue for negligence on the telco's part, > in not properly supervising the employee who programmed the phone. > But if telco is being nice about it, and has ended the problem, then > I would think a new cellphone for free, and a few hundred dollars > would suffice. Are *they* asking you to name the amount? Have they > hinted at any amount they think is fair? PAT] I would: Add up the airtime minutes used handling these calls. Add in the time spent identifying and attempting to correct the problem. Multiply by your per-minute salary (i.e. your hourly rate $ / 60). Round up to the nearest hundred $. And, like Pat said, ask for a phone, and a year's paid up service. --Gene ------------------------------ From: jmayson@nyx.net Subject: Re: Spam Going Out Under My Name Date: Mon, 08 Mar 2004 01:58:45 GMT Organization: Road Runner High Speed Online http://www.rr.com > I guess one way of getting someone out of business you dislike is by > sending a load of trash under their name, and hope that most readers > do not take the trouble to investigate it. I suppose I should get a > signature encryption, slap an 'iron clad' (as that goes) copyright on > all my work, including this Digest, etc, but I just do not have the > energy to go to all that work. I started GnuPG signing all of my outgoing messages because of people forging messages to appear to come from me. A few years ago I had to argue with Yahoo! and my ISP not to yank my accounts over messages I did not send. Mindspring (my ISP at the time) was very professional about it and actually took the time to review the mail headers and confirmed they had originated with another ISP in a different part of the country. The complainants' ISPs didn't bother looking at the header and turned me over to Mindspring. :-/ Today I can tell people if the message isn't signed, it probably did not originate with me. And don't worry Pat, I know you wouldn't spam anyone, so if I get any from you (though I use procmail and never see any), I'll ignore it immediately! John Mayson Austin, Texas, USA ------------------------------ Date: Sun, 7 Mar 2004 21:33:53 -0500 From: Allen McIntosh Subject: Re: Spam You have just experienced firsthand the reason why I no longer post to netnews under my own name. (I know I'm not alone in this.) After one weekend where our computer staff deleted five *thousand* spam e-mails to me, I decided it wasn't worth it. I can do this because I don't edit anything online. You can't, unfortunately ... [TELECOM Digest Editor's Note: No, I cannot do that, and I am not sure if I would want to anyway. I am thinking however about doing something like PGP on my signature, then disavowing anything that does not have my encrypted mark on it. But I am getting so many requests to hide email addresses these days in the Digest, I am giving serious consid- eration to **removing all email addresses** in the Digest, something I would have been horrified by a few years ago. I *like* the idea of having open addressing here so readers can contact one another with questions, solutions, etc. It is not up to me to control the flow of mail here, or require everyone to come through here with comments and answers, etc. But there really is not going to be much of a choice very soon. I am also thinking about installing a 'challenge/white list' approach on incoming mail. Everyone will *have* to use a valid address to reach me and 'good' for-real correspondents will go on a 'white list' for future incoming mail, however I will automatically strip off the email addresses on everything before it leaves here and goes back out. No good answer to the challenge, I won't even see the mail; not that it will fall in an overflowing spam bucket; it will just get bashed on the way in the door. Nothing definite on this yet, but I have to do something. The spam count is now higher than ever. PAT] ------------------------------ From: zxe@hotmail.com Subject: Last Laugh! What a Deal! Reply-To: zxe@hotmail.com Date: Mon, 8 Mar 2004 14:09:20 +0800 Email Marketing ! We offer you e-mail addresses databases for advertisement mailing; we sell databases also carry out mailing and hosting for the advertising projects. Products: World Email Lists . Their validity and originality are verified. Country or area total emails and price: America 175 Million Email Address $220 US Europe 156 Million Email Address $250 US Asia 168 Million Email Address $150 US China(PRC) 80 Million Email Address $200 US HongKong 3.25 Million Email Address $200 US TaiWan 2.25 Million Email Address $200 US Japan 27 Million Email Address $200 US Australia 6 Million Email Address $150 US Canda 10 Million Email Address $150 US Russia 38 Million Email Address $120 US England 3.2 Million Email Address $200 US German 20 Million Email Address $200 US France 38 Million Email Address $150 US India 12 Million Email Address $120 US CENTRAL & SOUTH AMERICAN AREA 40 Million Email Address $220 US MIDDLE EAST & AFRICA 45 million Email Address $220 US SOUTH EAST AREA 32 million Email Address $220 US other Country or Area ¡­¡­¡­¡­¡­¡­ order email : emailwd3@tom.com ----------------------------------------------- Category Name total emails total price Apparel, Fashion, Textiles and Leather 4,654,565 $150 $100 US Automobile & Transportation 6,547,845 Business Services 6,366,344 Chemicals 3,445,565 Computer & Telecommunications 654,655 Construction & Real Estate 3,443,544 Consumer Electronics 1,333,443 Energy, Minerals & Metals 6,765,683 Environment 656,533 All Email Total: $150 U.S Food & Agriculture 1,235,354 Gems & Jewellery 565,438 Health & Beauty 804,654 Home Supplies 323,232 Industrial Supplies 415,668 Office Supplies 1,559,892 Packaging & Paper 5,675,648 Printing & Publishing 6,563,445 Security & Protection 5,653,494 Sports & Entertainment 3,488,455 Toys, Gifts and Handicrafts 2,135,654 ¡¤All 136 nations , 40 trades email lists total price $500 US $100 US V4.03 $200 US V3.0 $200 US $100 US All of Country email lists + email sender express +add url express + etrae express =$600 US Details and order Click Here to web site: http://vod.xzdvd.com/www/wd/wd3.htm There are some sample download. order email : emailwd3@tom.com If you can't see website, please email us contact: emailwd3@tom.com Thank you! the silver star internet information company copyright 2004-2005 all reserved [TELECOM Digest Editor's Note: I wonder if these gentlemen would like a little spam email of their own? Nah, its probably useless to try and fight with them any longer. But just imagine, you can spend a mere $600 and get enough lists to never quit sending email. 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, Yahoo Groups, 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: 620-402-0134 Fax 1: 775-255-9970 Fax 2: 530-309-7234 Fax 3: 208-692-5145 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 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 fifty 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. If you donate at least fifty dollars per year we will send you our two-CD set of the entire Telecom Archives; this is every word published in this Digest since our beginning in 1981. 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 V23 #109 ****************************** From editor@telecom-digest.org Mon Mar 8 13:49:40 2004 Received: (from ptownson@localhost) by massis.lcs.mit.edu (8.11.6p2/8.11.3) id i28IneM28962; Mon, 8 Mar 2004 13:49:40 -0500 (EST) Date: Mon, 8 Mar 2004 13:49:40 -0500 (EST) From: editor@telecom-digest.org Message-Id: <200403081849.i28IneM28962@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 V23 #110 TELECOM Digest Mon, 8 Mar 2004 13:50:00 EST Volume 23 : Issue 110 Inside This Issue: Editor: Patrick A. Townson Telecom Update (Canada) #423, March 8, 2004 (Angus Telemanagement) Ergen Waiting Out Viacom/EchoStar Chief Discusses Future (Monty Solomon) BellSouth to Sell Latin America Operations to Telefonica (Monty Solomon) Re: Should I Use 66-Block? (Monty Solomon) TiVo Challenges Give Analysts Pause (Monty Solomon) Nielsen PVR Plan Gives Agencies Pause (Monty Solomon) TiVo Zips Ahead, Will Record 3 Million By Year-End, 10 Million (Solomon) AT&T Expands 'City Savings' for International Calling (Monty Solomon) Re: Spam Going Out Under My Name (Linus Surguy) FREE Personal SMS Software & Interactive SMS Shareware (touchring) Re: Snapshots in Time (Wesrock@aol.com) Re: Need to Block Outgoing Calls to Specific Numbers (Sammy@nospam.biz) 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. =========================== Addresses herein are not to be added to any mailing list, nor to be sold or given away without explicit written consent. Chain letters, viruses, porn, spam, and miscellaneous junk is definitely unwelcome. We must fight spam for the same reason we fight crime: not because we are naive enough to believe that we will ever stamp it out, but because we do not want the kind of world that results when no one stands against crime. Geoffrey Welsh =========================== See the bottom of this issue for subscription and archive details and the name of our lawyer; other stuff of interest. ---------------------------------------------------------------------- Date: Mon, 08 Mar 2004 11:31:59 -0500 From: Angus Telemanagement Subject: Telecom Update (Canada) #423, March 8, 2004 ************************************************************ TELECOM UPDATE ************************************************************ published weekly by Angus TeleManagement Group http://www.angustel.ca Number 423: March 8, 2004 Publication of Telecom Update is made possible by generous financial support from: ** ALLSTREAM: www.allstream.com ** BELL CANADA: www.bell.ca ** CISCO SYSTEMS CANADA: www.cisco.com/ca ** CYGCOM INTEGRATED TECHNOLOGIES: www.cygcom.com ** GROUP TELECOM: www.360.net ** JUNIPER NETWORKS: www.juniper.net ** PRIMUS CANADA: www.primustel.ca ** SPRINT CANADA: www.sprint.ca ** TELUS: www.telus.com ************************************************************ IN THIS ISSUE: ** Wireless Broadband Net Launched in B.C. ** Telus to Manage Ontario-Owned Telco ** Carriers Reach Wi-Fi Roaming Deal ** CRTC to Seek Input on VoIP Rules ** Ebbers Charged With Fraud ** Ottawa Utelco to Use Meriton Technology ** Bell Local Link Rates to Increase ** Onlinetel Expands Call Zone Coverage ** Sympatico Offers Wireless Home LAN ** Rogers Drops AT&T Brand ** CRTC Suspends Bell Forbearance Application ** Competitors Assail Telco Ethernet Tariffs ** CRTC to Expedite Three Disputes ** Call-Net Withdraws Part VII Against Bell & RBC ** Ottawa 911 Service Crashes ** McCaw to Invest in Microcell ** Call-Net Redeems Debt ** Moody's Upgrades Telus ** Embree Joins Fraser Milner ** Rogers Exec Quits ** User-Focused Telecom Conference Planned ** Charter Offer for Telemanagement Online ============================================================ WIRELESS BROADBAND NET LAUNCHED IN B.C.: Allstream, Microcell subsidiary Inukshuk, and NR Communications have launched their wholesale wireless Internet access network in Richmond, B.C. (See Telecom Update #409) The service uses NextNet Wireless technology to provide non-line-of-sight connections within 2.5 km of any network base station. The companies say they will begin service in another city "in the coming weeks," and will finalize national deployment plans by mid- year. Microcell and Allstream announced retail services using the new net: ** Microcell's iFido provides 2.2 Mbps Internet access for $40/month -- $20/month for the first six months. Microcell will offer a 20% discount to customers who take both iFido and City Fido service. ** Allstream's 2.1 Mbps service for business customers is $59.95/month. It includes roaming wireless and wireline access in thousands of locations worldwide. TELUS TO MANAGE ONTARIO-OWNED TELCO: Announcing its decision to abandon efforts to privatize the Ontario Northland Transportation Commission, the Ontario Government last week Instructed ONTC to finalize an agreement under which Telus Corporation will provide "enhanced telecommunications management services and expertise" to O.N.Telcom, the ONTC-owned telco that serves northeastern Ontario. CARRIERS REACH WI-FI ROAMING DEAL: The four national wireless carriers have signed an inter-carrier agreement establishing common standards for roaming and interoperability of their public Wi-Fi hotspots. The standards include a common brand identifier, a standard user interface, and a payment process for roaming. ** The four carriers say that roaming will begin this fall, and that they will deploy more than 500 new hotspots in the coming year. CRTC TO SEEK INPUT ON VoIP RULES: In an interview with Bloomberg News last week, CRTC Chairman Charles Dalfen said the Commission will this month invite comments on regulation of VoIP services provided by incumbent telcos and other service providers. EBBERS CHARGED WITH FRAUD: Bernard Ebbers, the Canadian-born executive who led WorldCom into the largest-ever U.S. bankruptcy, has been charged with securities fraud, conspiracy, and making a false filing to the SEC. Ebbers pleaded not guilty. ** WorldCom's former CFO, Scott Sullivan, last week pleaded guilty to criminal charges related to the multi-billion dollar accounting scandal. OTTAWA UTELCO TO USE MERITON TECHNOLOGY: Meriton Networks, an Ottawa-based developer of optical wavelength networking systems, says that Telecom Ottawa has agreed to use Meriton's managed High-Speed Metro architecture to deliver Gigabit Ethernet services. The value of the contract was not announced. BELL LOCAL LINK RATES TO INCREASE: CRTC Telecom Order 2004-61 approves a $1/month increase in the monthly rate for uncontracted and one- or three-year contracted Bell Canada Local Link lines, effective April 1. www.crtc.gc.ca/archive/ENG/Orders/2004/o2004-61.htm ONLINETEL EXPANDS CALL ZONE COVERAGE: Onlinetel has expanded its Quebec service to include Trois Rivieres, Chicoutimi, and Sherbrooke. Call Zone offers customers 200 calls per month within a provincial zone for $20 a year. Call Zone is currently offered in Quebec, Ontario, and Alberta; the company says it will add B.C. "in the near future." SYMPATICO OFFERS WIRELESS HOME LAN: Sympatico now offers its residential High Speed and High Speed Ultra customers a Siemens integrated modem and wireless router, in place of its standard modem, for a one-time fee of $69.95. Installation is available for $99.00. ROGERS DROPS AT&T BRAND: Effective today, the name Rogers AT&T Wireless becomes Rogers Wireless. CRTC SUSPENDS BELL FORBEARANCE APPLICATION: On March 5, the CRTC suspended "until further notice" Bell Canada's application to deregulate its high-speed digital access services in some markets (see Telecom Update #422). The Commission gave no reason for the suspension, but likely intends to address the issue through a public notice. COMPETITORS ASSAIL TELCO ETHERNET TARIFFS: Call-Net and Allstream say that Ethernet Interface Service tariffs filed by Bell Canada and Telus in response to a CRTC order are unduly restrictive. The competitors also note that the telcos say they can't offer the service yet, and will submit timing information on March 12 (Bell) and March 26 (Telus). Call-Net and Allstream say the telcos should be required to offer their complete retail Ethernet Access service under general tariff, until all the unbundled components are available. ** Call-Net also questions why Telus's proposed rates are much higher than Bell Canada's. www.crtc.gc.ca/8740/eng/2003/b2-6726.htm www.crtc.gc.ca/8740/eng/2004/t66_138.htm CRTC TO EXPEDITE THREE DISPUTES: The CRTC has begun using its new procedure for expediting competitive disputes (see Telecom Update #420). It has referred three issues to a three-Commissioner panel; an oral hearing will be held March 26. The disputes to be adjudicated are: ** Cybersurf's dispute with Shaw Cablesystems about third party Internet access (see Telecom Update #388, 414, 419). ** Shaw's challenge to Telus's student bundle (see Telecom Update #401). ** Rogers and Call-Net's challenge to Bell Canada's consumer bundles (see Telecom Update #410). CALL-NET WITHDRAWS PART VII AGAINST BELL & RBC: Bell Canada says it will not "mass transfer" Sprint long distance customers served under a "Talk and Save" program available to Royal Bank Visa users. RBC will use rebiller CD Tel to attempt to convert the customers on an individual basis. (See Telecom Update #419) ** In response, Call-Net has withdrawn its Part VII application against the transfer, but says it believes CD Tel is misleading customers and violating privacy regulations. www.crtc.gc.ca/PartVII/eng/2004/8622/c25_200400812.htm OTTAWA 911 SERVICE CRASHES: An unexplained system failure left the Ottawa area with no 911 access for about 30 minutes on March 1, and an automated back-up system also failed. Bell Canada restored service by manually activating the system, which rerouted Ottawa 911 calls through Kingston and back. McCAW TO INVEST IN MICROCELL: Microcell Telecommunications says that U.S. telecom entrepreneur Craig McCaw will act as "standby purchaser" for any of the rights not taken up in its current C$100 million offering, and may also invest up to $50 million through a private holding company, COM Canada. CALL-NET REDEEMS DEBT: Call-Net Enterprises, parent of Sprint Canada, has purchased for cancellation US$76.4 million worth of senior secured notes. The purchase will reduce the company's annual interest payments by US$8.1 million. MOODY'S UPGRADES TELUS: Moody's Investors Services has upgraded Telus Corp.'s credit from Ba1 (junk) to Baa3 (investment grade). Moody's downgraded the company's debt in July 2002. EMBREE JOINS FRASER MILNER: Kirsten Embree has left Osler Hoskin & Harcourt to become a partner in the federal regulatory practice of Fraser Milner Casgrain. Before joining Osler Hoskin, she was director of regulatory matters at AT&T Canada. ROGERS EXEC QUITS: Dean Macdonald, Executive Vice-President and Chief Operating Officer of Rogers Cable, has resigned effective March 2004. Macdonald, who is rumored to be joining an east coast cable company, came to Rogers when it acquired Cable Atlantic in 2001. USER-FOCUSED TELECOM CONFERENCE PLANNED: Angus Dortmans Associates and PW Ritchie & Associates have scheduled TELEMANAGEMENT LIVE 2004, a two-day conference on enterprise telecom and networking, for October 20-21, 2004, in Toronto. ** Some exhibit spaces and sponsorships are available on a first-come, first-served basis: for information, e-mail itsabouttime@telemanagementlive.com. CHARTER OFFER FOR TELEMANAGEMENT ONLINE: Special Charter Subscription rates for Telemanagement Online expire soon. Subscribe now, or add online access to your print subscription, at www.angustel.ca/teleman/tm-sub-online.html ** Telemanagement #213 includes a special feature proposing ways to simplify and streamline CRTC procedures, prepared by three of Canada's most-respected regulatory lawyers, Lorne Abugov, Philip Rogers and Jennifer Crowe. ** Also in this issue: Henry Dortmans on How Suppliers View Your RFPs; John Riddell's survey of IP Telephony Systems for Branch Offices; and a hands-on review of six software packages for network monitoring and control. ============================================================ 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 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 www.angustel.ca/update/privacy.html. =========================================================== COPYRIGHT AND CONDITIONS OF USE: All contents copyright 2004 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 warran- ties 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, 8 Mar 2004 01:29:33 -0500 From: Monty Solomon Subject: Ergen Waiting Out Viacom / EchoStar Chief Discusses Future By Kris Hudson Denver Post Business Writer WASHINGTON - Charlie Ergen rarely picks a small fight. Ergen's EchoStar Communications Corp., which delivers satellite TV to 9 million subscribers under the Dish Network brand, has taken on CBS parent Viacom in a bitter legal battle. On Thursday, Ergen accused Viacom of "extortion at the highest level." He claims that for EchoStar to carry CBS, Viacom is pressuring EchoStar to pay for and carry many other Viacom-owned channels. Viacom has declined to comment. Midnight Monday is the deadline for expiration of an injunction that bars Viacom from pulling its channels off Dish Network. If Viacom pulls the plug, Dish viewers could be missing 20 channels, including CBS, MTV, VH1 and Nickelodeon. The uncertainty has trimmed EchoStar's stock price, which closed Friday at $34.55, down 4 percent. An even bigger strategic issue looms for the company Ergen co-founded in Colorado two decades ago. EchoStar, based in Douglas County, may need to find a merger or acquisition partner as programming and distribution companies merge into bigger and bigger entities. http://www.denverpost.com/Stories/0,1413,36~33~1999715,00.html [TELECOM Digest Editor's Note: So this explains why so many shows on TV Land (Channel 56 on our local cable (Cable One) have had subscripts or 'ticker messages' running over and over through the shows asking people to call Viacom and raise hell about it. This morning on 'I Love Lucy' at 10:00 AM followed by 'Leave it to Beaver' at 10:30 every five minutes more or less a little message on the screen said 'DISH Network will be dropping this show unless you call (some 800 number) and tell them to leave the programs alone.' I get it from cable, but I suppose cable gets it from satellite. That's been going on now for several days. They always begin these 'ticker messages' scrolling on the bottom of the screen with a little beep tone and in large letters the word EMERGENCY MESSAGE FROM YOUR OPERATOR! ('your operator' is a generic term I guess). The first time I heard that tone and saw the 'emergency message' come scrolling across the screen my thought was maybe there is some bad weather (tornado, etc) coming since that is the way City of Independence lets us know about trouble; that and blowing the loud horn on top of city hall; they take over the cable to make their announcements. Then the 'Emergency Message' was that DISH is going to lose a lot of channels and shows. PAT] ------------------------------ Date: Mon, 8 Mar 2004 02:15:24 -0500 From: Monty Solomon Subject: BellSouth to Sell Latin America Operations to Telefonica Moviles BellSouth Signs Definitive Agreement to Sell Its Latin America Operations to Telefonica Moviles - BellSouth to receive $4.2 billion in cash - BellSouth consolidated debt to be reduced by $1.5 billion ATLANTA, March 8 /PRNewswire-FirstCall/ -- BellSouth Corp. (NYSE:BLS) has signed a definitive agreement with Telefonica Moviles, the wireless affiliate of Telefonica, S.A. (NYSE:TEM) to sell its interests in its 10 Latin American operations. The purchase price is based on a total enterprise value of the 10 Latin American companies of $5.85 billion. BellSouth will receive after tax cash proceeds of approximately $4.2 billion and reduce consolidated debt by $1.5 billion. BellSouth and its partners operate 10 wireless companies in Latin America (Argentina, Chile, Colombia, Ecuador, Guatemala, Nicaragua, Panama, Peru, Uruguay and Venezuela). Telefonica has operations in seven Latin American countries (Brazil, Mexico, Argentina, Peru, Chile, El Salvador and Guatemala). With the acquisition, Telefonica will add six additional countries to its footprint and 10.5 million new customers. - http://finance.lycos.com/home/news/story.asp?story=40772305 ------------------------------ Date: Mon, 8 Mar 2004 02:31:20 -0500 From: Monty Solomon Subject: Re: Should I Use 66-Block? At 7:34 PM -0500 3/7/04, johnfofawn@hotmail.com (John) wrote: > Is there something better I can do other than twisting 8 wires > together for each of the 4 colors? I looked at a Leviton catalog and I > understand how patch panels work, but it's just too expensive. PhoneGeeks.com should have some useful solutions for you. Some possibilities include: http://www.phonegeeks.com/nonphonwirbl.html http://www.phonegeeks.com/66blocwit1241.html ------------------------------ Date: Mon, 8 Mar 2004 09:30:00 -0500 From: Monty Solomon Subject: TiVo Challenges Give Analysts Pause By Marla Matzer Rose LOS ANGELES (Hollywood Reporter) - TiVo is the HBO of entertainment tech companies: It gets fawning write-ups beyond all reason, if you look at it based on how many eyeballs are actually watching. It's also a little unusual that a product with so few subscribers -- well under 1 million until the quarter just ended Jan. 31 -- has had marketers and advertising agencies so spooked for the past several years about the technology undermining viewership for their commercials. Although TiVo is a "story stock" with an advancing share price recently, the company is still losing money and faces a number of challenges including stiff competition in the digital video recorder market, leading many analysts to remain cautious about buying in. http://www.reuters.com/newsArticle.jhtml?type=industryNews&storyID=4517644 ------------------------------ Date: Mon, 8 Mar 2004 09:41:21 -0500 From: Monty Solomon Subject: Nielsen PVR Plan Gives Agencies Pause By Joe Mandese Editor, MediaPost Madison Avenue would like to hit the rewind button on Nielsen's plans to measure households with digital video recorders (DVRs), and see Nielsen replay the announcement with one additional element: a plan to provide TV commercial ratings. Without them, say media agency executives, the time- shifted viewing data from DVR users would be interesting -- but almost meaningless from a media planning point of view. http://www.mediapost.com/dtls_dsp_news.cfm?newsID=240854&newsDate=03/05/2004 ------------------------------ Date: Mon, 8 Mar 2004 09:42:55 -0500 From: Monty Solomon Subject: TiVo Zips Ahead, Will Record 3 Million By Year-End, 10 Million By By Paul J. Gough Staff Writer Just a day after Nielsen unveiled plans to speed up measurement of digital video recorders due to faster-than-expected deployment by cable and satellite TV operators, TiVo the top consumer electronics marketer in the space, told shareholders it will reach 3 million subscribers by the end of the year and 10 million in four years. The number of subscribers long ago passed 600,000, the tipping point against outhouses. It stood at 1.3 million on Jan. 31, the last day of the company's fiscal year. During a conference call with analysts late Thursday, Chief Executive Officer Mike Ramsay said TiVo's goal is to top 10 million subscribers in the next three or four years. http://www.mediapost.com/dtls_dsp_news.cfm?newsID=240852 ------------------------------ Date: Mon, 8 Mar 2004 09:17:33 -0500 From: Monty Solomon Subject: AT&T Expands 'City Savings' for International Calling Enhanced Offer Provides Lower International Long-Distance Rates to 57 Cities in 25 Countries. Rates to 32 other countries also reduced. MORRISTOWN, N.J., March 8 /PRNewswire/ -- AT&T today announced that it has expanded the number of cities included in its lead international calling plan, the AT&T AnyHour Advantage Plan with City Savings(SM). Introduced in September 2003, the City Savings offer has been enhanced to include reduced-rate calling to 57 cities in 25 countries, all for a monthly plan fee of $3.95. In addition, AT&T will lower the rates for 32 countries to which consumers call from home, including the Philippines and countries throughout Western Europe and Latin America. In Western Europe, the reduced country rate of only 10 cents a minute is welcome news to all international callers, but especially those with family and loved-ones in countries such as Germany, Spain and Italy, which have a sizeable presence of American military personnel stationed there. - http://finance.lycos.com/home/news/story.asp?story=40774361 ------------------------------ From: usenet@linus.me.uk (Linus Surguy) Subject: Re: Spam Going Out Under My Name Date: Mon, 08 Mar 2004 07:44:50 GMT Organization: Magrathea Systems Ltd. Dear Patrick, On Sun, 7 Mar 2004 18:00:44 EST, you wrote: > I had pretty much (foolishly) assumed my name (Patrick A. Townson) and > Editor, both e-residing @telecom-digest.org was immune from being used > in outgoing spam and virii attacks. I found out yesterday and today > that was *not* the case, when I began receiving here at telecom a ton > of spam sent here from 'Patrick_A_Townson@telecom-digest.org' and/or > 'ptownson@telecom-digest.org' addressed to the same name and/or > Editor. I am sure many of you have recieved the same baloney in your > own email. Some virii likewise is being sent around the net claiming > to be from 'editor@telecom-digest.org' You might not be aware, and the above post tends to support this, that a lot of spam software actually picks the 'from' address at random from the pool of people that the email is going to be mailed to. Also, many pieces of spam software will now use the receipents name as the sender as well -- so don't worry your email address isn't as widepread as you think! By the way, the plural of virus is viruses, not viri[i] - this is a reoccuring thread on anti-virus newsgroups, and apparantly is because virus is an 'air noun' in Latin and therefore cannot have an 'ii' form -- or something like that! Linus Surguy - Magrathea Telecommunications Ltd. Wholesale and retail telephone services. www.magrathea-telecom.co.uk www.uknumber.co.uk www.callthrough.co.uk www.telesave.co.uk: UK 2.5p/1.5p South Africa 8p US, France, Germany Italy 3p Looking for VoIP? We will gateway SIP & IAX to and from the PSTN. ------------------------------ From: touchring@yahoo.com (touchring) Subject: FREE Personal SMS Software & Interactive SMS Shareware For Download Date: 8 Mar 2004 05:01:23 -0800 Organization: http://groups.google.com Hello, for those looking for SMS utilities/solutions, I'm releasing two very interesting messaging middlewares. Welcome all suggestions, enquiries, and biz proposals. VisualGSM Lite (Freeware) Description on CNET download ... From the developer: "The VisualGSM Lite edition allows personalized broadcast of text/flash SMS messages using GSM modems or compatible GSM mobile phones via serial data cable or infrared link. Features include the ability to send unicode/Chinese SMS messages, send log, import/export addressbook, auto-detect function allows automatic detection of your device setup configurations, API to integrate to 3rd party applications and web portals using HTTP. Users can make use of VisualGSM Lite to build various innovative messaging applications such network resource monitoring, and SMS marketing applications." CNET download (Popular download) - http://download.com.com/3000-2349-8359870.html?tag=lst-0-1 Tucows download (ranked 4 cows) - http://www.tucows.com/preview/232179.html VisualGSM Enterprise (Shareware) From the developer: "VisualGSM Enterprise Server is an open-platform SQL database driven communication application suite, that empowers corporate managers to self-deploy interactive SMS, or Short Message Service applications, rapidly throughout their organization. It has an easy-to-use real-time configurator to connect enterprise applications to the GSM network via built-in APIs. Provides a built-in application testing environment to allow Rapid Application Deployment. Integration components include email2sms, sms2fax, sms2email, sms2sql, sms2http, etc." Download: http://www.visualtron.com/download.htm More information available at http://www.visualgsm.com or http://www.visualtron.com. I will also answer all GSM, SMS related questions at http://www.visualgsm.com/forums/ Best Regards, Joshua Lim Co-Founder (Visualtron Software) Email: joshua@visualtron.com. ------------------------------ From: Wesrock@aol.com Date: Mon, 8 Mar 2004 10:12:47 EST Subject: Re: Snapshots in Time In a message dated Sun, 7 Mar 2004 19:44:00 -0800 Al Gillis writes: > An oddity that would probably never happen in this age is reviewed on > pages 83-85. Moving the Indianapolis headquarters building of Indiana > Bell WHILE IT'S STILL IN OPERATION as an office and Central Office > building! Those guys were gutsy! The Dallas Automatic Telephone Company building, full of step equipment, was moved while still in service to accomodate a street widening project. Wes Leatherock wesrock@aol.com wleathus@yahoo.com ------------------------------ From: Sammy@nospam.biz Subject: Re: Need to Block Outgoing Calls to Specific Numbers Date: Mon, 08 Mar 2004 09:22:57 -0800 Organization: Cox Communications DevilsPGD wrote: > In message <> Sammy@nospam.biz did > ramble: >> The only way you can solve that problem is to pay for call rejection >> service for those three folks. Then, they can set the list (usually a >> maximum of 10 numbers) to reject calls from your number. Oh, I would like to see that tariff. [TELECOM Digest Editor's Note: I have that service myself. Dial *60 then listen to the announcement. Dial #01# to reject the last call received, whether or not you know the number. Or dial #(the number) to reject further calls from any number. Its a very convenient service. Prairie Stream has offered it since they started business here. 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, Yahoo Groups, 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: 620-402-0134 Fax 1: 775-255-9970 Fax 2: 530-309-7234 Fax 3: 208-692-5145 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 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 fifty 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. If you donate at least fifty dollars per year we will send you our two-CD set of the entire Telecom Archives; this is every word published in this Digest since our beginning in 1981. 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 V23 #110 ****************************** From editor@telecom-digest.org Mon Mar 8 23:59:11 2004 Received: (from ptownson@localhost) by massis.lcs.mit.edu (8.11.6p2/8.11.3) id i294xBE03089; Mon, 8 Mar 2004 23:59:11 -0500 (EST) Date: Mon, 8 Mar 2004 23:59:11 -0500 (EST) From: editor@telecom-digest.org Message-Id: <200403090459.i294xBE03089@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 V23 #111 TELECOM Digest Mon, 8 Mar 2004 23:59:00 EST Volume 23 : Issue 111 Inside This Issue: Editor: Patrick A. Townson AT&T Wireless Introduces Early Evenings; New Options (Monty Solomon) Re: The Price of Email is Constant Vigilance (Fred Goldstein) Re: Should I Use 66-Block? (Scott Dorsey) Re: Should I Use 66-Block? (lawrence.jones@ugsplm.com) Re: Need to Block Outgoing Calls to Specific Numbers (Withheld) Re: Need to Block Outgoing Calls to Specific Numbers (DevilsPGD) Re: Spam Going Out Under My Name (Withheld) Re: Vonage Troubles (pop3svr@netscape.net) Re: Compensation For Telephones Sold Mis-Programmed (Consultant) Re: Nielsen PVR Plan Gives Agencies Pause (Thomas A. Horsley) Re: Snapshots in Time (Al Gillis) Last Laugh! Speaking of TV-Land (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. =========================== Addresses herein are not to be added to any mailing list, nor to be sold or given away without explicit written consent. Chain letters, viruses, porn, spam, and miscellaneous junk is definitely unwelcome. We must fight spam for the same reason we fight crime: not because we are naive enough to believe that we will ever stamp it out, but because we do not want the kind of world that results when no one stands against crime. Geoffrey Welsh =========================== See the bottom of this issue for subscription and archive details and the name of our lawyer; other stuff of interest. ---------------------------------------------------------------------- Date: Mon, 8 Mar 2004 23:18:24 -0500 From: Monty Solomon Subject: AT&T Wireless Introduces Early Evenings; New Options AT&T Wireless Introduces Early Evenings; New Option Offers Unlimited Night and Weekend Minutes Beginning at 7 p.m. Instead of 9 p.m. - Mar 8, 2004 11:00 AM (BusinessWire) REDMOND, Wash.--(BUSINESS WIRE)--March 8, 2004--AT&T Wireless (NYSE:AWE) has introduced an option called Early Evenings that makes available to new and current customers on qualifying plans unlimited night and weekend minutes beginning at 7 p.m. instead of the usual 9 p.m. - http://finance.lycos.com/home/news/story.asp?story=40775325 ------------------------------ Date: Mon, 08 Mar 2004 13:22:41 -0500 From: Fred Goldstein Subject: Re: The Price of Email is Constant Vigilance On Sat, 6 Mar 2004 16:37:19 -0800, Rob Slade wrote: > Peter Wilson's article on spam and viruses (on Saturday, March 6, > 2004) lists a number of antispam measures that are currently being > promoted. He also retails Bill Gates' confident prediction that spam > will be a thing of the past by 2006. Remember that prophecy, because > Bill Gates is going to be proven wrong. An examination of the > measures listed in the article demonstrates why. That's certainly true ... > SPF (sender-permitted format) is currently garnering the greatest > interest. [It checks to see that the address isn't spoofed]... > Spammers, when creating spoofed addresses, don't bother to make > sure that they do. Or, at least, they haven't up until now. Bayesian filtering was a nice idea, too, but spammers retaliated by misspelling everything and using all sorts of tricks to break up filterable tokens (like words) and add noise. The result is bigger spams. SPF and CIDM would lead spammers to use non-spoofed domains. Big deal -- the can create throwaway domains (with phoney IDm and if necessary use anonymous or stolen credit or debit card numbers to pay for them) for a few bucks, run them on hijacked machines, and move on, all before being caught. They'd pass muster, because they're not spoofed, just not meaningful either. > SPF has promise, and it may be possible (unlike the Microsoft > proposal) to provide workarounds for a variety of systems, platforms, > and applications. However, there are a number of issues that still > have to resolved, such as email aliases, third-party services, and > applications such as mailing lists, which operate in a wide variety of > forms. The difficulties are not insurmountable, but an enormous > amount of work still has to be done. Indeed ... SPF probably won't stop spammers, but it will make it really hard to use your email while at a hotel, or at a hotspot, or at the office. You'll be sending from a domain not normally your own. And it could make "vanity" and small-business domains harder to use. One problem with email today is that unless you own your domain, you're tied to a provider -- there's no postal-like forwarding once you leave (unless your provider is particularly nice about it). SPF/CIDM could make it worse, if it makes private domains harder to use. > Microsoft's micropayments strategy is apparently the most recent one, > but has been raised many times over the history of the nets. (One of > the popular programs providing Usenet news, a type of topical > discussion, used to remind anyone who attempted to post a message that > it would possibly cost thousands of dollars to send this to everyone: > did they really want to do that?) Unfortunately, the issue of mailing > lists comes up almost immediately. Even if we assume one cent per > message, if I send a message to a popular list such as the RISKS-FORUM > Digest, with a possible hundred thousand subscribers, am I charged a > thousand dollars for that message? Is the list moderator charged? In > the case of RISKS, it is also redistributed by a number of sub-mailing > lists: do those costs get charged to the accounts of the local > administrators? The list moderator? Me? While others have diagreed with me on this and I respect their opinions, I'm still convinced that the *only* solution is to have micropayments. However, they need only apply to mail from *strangers*. The system should allow me to subscriber to a mailing list and, by doing so, grant that list "free" access to my mail receipt agent. Likewise, users should be able to put their normal correspondents, individual or a whole domain, into their whitelists. Micropayment would thus be limited in applicability, and not cost much to anyone but a spammer, for whom it would be prohibitive. > (The obvious second question is: who *gets* the money? The Internet > Engineering Task Force? Some bloated bureaucracy parcelling out the > cash to the various national telecom carriers? Charity? Microsoft? > The recipient? Hmmm. Maybe I should rethink my objection to the > micropayment system. At one point I was getting 8,000 [yes, eight > thousand] copies of spam from one system in China. Per hour. Same > message.) Micropayment infrastructure will cost money to operate. So whoever runs a micropostage service (essentially a certificate authority, granting one-time certificates that require real-time validation to prevent duplicate use) should keep the money. Of course if their price is too low, a spammer might use it, but then users need to be able to whitelist/blacklist micropostage issuers to prevent that. If the price is too high, somebody else will get in the business. (See Smith, Adam, The Wealth of Nations.) I see this as being in the private sector, though of course a post office is free to compete if they wish to. > And, of course, in order to provide for such a micropayment system, > everybody is going to have to use a Microsoft mailer. With a > Microsoft payment system. And a Microsoft account. This sounds like > an attempt to resurrect the (justly derided and roundly condemned) > Passport and Palladium systems. Which is precisely why there needs to be a micropostage system created without patent encumberance, not designed to be MS-specific! > In fact, most of these antispam technologies fail in the face of the > problem of spam nets set up by viruses. Spam sent from infected > machines could simply use the name of the owner, thus verifying the > identity. Spam sent from infected machines could use the micropayment > "wallet" on the infected machine, thus creating not only problems of > clean-up for the owner, but also a real cost. Infected machines could > be used to crack computational puzzles, or the owner could be > presented with challenges to respond to, in a variety of ways. Indeed that is a potential problem for micropayments; however, with end users getting only a certain ration per month via their ISP (since it's only used for contacting strangers, an individual would only need what, a few hundred?), the bounty from an infected computer wouldn't be huge. It would probably be a good idea for the "wallet" to require some kind of human input, like a password, before releasing a stamp, that a virus wouldn't be able to get. I don't foresee any end user's wallet having more than a dollar's worth of micropostage in it at a time. > There is no easy fix, and there is no easy answer. Administrators > have to ensure that they are not providing open relays that can be > used for spam. Email filtering services are checking for > inappropriate inbound email, but must also check what is going out. > ISPs (Internet Service Providers) must be more vigilant in regard to > the use being made of the net to which they provide access. Computer > users at all levels have to check for malicious software, unpatched > vulnerabilities, open ports and services, and what is going out of > their systems as well as what is coming in. Everybody needs to become > more aware of what is going on, and keep up with the changes in > threats around us all. > And anyone who tells you it is not going to be painful is selling > something. Well said. I note that there are a lot of problems around email, spam and worms being paramount. Rob Slade, whose post I am quoting above, was himself quoted in this week's eWeek. A couple of columns later, another person was quoted as saying, "E-mail was never designed to be a file transfer mechanism, and it is time to stop using it that way." It is going to be painful, and I think that the best way to fix it, once we accept that there's no simple fix, is to design an *entirely* new email machanism. SMTP is 32 years old. A new from-scratch email system can incorporate all of the requirements that have been clumsily overlaid on top of SMTP, which was after all designed to pass short text messages between timesharing computers on a closed network. Until a new system is in place, email will be a mess of spam and worms, growing less useful as countermeasures interfere with legitimate usage. ------------------------------ From: kludge@panix.com (Scott Dorsey) Subject: Re: Should I Use 66-Block? Date: 8 Mar 2004 12:37:44 -0500 Organization: Former users of Netcom shell (1989-2000) John wrote: > I bought a 66-block (Leviton 4066-M50) at Home Depot and I assumed > (incorrectly) that I could put the red, green, yellow, and black on > each column and then wire the extensions (TIA 568A) to each of the > rows. I now understand a 66-block doesn't work this way. It can. You punch the wires down on each row, so that from top to bottom, you see red, green, yellow, black, red, green, yellow, black, and so forth for all the extensions going down the first column of the block. You then punch down the pair coming from your service entry at the bottom of the block. NOW, you take one long piece of cross-connect wire, and you punch it down on the service entry line. Then you loop it up to the second column of the two rows carrying the red/green for the last phone, and punch it down without cutting it. Then you loop it again up to the next extension, and then to the next extension, and then up the line. Now you have one pair going to all eight phones. If you get a second incoming line, you can pop the wires off the panel for one of those phone, and run the second line to it. Or you can run the second line to the yellow/black pair of some two-line phones. --scott "C'est un Nagra. C'est suisse, et tres, tres precis." ------------------------------ From: lawrence.jones@ugsplm.com Subject: Re: Should I Use 66-Block? Date: Mon, 08 Mar 2004 21:13:02 GMT Organization: Road Runner High Speed Online http://www.rr.com John wrote: > I bought a 66-block (Leviton 4066-M50) at Home Depot and I assumed > (incorrectly) that I could put the red, green, yellow, and black on > each column and then wire the extensions (TIA 568A) to each of the > rows. I now understand a 66-block doesn't work this way. No, but you can use it in a similar way -- just daisy-chain your incoming line(s) to as many rows as you need down one side of the block (punch down using the non-cutting bit then route the wire back out of the block and back in again 8 rows down and repeat). Punch your extensions down on the other side and cross connect as desired. You might find a bridged distribution patch panel such as the Leviton 47603-110 (which you can also get at Home Depot) more convenient, though. -Larry Jones It must be sad being a species with so little imagination. -- Calvin ------------------------------ Subject: Re: Need to Block Outgoing Calls to Specific Numbers From: Withheld Date: Mon, 8 Mar 2004 13:14:31 -0600 (Patrick - please omit my name and e-mail address - Thanks.) In response to: > From: Sammy@nospam.biz > Subject: Re: Need to Block Outgoing Calls to Specific Numbers > Date: Mon, 08 Mar 2004 09:22:57 -0800 > Organization: Cox Communications > DevilsPGD wrote: >> In message <> Sammy@nospam.biz did >> ramble: >>> The only way you can solve that problem is to pay for call rejection >>> service for those three folks. Then, they can set the list (usually a >>> maximum of 10 numbers) to reject calls from your number. > Oh, I would like to see that tariff. > [TELECOM Digest Editor's Note: I have that service myself. Dial *60 > then listen to the announcement. Dial #01# to reject the last call > received, whether or not you know the number. Or dial #(the number) to > reject further calls from any number. Its a very convenient service. > Prairie Stream has offered it since they started business here. PAT] Patrick -- I also have that service through Qwest and found out something just this past week. If the number you are trying to block is not on the Qwest (or any LEC, I suppose) network, the number cannot be accepted for blocking -- you get some type of error message/recording "the number you have entered is incorrect". I confirmed this with a tech when trying to report this scenario as a trouble. Pretty useless feature in such cases. ------------------------------ From: DevilsPGD Subject: Re: Need to Block Outgoing Calls to Specific Numbers Organization: EasyNews, UseNet made Easy! Date: Tue, 09 Mar 2004 02:19:38 GMT In message <> Sammy@nospam.biz did ramble: >>> The only way you can solve that problem is to pay for call rejection >>> service for those three folks. Then, they can set the list (usually a >>> maximum of 10 numbers) to reject calls from your number. > Oh, I would like to see that tariff. > [TELECOM Digest Editor's Note: I have that service myself. Dial *60 > then listen to the announcement. Dial #01# to reject the last call > received, whether or not you know the number. Or dial #(the number) to > reject further calls from any number. Its a very convenient service. > Prairie Stream has offered it since they started business here. PAT] That rejects calls FROM a given number, not TO a given number. Similar, but it needs to be implemented on the other end. However, it might just work in this situation. 'Tis far better to have snipped too much than to never have snipped at all. [TELECOM Digest Editor's Note: The original writer (wrote back and) said the telco had offered to provide a service known as 'Call Control'. It has to be programmed through the central office (otherwise, of what value would there be if a 'star code' could turn it off and on?) The original writer said -- if I quote correctly -- the central office would implement it at that level. I've never heard of that service option before; maybe it is a 'customer specific tariff'; they still have those around as needed. PAT] ------------------------------ Date: Mon, 8 Mar 2004 21:51:02 +0000 From: Withheld Subject: Re: Spam Going Out Under My Name In article , Linus Surguy writes: > By the way, the plural of virus is viruses, not viri[i] - this is a > reoccuring thread on anti-virus newsgroups, and apparantly is because > virus is an 'air noun' in Latin and therefore cannot have an 'ii' form > -- or something like that! [ Pat: If you feel it ought to be broadcast, please remove my email address; thanks. ] Nouns in Latin come in 5 categories, called declensions. The commonest has a singular ending in -us, with plural -i; an example is "cactus", forming "cacti". If "virus" was from that class, its plural would be "viri", but it isn't. A rare declension (the 5th) also has words ending -us, with the plural also in -us; an example is "status". (The u is short in the singular, and long in the plural.) But "virus" doesn't come from that declension either. The 3rd declension is a bit of a random collection. Two examples are opus (work), forming the plural opera, and corpus/corpora (body). Plausible plurals for "virus", then, are "virera" or "virora". Maybe. The Romans never wrote down the plural, so we don't know exactly what it was. And we have evidence that "virus" was odd in other ways. (It's neuter, which 3rd declension nouns aren't supposed to be. Perhaps it's like "pelagus/pelage" (sea).) The best plural, then, ignores the Latin, and is "viruses". Graeme ------------------------------ From: pop3svr@netscape.net (pop3svr@netscape.net) Subject: Re: Vonage Troubles Date: 8 Mar 2004 17:22:07 -0800 Organization: http://groups.google.com If you want cheap, and poor service, Vonage is your company. If you want to test your patience, and keep making excuses why you are using that phone service, and want to keep explaining to your relatives why they need to call you back again and again and again, sure sign on up. If you want really crappy customer service, sign right up. Then, that is really magnified when you want to cancel the service. That is when they are at their very worst. But, yes, by all means, if the only thing you care about is cheap, Vonage has that down pretty well. [TELECOM Digest Editor's Note: I am sorry your experience with Vonage has been so negative. Vonage is, IMO, a very good, very inexpensive alternate to conventional phone service. Some people say their service has been quite good, and although I do not use it often enough to make a really definitive statement, it has never been totally awful for me, as it seems to have been for you. PAT] ------------------------------ From: ConsultingServices2004@yahoo.com (Consultant) Subject: Re: Compensation For Telephones Sold Programmed to Call my Phone Date: 8 Mar 2004 17:31:56 -0800 Organization: http://groups.google.com (continuing the earlier account): They have asked me to name the amount. They have offered to pay me in the method of my choosing. They have offered to compensate for airtime costs. I told them the main issue was my time & the interuptions (hundreds or hundreds per day over what is becoming weeks). I told the telecom manager that called that I thought they were being nice to me. They said I had been nice to them (I have been). I want to be reasonable, but the calls have not stopped. I was called to work early early in the morning today to handle an emergency call. I didn't take time (due to the emergency nature) to brush my hair (wore hat all day) or even my teeth (used gum). I didn't even stop to eat "breakfast" for 12 hours. HOWEVER, I had several of calls from the misprogrammed home phones. I had to take the calls because I didn't know if these may be related to the many people we had to pull in to address the emergency problem. In addition to the number being preprogrammed into the telephone, the INSTRUCTION MANUAL even gives them directions on how to program the phone. The INSTRUCTION MANUAL gives them directions that makes the phone call my mobile phone! Again, I am a reasonable person. I understand mistakes happen. I apperciate the effort they are making. However, I continue to get these calls even after they say they have called all of their customers in my area that have these phones. Thank you to you for your advice & input. [TELECOM Digest Editor's Note: In your first report on this, you said the number the phones were (mis)programmed to dial for voicemail would only work in one state, and that when those phone customers were in *your* state (or did you say *any* state other than the one where it works?) the result was the calls came to you. It sounds to me now like the toll free (?) number used to call into the voice mail needs to be an *interstate* rather than an *intrastate* number. If that is the case, is the company going to get the number adjusted to a wider area? You also note the instruction manual appears to have typographical errors. Is the company going to reprint their instruction book or at least distribute an errata sheet to their customers? If the company is going to do either/both of these things, then there is still nothing illegal except perhaps some negligence on their part. Or, worst case scenario, is the company going to do nothing, except buy you off this one time, then (after you sign their release which I am sure they will require) say 'sorry, but you settled with us' when the problem rears its head again in the future. You say they seem to be offering a generous settlement on your terms. That alone would make *me* suspicious of anything but this eventually reaching 'worst case scenario' status. I think I would under the circumstances want to get an entirely new (lastest generics of course) cell phone and a new number. Naturally you will need new business cards for associates, etc. By all means, take them up on their generosity **as long as you get a new phone/new number/business cards out of them first.** PAT] ------------------------------ Subject: Re: Nielsen PVR Plan Gives Agencies Pause From: tom.horsley@att.net (Thomas A. Horsley) Organization: AT&T Worldnet Date: Tue, 09 Mar 2004 01:57:41 GMT > Madison Avenue would like to hit the rewind button on Nielsen's plans > to measure households with digital video recorders (DVRs), and see > Nielsen replay the announcement with one additional element: a plan to > provide TV commercial ratings. Without them, say media agency > executives, the time- shifted viewing data from DVR users would be > interesting -- but almost meaningless from a media planning point of > view. It is interesting that an industry that bases ad prices for the whole season in large part on ratings generated by "sweeps" where the networks don't even broadcast their normal programming could deride anything as "meaningless" :-). However, without getting Nielsen involved, I can tell them the precise and exact ratings for commercials for PVR owners: zero. (That's why we own PVRs for cripes sake :-). >>==>> The *Best* political site >>==+ email: Tom.Horsley@worldnet.att.net icbm: Delray Beach, FL | Free Software and Politics <<==+ ------------------------------ From: Al Gillis Subject: Re: Snapshots in Time Date: Mon, 8 Mar 2004 19:27:24 -0800 Organization: http://extra.newsguy.com wrote in message news:telecom23.110.11@telecom-digest.org: > In a message dated Sun, 7 Mar 2004 19:44:00 -0800 Al Gillis > writes: >> An oddity that would probably never happen in this age is reviewed on >> pages 83-85. Moving the Indianapolis headquarters building of Indiana >> Bell WHILE IT'S STILL IN OPERATION as an office and Central Office >> building! Those guys were gutsy! > The Dallas Automatic Telephone Company building, full of step > equipment, was moved while still in service to accomodate a street > widening project. > Wes Leatherock > wesrock@aol.com > wleathus@yahoo.com That's interesting, Wes ... First, I couldn't even imagine such a feat, then I hear it's not unique! Well, I guess those Texans were gutsy, too! Do you have any additional information about this move? About when did it take place? Where in Dallas was the building located? Any web resources available to see photos or read accounts of the move? Thanks!! Al ------------------------------ From: Al Gillis Subject: Last Laugh! Speaking of TV Land (Was Ergen Waiting Out Viacom) Date: Mon, 8 Mar 2004 19:22:48 -0800 Organization: http://extra.newsguy.com Pat said: > [TELECOM Digest Editor's Note: This morning on 'I Love > Lucy' at 10:00 AM followed by 'Leave it to Beaver' at 10:30 every five (Some Snipage...) Speaking of TV Land ... where is Brodrick Crawford and "Highway Patrol"? Who could forget his plantive calls over the squad car radio: "2150 to Headquarters ... Come In, Headquarters!" Al [TELECOM Digest Editor's Note: What I am getting rather annoyed by lately is the thing on TV-Land where they do 'marathons' of one par- ticular show for hours or days at a time. They've been running "Leave it to Beaver" for several hours now; one thirty-minute episode after another, in sequence. I think they are up to installment 115 now, and sometimes they run the same installment two or three times in the same day. They *surely* must have other shows around in addition to 'Beaver' they could run. 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, Yahoo Groups, 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: 620-402-0134 Fax 1: 775-255-9970 Fax 2: 530-309-7234 Fax 3: 208-692-5145 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 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 fifty 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. If you donate at least fifty dollars per year we will send you our two-CD set of the entire Telecom Archives; this is every word published in this Digest since our beginning in 1981. 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 V23 #111 ****************************** From editor@telecom-digest.org Tue Mar 9 15:17:59 2004 Received: (from ptownson@localhost) by massis.lcs.mit.edu (8.11.6p2/8.11.3) id i29KHw608750; Tue, 9 Mar 2004 15:17:59 -0500 (EST) Date: Tue, 9 Mar 2004 15:17:59 -0500 (EST) From: editor@telecom-digest.org Message-Id: <200403092017.i29KHw608750@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 V23 #112 TELECOM Digest Tue, 9 Mar 2004 15:18:00 EST Volume 23 : Issue 112 Inside This Issue: Editor: Patrick A. Townson PFIR Conference: "Preventing the Internet Meltdown" (PFIR Organization) Re: The Price of Email is Constant Vigilance (William Warren) Re: The Price of Email is Constant Vigilance (Mark Crispin) Spam and the Law (was Re: The Price of Email is)(Danny Burstein) Re: AT&T Expands 'City Savings' for International Calling (Joseph) Re: AT&T Wireless Introduces Early Evenings; New Options (Joseph) Re: Snapshots in Time (Nick Landsberg) Curious Plurals (was Re: Spam Going Out Under My Name) (Michael Quinn) DISH Network to Lose CBS in 16 Markets (Monty Solomon) EchoStar May Lose More After Removing Viacom's CBS (J Kelly) 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. =========================== Addresses herein are not to be added to any mailing list, nor to be sold or given away without explicit written consent. Chain letters, viruses, porn, spam, and miscellaneous junk is definitely unwelcome. We must fight spam for the same reason we fight crime: not because we are naive enough to believe that we will ever stamp it out, but because we do not want the kind of world that results when no one stands against crime. Geoffrey Welsh =========================== See the bottom of this issue for subscription and archive details and the name of our lawyer; other stuff of interest. ---------------------------------------------------------------------- Date: Mon, 8 Mar 2004 23:56:49 PST From: PFIR - People For Internet Responsibility Subject: PFIR Conference Announcement: "Preventing the Internet Meltdown" PFIR Conference Announcement "Preventing the Internet Meltdown" Spring/Summer 2004 Los Angeles, California, USA --------------------------------- March 6, 2004 PFIR - People For Internet Responsibility - http://www.pfir.org [ To subscribe or unsubscribe to/from this list, please send the command "subscribe" or "unsubscribe" respectively (without the quotes) in the body of an e-mail to "pfir-request@pfir.org". ] ================================== --- Please Distribute Widely --- PFIR Conference Announcement "Preventing the Internet Meltdown" Spring/Summer 2004 Los Angeles, California, USA http://www.pfir.org/meltdown People For Internet Responsibility (PFIR) is pleased to preliminarily announce an "emergency" conference aimed at preventing the "meltdown" of the Internet -- the risks of imminent disruption, degradation, unfair manipulation, and other negative impacts on critical Internet services and systems in ways that will have a profound impact on the Net and its users around the world. We are planning for this conference (lasting two or three days) to take place as soon as possible, ideally as early as this coming June, with all sessions and working groups at a hotel in convenient proximity to Los Angeles International Airport (LAX). A continuing and rapidly escalating series of alarming events suggest that immediate cooperative, specific planning is necessary if we are to have any chance of avoiding the meltdown. "Red flag" warning signs are many. A merely partial list includes attempts to manipulate key network infrastructures such as the domain name system; lawsuits over Internet regulatory issues (e.g. VeriSign and domain registrars vs. ICANN); serious issues of privacy and security; and ever-increasing spam, virus, and related problems, along with largely ad hoc or non-coordinated "anti-spam" systems that may do more harm than good and may cause serious collateral damage. All facets of Internet users and a vast range of critical applications are at risk from the meltdown. Commercial firms, schools, nonprofit and governmental organizations, home users, and everybody else around the world whose lives are touched in some way by the Internet (and that's practically everyone) are likely to be seriously and negatively impacted. Most of these problems are either directly or indirectly the result of the Internet's lack of responsible and fair planning related to Internet operations and oversight. A perceived historical desire for a "hands off" attitude regarding Internet "governance" has now resulted not only in commercial abuses, and the specter of lawsuits and courts dictating key technical issues relating to the Net, but has also invited unilateral actions by organizations such as the United Nations (UN) and International Telecommunications Union (ITU) that could profoundly affect the Internet and its users in unpredictable ways. Representatives from commercial firms, educational institutions, governmental entities, nonprofit and other organizations, and any other interested parties are invited to participate at this conference. International participation is most definitely encouraged. The ultimate goal of the conference is to establish a set of *specific* actions and contingency plans for the Internet-related problems that could lead to the meltdown. These may include (but are not limited to) technical, governance, regulatory, political, and legal actions and plans. Scenarios to consider may also include more "radical" technical approaches such as "alternate root" domain systems, technologies to bypass unreasonable ISP restrictions, and a wide range of other practical possibilities. It is anticipated that the conference will include a variety of panels focused on illuminating specific aspects of these problems, along with potential reactions, solutions, and contingency planning for worst-case scenarios. Breakout working groups will be available for detailed discussion and planning efforts. Formal papers will not be required, but panel members may be asked to submit brief abstracts of prepared remarks in advance to assist in organizing the sessions. The ability of this conference to take place, and necessary conference details such as the specific program, costs, etc. will depend largely on the response to this announcement and particularly on the number of persons and organizations who express a potential interest in attending. If you may be interested in participating (no obligation at this point, of course) or have any questions, please send an e-mail as soon as possible to: meltdown@pfir.org or feel free to contact Lauren at the phone number below. As appropriate, please be sure to mention how many people from your organization may be interested in attending. If you express an interest in attending, you will be added to a private mailing list for upcoming announcements regarding this conference unless you ask not to be so notified. Together, we may be able to stop the Internet meltdown. But we need to act now. Thank you for your consideration. - - - Lauren Weinstein lauren@pfir.org or lauren@vortex.com or lauren@privacyforum.org Tel: +1 (818) 225-2800 Co-Founder, PFIR - People For Internet Responsibility - http://www.pfir.org Co-Founder, Fact Squad - http://www.factsquad.org Co-Founder, URIICA - Union for Representative International Internet Cooperation and Analysis - http://www.uriica.org Moderator, PRIVACY Forum - http://www.vortex.com Member, ACM Committee on Computers and Public Policy http://www.pfir.org/lauren Peter G. Neumann neumann@pfir.org or neumann@csl.sri.com or neumann@risks.org Tel: +1 (650) 859-2375 Co-Founder, PFIR - People For Internet Responsibility - http://www.pfir.org Co-Founder, Fact Squad - http://www.factsquad.org Co-Founder, URIICA - Union for Representative International Internet Cooperation and Analysis - http://www.uriica.org Moderator, RISKS Forum - http://risks.org Chairman, ACM Committee on Computers and Public Policy http://www.csl.sri.com/neumann David J. Farber dave@farber.net Tel: +1 (412) 726-9889 Distinguished Career Professor of Computer Science and Public Policy, Carnegie Mellon University, School of Computer Science Member of the Board of Trustees EFF - http://www.eff.org Member of the Advisory Board -- EPIC - http://www.epic.org Member of the Advisory Board -- CDT - http://www.cdt.org Member of Board of Directors -- PFIR - http://www.pfir.org Co-Founder, URIICA - Union for Representative International Internet Cooperation and Analysis - http://www.uriica.org Member of the Executive Committee USACM http://www.cis.upenn.edu/~farber (Affiliations shown for identification only.) ------------------------------ From: William Warren Subject: Re: The Price of Email is Constant Vigilance Organization: Comcast Online Date: Tue, 09 Mar 2004 13:47:51 GMT Fred Goldstein wrote in message news:telecom23.111.2@telecom-digest.org: > On Sat, 6 Mar 2004 16:37:19 -0800, Rob Slade wrote: >> Peter Wilson's article on spam and viruses (on Saturday, March 6, >> 2004) lists a number of antispam measures that are currently being >> promoted. [big snip] > It is going to be painful, and I think that the best way to fix it, > once we accept that there's no simple fix, is to design an *entirely* > new email machanism. SMTP is 32 years old. A new from-scratch email > system can incorporate all of the requirements that have been clumsily > overlaid on top of SMTP, which was after all designed to pass short > text messages between timesharing computers on a closed network. > Until a new system is in place, email will be a mess of spam and > worms, growing less useful as countermeasures interfere with > legitimate usage. Fred, I disagree: the problem cannot be solved by technical means, because no matter what software and/or hardware we throw at it, spammers can find a way around it and keep going. Remeber that spammers don't care about someone else's costs: they'll just send 10xE10 messages instead of 10xE5, and adjust their sending as needed to get a profitable response. Spam _can_ be stopped, and it doesn't take technology to do it -- just a small percentage of recipients whom are willing to take action. There's no mystery to why spam is profitable: it's because the only responses are usually from those willing to buy the product, and all the non-response and other costs have been externalized. If a small percentage of spam recipients take the time to answer the pitches, track down those whom have started the spew, and make their feelings known, the human costs to the spammers will quickly overwhelm their profit margins. When I get a mortgage pitch, I fill it out and send it back. If someone is pitching a weigh-loss product, I demand details via postal mail. For "herbal viagra", I ram my complaints right down the throat of the distribution center. When the guy from the bank/finance company/drug company/whatever calls, I tell him to go back to whomever sold him the lead and get his money back, and I make it clear that I don't do business with spammers and I don't do business with anyone spammers do business with. We don't need more software: we need to fight back. FWIW. YMMV. Bill Warren ------------------------------ From: Mark Crispin Subject: Re: The Price of Email is Constant Vigilance Date: Tue, 9 Mar 2004 07:14:04 -0800 Organization: University of Washington On Mon, 8 Mar 2004, Fred Goldstein wrote: > SMTP is 32 years old. More like 22 or so years old. Until the TCP/IP transition on January 1983, the primary means of conveying mail was via the MAIL command in FTP. I wrote one of the first widely-distributed SMTP servers in 1982. -- Mark -- http://staff.washington.edu/mrc Science does not emerge from voting, party politics, or public debate. Si vis pacem, para bellum. ------------------------------ From: Danny Burstein Subject: Spam and the Law was Re: The Price of Email is Constant Date: Tue, 9 Mar 2004 06:51:43 +0000 (UTC) Organization: PANIX Public Access Internet and UNIX, NYC In Fred Goldstein writes: [ snip ] > While others have diagreed with me on this and I respect their > opinions, I'm still convinced that the *only* solution is to have > micropayments. Once again I'll disagree with this whole concept. The only thing necessary is to acknowledge that ISPs and their customers only have connectivity to others because of the kindness of strangers. And to take action based on that. Each and every ISP, in order to gain continued connectivity, simply has to establish terms of service (and enforce them) in a way so as to prevent its customers from spamming. (see below for my suggestion) If the East Cupcake Bakery and Internet Service allows its customers to spam, then we cut it off. Pure and Simple. It and its spammers can cheerfully wallow in the smelly pit of their own putrid intranet. Yes, some non spamming customers will get hurt. But that is NOT my problem. It's the same way, to use my favorite analogy, of what would happen to a supermarket using (because it's cheaper) an unrefrigerated meat supplier. Sure they'd make more money for the first couple of hours. But then they'd see a huge dropoff in customers. And pretty soon not only wouldn't they sell any of the rotten meat, but they also wouldn't sell any milk. Or chocolate. Or toilet paper. Those other companies do NOT have the right to demand that I hold my nose and purchase their products from a rotten meat supermarket. And similarly, the non-spamming customers of East Cupcake do NOT have any unalienable right to access my ISP or my mailspool. The *only* change in law might (and that's a might) be a clarification that ISPs could act in concert so as to jointly set up these quarantines. As to what would be a good Term of Service? The following is my rec: Any customer of the ISP agrees that the ISP acts as its correspondence agent. Any and all notes, letters, e-mails, faxen, etc. that the ISP has to respond to as a result of the customer's actions may be charged for at the following rates: first five per month: no charge sixth through tenth: $10 apiece 11th on up: $50 apiece, beginning with first. (adjust the numbers as appropriate, and add a similar modified rate chart for yearly counts). If an ISP chooses not to have such a policy, then I don't want to hear from it. Or its customers. Anymore than I want to go to a shopping mall where the supermarket has tons of rotting meat in the aisles and roadway. Knowledge may be power, but communications is the key dannyb@panix.com [to foil spammers, my address has been double rot-13 encoded] [TELECOM Digest Editor's Note: I think Danny makes an excellent suggestion. Wouldn't it be far easier to control a few dozen errant ISP's than track down and deal with several million users? PAT] ------------------------------ From: Joseph Subject: Re: AT&T Expands 'City Savings' for International Calling Date: Tue, 09 Mar 2004 04:01:46 -0800 Organization: Posted via Supernews, http://www.supernews.com Reply-To: JoeOfSeattle@yahoo.NONOcom On Mon, 8 Mar 2004 09:17:33 -0500, Monty Solomon wrote: > In Western Europe, the reduced country rate of only 10 cents a > minute is welcome news to all international callers, but especially > those with family and loved-ones in countries such as Germany, Spain > and Italy, which have a sizeable presence of American military > personnel stationed there. "Only" 10 cents a minute is supposed to be a bargain? I've shopped international plans and it's quite possible to get rates to the UK for 5 cents per minute or 6 cents per minute to call continental Europe and also without paying a $4 per month "privilege" fee to use the plan. That "bargain" rate is further diluted by the monthly charge. - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - remove NONO from .NONOcom to reply ------------------------------ From: Joseph Subject: Re: AT&T Wireless Introduces Early Evenings; New Options Date: Tue, 09 Mar 2004 04:06:33 -0800 Organization: Posted via Supernews, http://www.supernews.com Reply-To: JoeOfSeattle@yahoo.NONOcom On Mon, 8 Mar 2004 23:18:24 -0500, Monty Solomon wrote: > AT&T Wireless Introduces Early Evenings; New Option Offers > Unlimited Night and Weekend Minutes Beginning at 7 p.m. Instead > of 9 p.m. > - Mar 8, 2004 11:00 AM (BusinessWire) Woohoo! And how long will this last? Perhaps the article doesn't mention it, but 7:00 p.m. night minutes were the norm until the wireless companies decided to change start of night time to 9:00 p.m. People are naive if they think that any particular market condition won't make night minutes change again. - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - remove NONO from .NONOcom to reply ------------------------------ From: Nick Landsberg Reply-To: hukolau@NOSPAM.att.net Subject: Re: Snapshots in Time Date: Tue, 09 Mar 2004 05:30:37 GMT Organization: AT&T Worldnet Al Gillis wrote: > wrote in message > news:telecom23.110.11@telecom-digest.org: >> In a message dated Sun, 7 Mar 2004 19:44:00 -0800 Al Gillis >> writes: >>> An oddity that would probably never happen in this age is reviewed >>> on pages 83-85. Moving the Indianapolis headquarters building of >>> Indiana Bell WHILE IT'S STILL IN OPERATION as an office and >>> Central Office building! Those guys were gutsy! >> The Dallas Automatic Telephone Company building, full of step >> equipment, was moved while still in service to accomodate a street >> widening project. >> Wes Leatherock >> wesrock@aol.com >> wleathus@yahoo.com > That's interesting, Wes ... First, I couldn't even imagine such a > feat, then I hear it's not unique! Well, I guess those Texans were > gutsy, too! > Do you have any additional information about this move? About when > did it take place? Where in Dallas was the building located? Any web > resources available to see photos or read accounts of the move? > Thanks!! > Al I have heard of (but never witnessed) cutovers happening in the same building, like going from a Cross-Bar to an electronic switch. All the wires from the main distributing frame (MDF) were bridged to both switches and the "new" switch was programmed to do everything EXCEPT complete the outgoing call. Similarly for trunks, do everyting except make the final connection. Once the "magic moment" hit, the new switch would go live with a console command, and at the same time, a technician with a BIG set of wire cutters would cut the cables to the old switch. This would usuallly create a spark, hence the term "flash cut." Trying to pull off this trick on the other side of the MDF is walking where angels fear to tread. My hat is off to the folks with the brass to even try it, much less make it work! "It is impossible to make anything foolproof because fools are so ingenious" - A. Bloch [TELECOM Digest Editor's Note: I remember very well three such 'cuts' in my life. In 1954, Hammond, Indiana went from manual to dial service. The old 'Sheffield' and 'Russell' exchanges were no more, with WEstmore-1,2,3 and TIlden-4 taking their place. At 2 AM that Saturday morning, the operators disappeared and the dial tone took their place. But the Whiting, Indiana and the East Chicago, Indiana exchanges were to remain manual for a couple years. So telephone users in Hammond were told to dial '711' and wait for an operator to respond who would connect with East Chicago numbers and users were told to dial '911' for Whiting numbers. For a L-o-n-g time (several years went by in fact), before 312 (Chicago) had any 931-932-933 or 844 numbers, since those were assigned in 219 right across the state line. I don't really remember East Chicago cutting over to EXport-7 and EXport-8 and losing the need for '711' from Chicago/Hammond but Whiting I recall. To call Whiting from Chicago/Hammond/East Chicago (later on) or Gary, Indiana, one dialed '911' and spoke to the operator. That was at least 10-15 years before 911 was given its more well known assignment. About 1958-59 Whiting was cut. I remember when I was in high school although the other places had to call 911 and ask for our number at the school, when we wanted to call one of those places we did ask the operator for the number, but then in the background we would hear a series (of seven) very rapid 'chirps' as the operator pulsed out the number on her keypad. Whiting was cut to '659' instead of 2-L/5-D and (I do not think it was a coincidence) in 312 there was no 659 either for many years; in fact when Cellular One first went into business in 1983 (or maybe 1982?) they were assigned 312-659 as their very first prefix. The third such 'cut' I remember was the University of Chicago. Originally one 'exchange' (or group of manual cord boards) back in the 1920-30's era, by the time I started working there (part time, while in high school in the telecom room) they were up to three 'exchanges' (or groups of manual cord boards) labled 'University boards' (eight positions along one wall), 'Hospital boards' (six or eight position along the opposite wall), and 'computation center boards' (a two or three position cord board perpendicular to the other switchboards). At the opposite end of the room was the clerk's desk, where there were also a teletype machine, bunches of directory books, and 'Telepage' was there also. Actually there were two or three teletype machines, but one was 'hot wired' directly into 'long distance' where Bell operators would send messages giving time and charges on long distance calls. The so-called 'university boards' were MIDway 3-0800 (with extensions 2000 through 4999), the 'hospital boards' were MUseum-4-6100 (with extensions 5000 through 6999) and the 'computation center' boards were NORmal-7-4700, with extensions 8000 through 8999.) The extensions could all dial each other, or dial 9 for an outside line. If they dialed '7' they reached Telepage. Campus police/fire was on extension 2111. Then one day Illinois Bell and UC officials decided to cut over to 'centrex' (gee, I wonder why!) and UC agreed with Bell to split with them the cost of a new central office building, located on 61st and Kenwood Streets, right across the alley from the existing central office building serving the Hyde Park neighborhood. After about six or eight months, the new addition to the telephone exchange was built and ready to be cut over. All the existing UC extensions were assigned '753' and their existing four digit extension number, except the 'hospital board' extensions were put on '951' with their existing extensions. They could call each other now with a '1' plus four digits or a '3' plus four digits, and they could get calls directly from the outside world! This was in 1965 I think, or about three years after I was no longer employed by U of C. The cutover was scheduled for a Saturday at 2 AM and being curious, I wondered what would happen if I dialed 753-anyfour on Thursday or Friday before. The numbers rang, but when the person picked up the phone, before we could start talking, *dial tone* came on the person's line I was calling. We could talk over the dial tone, but it was there. PAT] ------------------------------ Date: Tue, 09 Mar 2004 07:41:16 -0500 From: Michael Quinn Organization: Booz Allen Hamilton Subject: Curious Plurals (was Re: Spam Going Out Under My Name) This discussion of latinate plurals reminds me of one I saw some sometime back ago in a handbook on shipboard radio antenna systems - it went to some length to argue that that the plural of (radio) antenna was "antennas", not "antennae", the latter being reserved for insects (or as I later read, politicians, as in "political antennae", which may invite a debate over the distinctions between the two species.) Never came across it again, but I think of it when I occasionally hear someone refer to "radio antennae". Regards, Mike [TELECOM Digest Editor's Note: So are there any real differences between politicians and insects, or spammers for that matter. Or did spammers (a low specie of life) evolve from insects? PAT] > Date: Mon, 8 Mar 2004 21:51:02 +0000 > From: Withheld > Subject: Re: Spam Going Out Under My Name > Nouns in Latin come in 5 categories, called declensions. The > commonest has a singular ending in -us, with plural -i; an example is > "cactus", forming "cacti". If "virus" was from that class, its plural > would be "viri", but it isn't. ------------------------------ Date: Tue, 9 Mar 2004 08:19:13 -0500 From: Monty Solomon Subject: DISH Network to Lose CBS in 16 Markets EchoStar to Yank Viacom Channels - Mar 9, 2004 01:46 AM (AP Online) By CATHERINE TSAI AP Business Writer ENGLEWOOD, Colo. (AP) -- EchoStar Communications Corp. plans to remove channels from Viacom Inc., including local CBS affiliates, Comedy Central, MTV and Nickelodeon, from its DISH Network satellite system in 16 markets because of an unresolved dispute over programming fees. - http://finance.lycos.com/home/news/story.asp?story=40781000 Viacom's Demands Create Impasse in Negotiations For Rights to Carry Channels; DISH Network to Lose CBS in 16 Markets - Mar 9, 2004 12:38 AM (BusinessWire) ENGLEWOOD, Colo.--(BUSINESS WIRE)--March 9, 2004--EchoStar Communications Corporation (Nasdaq:DISH) confirmed today that Viacom Inc.'s demands for rate increases and other terms had left EchoStar's DISH Network satellite TV service with no choice other than to remove 16 of Viacom's owned-and-operated CBS local stations and 10 of its nationally distributed channels as of midnight (PT). Among Viacom's strong-arm tactics is the demand that DISH Network carry Viacom-owned channels of little or no measurable appeal to viewers in exchange for the rights to carry the 16 owned-and-operated CBS stations. Viacom also threatened to withhold the Super Bowl from DISH Network customers until a federal judge intervened. EchoStar has challenged Viacom in court on these antitrust issues, noting that Viacom is leveraging its control of the public airwaves -- acquired by Viacom for free. - http://finance.lycos.com/home/news/story.asp?story=40780861 UPDATE 1-Echostar pulls Viacom channels from its service - Mar 9, 2004 05:40 AM (Reuters) (Adds details, Viacom, Echostar quotes) NEW YORK, March 9 (Reuters) - EchoStar Communications Corp (NASDAQ:DISH) on Tuesday pulled from service 16 of Viacom's (NYSE:VIAb) local CBS stations and 10 of its national channels after the companies failed to agree on contract terms and prices. Viacom said in a statement it was "dismayed and disappointed" by the action, which affected channels like MTV and Nickelodeon, after a deadline expired early on Tuesday. Satellite company EchoStar said it would like to transmit CBS programming on its DISH network again, but both parties stood their ground in the dispute. - http://finance.lycos.com/home/news/story.asp?story=40781456 ------------------------------ From: J Kelly Subject: EchoStar May Lose More After Removing Viacom's CBS Date: 9 Mar 2004 07:54:17 -0800 Organization: Newsguy News Service [http://newsguy.com] EchoStar Communications Corp. Chief Executive Charles Ergen, who today dropped Viacom Inc.'s television networks including CBS from his Dish satellite-TV service, may lose sales in the standoff. EchoStar at midnight California time stopped broadcasting the signals of Viacom-owned CBS stations, including those in New York and Los Angeles, and will stop showing its cable networks, including MTV and Nickelodeon. A court order requiring Viacom to let EchoStar broadcast the 16 stations expired today. EchoStar failed to reach terms on a new contract with Viacom, the third-largest U.S. media company. EchoStar has said Viacom is demanding rates that are too high and forcing EchoStar to carry networks it doesn't want. EchoStar's Dish Network may lose sales if the dispute isn't resolved soon. "This is a game of chicken -- who will blink first is the question," Richard Greenfield, an analyst at New York-based Fulcrum Global Partners, wrote in a note to clients this morning. EchoStar may lose "a meaningful number of subscribers if this battle takes too long to conclude," he said. He has a 'neutral' rating on Viacom and doesn't cover EchoStar. http://quote.bloomberg.com/apps/news?pid=10000103&sid=a5_2i6CLuzDg&refer=news_index [TELECOM Digest Editor's Note: And indeed, they did yank them off at midnight Pacific time last night, after a couple hours of warning beginning about midnight Eastern and for the next three or four hours. The first time last night I saw the announcement was on TV-Land during their 11 PM showing of 'Beaver'. Right at the stroke of 11 PM central that chirp was heard on the cable and an audible/visual message was heard. No, it was not a notice of a tornado or anything like that. It was telling us that (the satellite viewers) will be disconnected in about three hours, then a list of all the channels and shows that would be taken away from DISH which seemed to go on and on and on ... MTV-2 is one of the victims, many other channels, as well and 'the show in progress now' will not be available any longer either. They repeated it again at midnight and 1 AM central time. You readers who subscribe to satellite: tell us more about it. What is on all of those dark channels today? Anything, or old re-runs of shows the satellite operators had in stock or what? 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, Yahoo Groups, 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: 620-402-0134 Fax 1: 775-255-9970 Fax 2: 530-309-7234 Fax 3: 208-692-5145 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 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 fifty 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. If you donate at least fifty dollars per year we will send you our two-CD set of the entire Telecom Archives; this is every word published in this Digest since our beginning in 1981. 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 V23 #112 ****************************** From editor@telecom-digest.org Wed Mar 10 03:50:54 2004 Received: (from ptownson@localhost) by massis.lcs.mit.edu (8.11.6p2/8.11.3) id i2A8osV13511; Wed, 10 Mar 2004 03:50:54 -0500 (EST) Date: Wed, 10 Mar 2004 03:50:54 -0500 (EST) From: editor@telecom-digest.org Message-Id: <200403100850.i2A8osV13511@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 V23 #113 TELECOM Digest Wed, 10 Mar 2004 03:51:00 EST Volume 23 : Issue 113 Inside This Issue: Editor: Patrick A. Townson Re: AT&T Wireless Introduces Early Evenings; New Options (Steven Sobol) Re: AT&T Wireless Introduces Early Evenings; New Options (Justin Time) Re: Nielsen PVR Plan Gives Agencies Pause (Linc Madison) Strange Phone Number (Adam) Re: Need to Block Outgoing Calls to Specific Numbers (Withheld) Re: EchoStar May Lose More After Removing Viacom's CBS (Sammy@nospam) Re: The Price of Email is Constant Vigilance (Sammy@nospam.biz) Re: Spam (jmayson@nyx.net) Re: Spam and the Law was Re: The Price of Email (Barry Margolin) Re: Spam and the Law was Re: The Price of Email (Thomas A. Horsley) Inflection of "Virus" (was Re: Spam Going Under My Name) (Mark Brader) Re: Curious Plurals (was Re: Spam Going Under My Name) (Nick Landsberg) 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. =========================== Addresses herein are not to be added to any mailing list, nor to be sold or given away without explicit written consent. Chain letters, viruses, porn, spam, and miscellaneous junk is definitely unwelcome. We must fight spam for the same reason we fight crime: not because we are naive enough to believe that we will ever stamp it out, but because we do not want the kind of world that results when no one stands against crime. Geoffrey Welsh =========================== See the bottom of this issue for subscription and archive details and the name of our lawyer; other stuff of interest. ---------------------------------------------------------------------- From: Steven J Sobol Subject: Re: AT&T Wireless Introduces Early Evenings; New Options Date: Tue, 09 Mar 2004 14:24:54 -0600 Joseph wrote: > Woohoo! And how long will this last? Perhaps the article doesn't > mention it, but 7:00 p.m. night minutes were the norm until the > wireless companies decided to change start of night time to 9:00 p.m. > People are naive if they think that any particular market condition > won't make night minutes change again. It's triage. That's all it is. They want to stop hemorrhaging customers. JustThe.net Internet & New Media Services, Apple Valley, CA Steven J. Sobol, Geek In Charge / 888.480.4NET (4638) / sjsobol@JustThe.net PGP: C57E 8B25 F994 D6D0 5F6B B961 EA08 9410 E3AE 35ED Domain Names, $9.95/yr, 24x7 service: http://DomainNames.JustThe.net/ ------------------------------ From: a_user2000@yahoo.com (Justin Time) Subject: Re: AT&T Wireless Introduces Early Evenings; New Options Date: 9 Mar 2004 13:06:54 -0800 Organization: http://groups.google.com Monty Solomon wrote in message news:: > AT&T Wireless Introduces Early Evenings; New Option Offers > Unlimited Night and Weekend Minutes Beginning at 7 p.m. Instead > of 9 p.m. > - Mar 8, 2004 11:00 AM (BusinessWire) > REDMOND, Wash.--(BUSINESS WIRE)--March 8, 2004--AT&T Wireless > (NYSE:AWE) has introduced an option called Early Evenings that makes > available to new and current customers on qualifying plans unlimited > night and weekend minutes beginning at 7 p.m. instead of the usual 9 > p.m. > - http://finance.lycos.com/home/news/story.asp?story=40775325 Just talked to my AT&T Account Manager. The only plans that qualify are those billing $59.00 per month and up. So, those of us with cheap(?) plans can only wait - which is one reason I can't ever upgrade the plan I'm on. 60 minutes a month, free long distance from my home area and no roaming between North Carolina and Maine for only $14.99 a month. Rodgers Platt ------------------------------ Subject: Re: Nielsen PVR Plan Gives Agencies Pause Date: Tue, 09 Mar 2004 13:44:11 -0800 From: Linc Madison Reply-To: lincmad@suespammers.org Organization: California resident; nospam; no unsolicited e-mail allowed In article , Thomas A. Horsley wrote: > It is interesting that an industry that bases ad prices for the whole > season in large part on ratings generated by "sweeps" where the > networks don't even broadcast their normal programming could deride > anything as "meaningless" :-). You are getting VERRRRRY SLEEEEEPY. That is NOT an elephant in your living room. I repeat, that is NOT an elephant in your living room. At least they did get wise to the idea that the networks might try to offer programming specifically to appeal to Nielsen households during sweeps. > However, without getting Nielsen involved, I can tell them the precise > and exact ratings for commercials for PVR owners: zero. Well, no, actually. Yes, I usually pick up the remote and zip through the commercials. In fact, when I'm watching "live TV" I often pause the show for a few minutes just in order to be able to zip through the commercials later. However, if I catch a glimpse of an ad that interests me, I will rewind and watch the ad. Being able to rewind also means I never have to scramble for a pen to jot down the phone number or web address. That is absolutely a small percentage of all the ads that my TiVo records, but not zero. Linc Madison * San Francisco, California * lincmad@suespammers.org * primary e-mail: Telecom at LincMad dot com All U.S. and California anti-spam laws apply, incl. CA BPC 17538.45(c) This text constitutes actual notice as required in BPC 17538.45(f)(3). DO NOT SEND UNSOLICITED E-MAIL TO THIS ADDRESS. You have been warned. ------------------------------ From: Adam Subject: Strange Phone Number Organization: SBC http://yahoo.sbc.com Date: Tue, 09 Mar 2004 22:31:23 GMT Anyone know what type of phone number this is: 646-539-9007 ? I keep getting calls from this number but when I return the call, I am asked for a pin. ------------------------------ Date: Wed, 10 Mar 2004 00:16:03 -0600 From: Withheld Reply-To: the Digest Subject: Re: Need to Block Outgoing Calls to Specific Numbers [Hi, PAT -- privacy mode again, please...] > [TELECOM Digest Editor's Note: The original writer (wrote back and) > said the telco had offered to provide a service known as 'Call > Control'. It has to be programmed through the central office > (otherwise, of what value would there be if a 'star code' could turn > it off and on?) Hi, OP again ... (Refresher: An Alzheimer's patient is making dozens of calls daily to a couple of neighbors; the neighbors are threatening harassment action. I'm looking for a way to block outbound calls to a handful of local numbers.) Call Control is programmed from the customer premises, through the touchtone keypad. You must first set a password, thereafter a "star code" accesses a menu but the first thing you must do on that menu is enter the password. I'll provide details after the service is actually running and I've had a chance to play with it. There is a chink in the armor, though -- and I don't see any way to secure it. That chink is call completion through Directory Assistance, calling cards, or similar companies. Whether using Call Control from Telco, or some kind of CPE, once the call has been put through there is no more filtering. So it's possible to call DA, have them look up a blocked number, and then connect the call. Since that interaction is all by voice, there's no opportunity to filter it. Telco could conceivably maintain a database of blocked numbers that DA would dip into, but this is not really practical. Even if such a database existed, it would probably not be accessible to third-party providers (e.g. Infone) without some kind of regulatory action. So the next solution is to block DA, except that this lady uses DA because she can't read the phone book due to cataracts. And she does have legitimate needs to look up numbers. Now the way we've been keeping her from calling the offended neighbors is by removing their phone numbers from her handwritten book. However she's also got them written down in other places so we've been discovering those one by one and taking them out as well. But the other day I watched her make a call to a local business; she called 411 (yes, 95 cents per call), asked them for the number, then pressed "1" (or whatever) to have DA connect the call for her. It occurred to me that if we successfully removed every copy of the banned phone numbers from her house, this is how she would call these people. So I called Repairs and asked if Call Control would block calls completed through DA. Asking about Call Control was novel enough, but this question really threw them :-) I was put back on hold for several minutes, after which the rep came back on and said that the blocking was only effective on direct-dialed calls. So we're going ahead with Call Control, but will _leave_ the forbidden phone number for her to find, so she won't call DA for it. We also have someone in the house with her 4 hours a day, Monday through Friday, to help with meals, medication, pet care, housekeeping, and so on. Family members "drop in" to visit on weekends. Hopefully this will give her enough companionship that she won't feel the need to bug the neighbors any more. But she won't tolerate live-in help, so we need to do something to cover the parts of the day when she's unsupervised. She's a great lady, and it bugs me that I have to sneak around and mess with her freedoms like this. But it's necessary if she's going to be allowed to remain living "independently" in her own home. ------------------------------ From: Sammy@nospam.biz Subject: Re: EchoStar May Lose More After Removing Viacom's CBS Date: Tue, 09 Mar 2004 18:24:17 -0800 Organization: Cox Communications > You readers who subscribe to satellite: tell us more about it. What > is on all of those dark channels today? Anything, or old re-runs of > shows the satellite operators had in stock or what? PAT] I guess it makes a good case for staying with cable. [TELECOM Digest Editor's Note: I turned on the television today more out of curiosity than anything else. Of course I am on cable, not satellite, and it appears to me they didn't miss a single beat. All the usual crummy day time stuff. Jerry Springer (is that Fox? I dunno for sure) had one of his 'confessions' programs on today. That's where some poor sap comes out on the stage, tells his life story, Jerry tells him his wife heard it all backstage, then she marches out and clobbers the guy (who either had secret mistresses, was secretly gay, or had some picadillo or another of which she did not approve). While the wife is 'counseling' her husband there on the stage, another guest whose claim to fame is his lust for indecent exposure is busily running amok through the audience and back to the stage, with all his clothes off. That show is such a riot! And imagine how the authorities were complaining about Janet Jackson. Sort of hypocritcal IMO ... PAT] ------------------------------ From: Sammy@nospam.biz Subject: Re: The Price of Email is Constant Vigilance Date: Tue, 09 Mar 2004 18:21:17 -0800 Organization: Cox Communications William Warren wrote: > We don't need more software: we need to fight back. Oh, please. Who has time to do that?! What we need is an authentication system, not software. ------------------------------ From: jmayson@nyx.net Subject: Re: Spam Date: Wed, 10 Mar 2004 03:14:04 GMT Organization: Road Runner High Speed Online http://www.rr.com > You have just experienced firsthand the reason why I no longer post to > netnews under my own name. (I know I'm not alone in this.) After one > weekend where our computer staff deleted five *thousand* spam e-mails > to me, I decided it wasn't worth it. This is something I have gone back and forth on for the past couple of years. I have been on USENET since 1987 when I started college. I had no idea what it was or that everything I posted was being archived. It was rather amusing to go back in 2002 or so and see things I wrote a decade and a half earlier. But I got a little nervous about it too. I don't *THINK* I ever said anything too stupid/inflamatory/idiotic/ off-color, but who knows. I usually tell people when they send an email or post to USENET that they're not only effectively sending a postcard that anyone can see, but everyone who touches the postcard is making a photocopy of it and pasting the photocopy on their front door. I started using an assumed identity (my first and middle names only, as my middle name is more common than my last name). I did not do this to defraud, fool, slander, or otherwise participate in inappropriate conduct, but I was protecting my identity. However, I just felt odd pretending to be someone else. So I've gone back to being myself online. > I can do this because I don't edit anything online. You can't, > unfortunately ... (comment was addressed to TELECOM Digest Editor). I'm active in the radio monitoring community, even writing periodically for Monitoring Times magazine. It'd be sort of hard for me to "disappear" online then have a guy who sounds just like me show up the next day. My solution now is I mostly lurk and respond to people personally as much as possible. I ask myself: 1. Is this posting necessary? 2. Will people care about it? 3. Will it embarrass me next week? Next year? Next decade? I often don't get past #1 before I kill the message or decide to send it just to the sender and not the mailing list. > [TELECOM Digest Editor's Note: No, I cannot do that, and I am not sure > if I would want to anyway. I am thinking however about doing something > like PGP on my signature, then disavowing anything that does not have > my encrypted mark on it. But I am getting so many requests to hide > email addresses these days in the Digest, I am giving serious consid- > eration to **removing all email addresses** in the Digest, something > I would have been horrified by a few years ago. I *like* the idea of > having open addressing here so readers can contact one another with > questions, solutions, etc. It is not up to me to control the flow of > mail here, or require everyone to come through here with comments and > answers, etc. But there really is not going to be much of a choice > very soon. I am also thinking about installing a 'challenge/white list' > approach on incoming mail. Everyone will *have* to use a valid > address to reach me and 'good' for-real correspondents will go on a > 'white list' for future incoming mail, however I will automatically > strip off the email addresses on everything before it leaves here and > goes back out. No good answer to the challenge, I won't even see the > mail; not that it will fall in an overflowing spam bucket; it will > just get bashed on the way in the door. Nothing definite on this yet, > but I have to do something. The spam count is now higher than ever. > PAT] I chuckle when I read about the latest virus or the volume of spam people receive. I have a heavy-duty procmail recipe (see http://handsonhowto.com/pmail101.html for more information) plus I have spamassassin available to me on Nyx (http://www.nyx.net). I stand there with my shining armor saying in a deep voice, "I laugh in the face of spam!" then offer a hardy chuckle. I really don't care if my email address gets out because it's not going to cause me any worries. Knock on wood. I was a strong supporter of the Do Not Call list, but I am totally against the Do Not Spam list. I don't see this as a contradiction. I have positive control of my email. I decide when I check it. I can decide from whom I will receive messages. I simply don't have that kind of control over my phone. Well, I'll close this before this posting embarrasses me. ;-) John Mayson Austin, Texas, USA ------------------------------ From: Barry Margolin Subject: Re: Spam and the Law was Re: The Price of Email is Constant Organization: Looking for work Date: Tue, 09 Mar 2004 16:13:38 -0500 In article , Danny Burstein wrote: > Each and every ISP, in order to gain continued connectivity, simply > has to establish terms of service (and enforce them) in a way so as to > prevent its customers from spamming. (see below for my suggestion) > If the East Cupcake Bakery and Internet Service allows its customers > to spam, then we cut it off. Pure and Simple. It and its spammers can > cheerfully wallow in the smelly pit of their own putrid intranet. Yes, > some non spamming customers will get hurt. But that is NOT my problem. Your *own* customers also get hurt, since they can't communicate with all the other customers of ECBIS. If the ISP that you cut off is much bigger than you, your customers will be more inconvenienced than the other ISP is by your boycott. Barry Margolin, barmar@alum.mit.edu Arlington, MA [TELECOM Digest Editor's Note: Not really, Barry. Yes, there would be some disruptions for a short time as people migrated off of non- complying ISPs to the ones who complied, but that would not take too long to get resolved. Take for example AOHell, one of the biggest ISPs. If they chose not to go along, most of their customers would raise a lot of hell about not being able to get 'internet' any longer. Consider a couple years ago when the German government cracked down on 'internet pornography' and the various alt newsgroups for sex forcing Compuserve to quit providing the alt newsgroups. CIS subscribers just about went crazy. Same thing would happen with any of the *big* ISPs whose output to the net was no longer accepted. So you would not be able to 'talk' with your friends on that parti- cular ISP for a couple weeks while *they* scrambled around to find a new ISP to use. That's all. PAT] ------------------------------ Subject: Re: Spam and the Law was Re: The Price of Email is Constant From: tom.horsley@att.net (Thomas A. Horsley) Organization: AT&T Worldnet Date: Wed, 10 Mar 2004 00:00:38 GMT > Each and every ISP, in order to gain continued connectivity, simply > has to establish terms of service (and enforce them) in a way so as to > prevent its customers from spamming. (see below for my suggestion) I've been an advocate of this kind of thing for a long time now. I'd love to see "two internets" the one where spammers can freely spam each other and support the ISPs that won't agree to reasonable standards, and the other one where everyone else can exist in peace, and never the two shall meet :-). >>==>> The *Best* political site >>==+ email: Tom.Horsley@worldnet.att.net icbm: Delray Beach, FL | Free Software and Politics <<==+ ------------------------------ Subject: Inflection of "Virus" (was Re: Spam Going Out Under My Name) Date: Wed, 10 Mar 2004 01:49:36 EST From: msb@vex.net (Mark Brader) "Graeme" writes: > Nouns in Latin come in 5 categories, called declensions. However, there are also some subcategories and special cases. > The commonest has a singular ending in -us, with plural -i; an example is > "cactus", forming "cacti". If "virus" was from that class, its plural > would be "viri", but it isn't. Right. These are 2nd declension masculine nouns. There are also 2nd declension neuter nouns, which resemble the 2nd declension masculine nouns in many inflections, but the basic (nominative) forms have singular -um and plural -a. For example, "medium" and "media". (Note that the I in this example is part of the stem, not the ending. Similarly, the first I in "radii" is part of the stem; the singular is "radius". So even if "virus" was 2nd declension masculine, its plural still would not be "virii", which people who don't know better use sometimes; it'd be "viri", as stated above.) > A rare declension (the 5th) also has words ending -us, with the plural > also in -us; an example is "status". (The u is short in the singular, > and long in the plural.) But "virus" doesn't come from that > declension either. Actually that's 4th declension. 5th declension nouns end in -es in both singular and plural; "species" is one example. > The 3rd declension is a bit of a random collection. Two examples are > opus (work), forming the plural opera, and corpus/corpora (body). > Plausible plurals for "virus", then, are "virera" or "virora". Maybe. But if "virus" was 3rd declension and one of those was the nominative plural, the accusative singular would be "virerem" or "virorem". In fact this form is known to be "virus". But that's odd, because accusative singulars in all declensions end in M, not S. > The Romans never wrote down the plural, so we don't know exactly what > it was. It probably was strictly a mass noun and didn't have one, like its approximate translation "slime" in its normal usage. > And we have evidence that "virus" was odd in other ways. See above. > (It's neuter, which 3rd declension nouns aren't supposed to be. No, there are lots of 3rd declension neuters. What we're looking at here is a special case -- a 2nd declension neuter *without* the normal -um ending. That isn't "supposed to be" either. Perhaps it's better to just describe the thing as irregular, no declension. > Perhaps it's like "pelagus/pelage" (sea).) This is also 2nd declension neuter. Normally all neuter nouns have plurals that end in A, but this one doesn't. "Vire", by analogy, is a plausible choice; so also is "vira". > The best plural, then, ignores the Latin, and is "viruses". For sure. For those who've read this far and are now wondering about the 1st declension: those have singular -a and plural -ae, and are usually feminine. An example is "nebula". Mark Brader, Toronto | The plural of "virus" is "ad nauseam". msb@vex.net | --Fred Bambrough My text in this article is in the public domain. ------------------------------ From: Nick Landsberg Reply-To: hukolau@NOSPAM.att.net Subject: Re: Curious Plurals (was Re: Spam Going Out Under My Name) Date: Tue, 09 Mar 2004 21:02:54 GMT Organization: AT&T Worldnet Michael Quinn wrote: > This discussion of latinate plurals reminds me of one I saw some > sometime back ago in a handbook on shipboard radio antenna systems - > it went to some length to argue that that the plural of (radio) > antenna was "antennas", not "antennae", the latter being reserved for > insects (or as I later read, politicians, as in "political antennae", > which may invite a debate over the distinctions between the two > species.) Never came across it again, but I think of it when I > occasionally hear someone refer to "radio antennae". > Regards, > Mike > [TELECOM Digest Editor's Note: So are there any real differences > between politicians and insects, or spammers for that matter. Or > did spammers (a low specie of life) evolve from insects? PAT] No Patrick, the spammers are a by-product of "whale s*it". Stuff that drifts to the bottom of the ocean and is the lowest known form of life. :) >> Date: Mon, 8 Mar 2004 21:51:02 +0000 >> From: Withheld >> Subject: Re: Spam Going Out Under My Name >> Nouns in Latin come in 5 categories, called declensions. The >> commonest has a singular ending in -us, with plural -i; an example is >> "cactus", forming "cacti". If "virus" was from that class, its plural >> would be "viri", but it isn't. "It is impossible to make anything foolproof because fools are so ingenious" - A. Bloch ------------------------------ 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, Yahoo Groups, 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: 620-402-0134 Fax 1: 775-255-9970 Fax 2: 530-309-7234 Fax 3: 208-692-5145 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 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 fifty 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. If you donate at least fifty dollars per year we will send you our two-CD set of the entire Telecom Archives; this is every word published in this Digest since our beginning in 1981. 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 V23 #113 ****************************** From editor@telecom-digest.org Wed Mar 10 14:03:52 2004 Received: (from ptownson@localhost) by massis.lcs.mit.edu (8.11.6p2/8.11.3) id i2AJ3po19527; Wed, 10 Mar 2004 14:03:52 -0500 (EST) Date: Wed, 10 Mar 2004 14:03:52 -0500 (EST) From: editor@telecom-digest.org Message-Id: <200403101903.i2AJ3po19527@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 V23 #114 TELECOM Digest Wed, 10 Mar 2004 14:04:00 EST Volume 23 : Issue 114 Inside This Issue: Editor: Patrick A. Townson Comcast to Carry NBA TV; NBA's 24-Hour Television Channel (M Solomon) EPIC Alert 11.05 (Monty Solomon) Nextel Seen Having to Pay For New Airwaves - Sources (Monty Solomon) Re: The Price of Email is Constant Vigilance (Fred Goldstein) Re: The Price of Email is Constant Vigilance (Scott Dorsey) Re: The Price of Email is Constant Vigilance (William Warren) Re: Snapshots in Time (Sammy@nospam.biz) Cell Number Portability: An Update (Eric Friedebach) Directory Assist Charges, was Re: Need to Block Out (Danny Burstein) Re: Need to Block Outgoing Calls to Specific Numbers (AES/newspost) Data and Clock Synchronization (Martin) Re: Strange Phone Number (Joseph) Re: EchoStar May Lose (James Bellaire) 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. =========================== Addresses herein are not to be added to any mailing list, nor to be sold or given away without explicit written consent. Chain letters, viruses, porn, spam, and miscellaneous junk is definitely unwelcome. We must fight spam for the same reason we fight crime: not because we are naive enough to believe that we will ever stamp it out, but because we do not want the kind of world that results when no one stands against crime. Geoffrey Welsh =========================== See the bottom of this issue for subscription and archive details and the name of our lawyer; other stuff of interest. ---------------------------------------------------------------------- Date: Wed, 10 Mar 2004 09:37:51 -0500 From: Monty Solomon Subject: Comcast to Carry NBA TV; NBA's 24-Hour Television Channel Comcast to Carry NBA TV; NBA's 24-Hour Television Channel Will Be Available to Comcast's 21 Million Customers PHILADELPHIA & NEW YORK--(BUSINESS WIRE)--March 9, 2004-- Separate Initiative to Provide NBA VOD Programming to Comcast Customers Comcast Cable and the National Basketball Association today announced a comprehensive multi-year agreement through which NBA TV will be made available to Digital Cable customers on Comcast systems serving more than 21 million customers. With this agreement, NBA TV will be available to 66 million U.S. homes. Beginning in April, Comcast, the nation's leading cable and broadband communications provider, will make NBA TV, the league's 24-hour television channel, available as part of its Digital Cable service in major markets - including Atlanta, Boston, Chicago, Denver, Los Angeles, Sacramento, Salt Lake City, San Francisco and Seattle -- with plans to launch to most markets later this year. Customers who subscribe to Comcast's HDTV service also will be able to enjoy select NBA TV programming in crystal-clear high-definition. In addition, through a separate agreement with NBA Entertainment, Comcast will provide customers with access to NBA video-on-demand programming as part of its ON DEMAND service. On-demand content will include game highlight packages as well as popular programs such as NBA Inside Stuff. - http://finance.lycos.com/home/news/story.asp?story=40787951 ------------------------------ Date: Wed, 10 Mar 2004 09:56:10 -0500 From: Monty Solomon Subject: EPIC Alert 11.05 ======================================================================= E P I C A l e r t ======================================================================= Volume 11.05 March 9, 2004 ----------------------------------------------------------------------- Published by the Electronic Privacy Information Center (EPIC) Washington, D.C. http://www.epic.org/alert/EPIC_Alert_11.05.html ====================================================================== Table of Contents ====================================================================== [1] EPIC Files Brief in National DNA Database Case [2] International Privacy Framework Almost Final [3] EPIC Replies to Northwest's Defense of Privacy Policy Breach [4] Electronic Voting Problems Plague Super Tuesday [5] Gov't Seeks Public Comment on Important Privacy Regulations [6] News in Brief [7] EPIC Bookstore: Beyond Genetics [8] Upcoming Conferences and Events http://www.epic.org/alert/EPIC_Alert_11.05.html ------------------------------ Date: Wed, 10 Mar 2004 09:32:35 -0500 From: Monty Solomon Subject: Nextel Seen Having to Pay For New Airwaves - Sources By Jeremy Pelofsky WASHINGTON, March 9 (Reuters) - Nextel Communications Inc. (NASDAQ:NXTL) will likely have to pay more for airwaves it wants in a spectrum swap aimed at resolving interference with emergency service users, officials close to the matter said on Tuesday. The Federal Communications Commission has developed a plan to let Nextel move operations to the 1.9 gigahertz band from three lower bands while paying $850 million to reorganize the 800 megahertz band and upgrade public safety communications, they said, speaking on the condition of anonymity. Nextel would have to pay the overall difference between the valuation of the airwaves swapped, the costs incurred for moving its operations and to reorganize the 800 Mhz band, the officials said. - http://finance.lycos.com/home/news/story.asp?story=40789188 ------------------------------ Date: Wed, 10 Mar 2004 10:05:27 -0500 From: Fred Goldstein Subject: Re: The Price of Email is Constant Vigilance William Warren replied to my suggestion thusly, > If a small percentage of spam recipients take the time to answer the > pitches, track down those whom have started the spew, and make their > feelings known, the human costs to the spammers will quickly overwhelm > their profit margins. > When I get a mortgage pitch, I fill it out and send it back. If > someone is pitching a weigh-loss product, I demand details via postal > mail. For "herbal viagra", I ram my complaints right down the throat > of the distribution center. ... Those are, of course, labor-intensive. And they can expose the victim's identity to the spammer. Bad. I understand the old "fill the business reply envelope with junk and stick it in a maibox" trick, but I have doubts that it would be safe with spammers, who, after all, are by definition criminals. > Mark Crispin says, >> SMTP is 32 years old. > More like 22 or so years old. > Until the TCP/IP transition on January 1983, the primary means of > conveying mail was via the MAIL command in FTP. > I wrote one of the first widely-distributed SMTP servers in 1982. Well, yes; I was taking some liberties by going back to the 1972 predecessor of SMTP, when IIRC two commands were added to FTP in order to transfer mail. SMTP redid the syntax and made some tweaks, but stayed with the host-to-host realtime transfer model. In contrast, FIPS98 and X.400 are very different mail systems. Not that I'm recommending X.400! (FIPS98 was probably better, but lost out to the CCITT's might. I think we used it inside DEC for a while, in the DECmail MTA.) > Danny Burstein says, >> While others have diagreed with me on this and I respect their >> opinions, I'm still convinced that the *only* solution is to have >> micropayments. > Once again I'll disagree with this whole concept. The only thing > necessary is to acknowledge that ISPs and their customers only have > connectivity to others because of the kindness of strangers. And to > take action based on that. > Each and every ISP, in order to gain continued connectivity, simply > has to establish terms of service (and enforce them) in a way so as to > prevent its customers from spamming. (see below for my suggestion) Impossible. Period. We've had blacklists (RBLs) for years. We've had terms of service for years. But the Internet is global, with open entry for new ISPs. It's not possible to shut down every possible entry point for spam before the damage is done. It's a common misperception that if 90% of foo comes by way of path X, that if path X is closed, the arrival rate of foo will drop by 90%. This gets used in a lot of public policy debates -- for instance, if country X produces Y% of drug Z, then shutting down country X's export of drug Z will reduce the amount on the street by Y%. It ignores the fact that countries T, U, V and W will happily fill the gap. It's more like fluids -- if something is not absolutely airtight, gas or liquid will find an opening. Spam is like noxious, corrosive gas. It finds the smallest holes and blasts an opening through. One opening might be shut, but the spammer will find another one, if it possibly exists, or even create one. Today, mail worms (viruses) are being used by spammers to create proxies on innocent ISPs' networks. That joins the established "open a temporary account" trick, whereby the spammer remotely signs up (via free trial, stolen credit card, whatever) for an ISP service and blasts through it for as long as it takes for the ISP to catch on. Even a few hours of that can cause a lot of spam. It doesn't much come from the Spam King's IP address block any more. I'm differentiating here between "policing" and "enforcement". Danny is calling for a "policing" approach, whereby misbehavior is noted, stopped, and punished after the fact. Spammers *will* get around that -- there's too much money involved, and the protocols are too inviting. I'm saying that *enforcement* is necessary, which means that certain actions are monitored in real time and blocked before misbehavior occurs. Micropostage is an enforcement mechanism. The Postal Service doesn't come around annually and ask you how many letters you sent, please pay up. They don't deliver the letter without the stamp. That's enforcement. ------------------------------ From: kludge@panix.com (Scott Dorsey) Subject: Re: The Price of Email is Constant Vigilance Date: 10 Mar 2004 10:23:59 -0500 Organization: Former users of Netcom shell (1989-2000) In article , wrote: > William Warren wrote: >> We don't need more software: we need to fight back. > Oh, please. Who has time to do that?! If you don't have time to fight back, you don't have time to use mail. The reason that e-mail has become almost completely useless for legitimate work is that admins running major sites didn't take care of their problems when the spam problem began almost a decade ago. If the folks at uunet had actually disconnected spamming customers when they got complaints in 1996, instead of finding excuses, the problem would never have got out of hand the way it is now. Until major backbone sites actual take spamming seriously, until folks refuse to peer with spam sources and refuse to sell service to spam sources or buy connectivity from spam sources, we will have spam. --scott "C'est un Nagra. C'est suisse, et tres, tres precis." ------------------------------ From: William Warren Subject: Re: The Price of Email is Constant Vigilance Organization: Comcast Online Date: Wed, 10 Mar 2004 13:08:51 GMT wrote in message news:telecom23.113.7@telecom-digest.org: > William Warren wrote: >> We don't need more software: we need to fight back. > Oh, please. Who has time to do that?! > What we need is an authentication system, not software. Who has time to do that? YOU DO! As soon as you poison a list, they'll stop sending you their sleeze! Think of it as a front-loaded mutual fund. The pain is only at the start, and then it's payoff. Bill ------------------------------ From: Sammy@nospam.biz Subject: Re: Snapshots in Time Date: Wed, 10 Mar 2004 05:31:33 -0800 Organization: Cox Communications > [TELECOM Digest Editor's Note: I remember very well three such 'cuts' > in my life. In 1986, I knew the cut time for my local Pacific Telephone Crossbar to DMS-100. I had two lines at the time, with one connected to the other, and one on speaker phone at the designated time (2:00 AM Saturday). They were about 20 minutes late but there was no doubt when the connection dropped. Interesting bit of trivia: Why are cuts at 2:00 AM on Saturday rather than Sunday? Answer: it gives them 24 additional weekend hours to repair a cut gone bad. [TELECOM Digest Editor's Note: Also, (at least many years ago when the theory was first developed) [1] Saturday was the slowest day, traffic wise and [2] 2:00 AM was the least amount of traffic on Saturday. I do not know if those satistics are still true or not, but old habits are hard to get rid of. PAT] ------------------------------ From: friedebach@yahoo.com (Eric Friedebach) Subject: Cell Number Portability: An Update Date: 10 Mar 2004 09:17:48 -0800 Organization: http://groups.google.com Aude Lagorce, 03.09.04, Forbes.com NEW YORK - As corporate doomsday scenarios go, it was right up there with the biggies. Millions of Americans would dump their cell phone providers, we were told last fall, when wireless number portability came into effect. Oops. Between Nov. 24 and mid-January, just slightly more than one million Americans switched providers, far fewer than originally predicted. But number portability hasn't been all good news for the carriers. A very large percentage of switches couldn't be completed and complaints were far greater than had been anticipated. While some of those problems have been fixed, a second round of number portability looms. "It was a tempest in a glass of water," concedes Roger Entner, a program manager at the technology research firm the Yankee Group, of the switching hubbub. Entner, who had expected that up to five million users would change carriers, puts the actual tally at 1,015,000 as of Jan. 12, the latest period for which statistics are available. Gartner analyst Tole Hart writes in a report that "the amount of porting was generally lighter than the industry expected." http://www.forbes.com/technology/networks/2004/03/09/cx_al_0308portability.html Eric Friedebach /No Dirty Words On The Whiteboard/ ------------------------------ From: Danny Burstein Subject: Directory Assistance Charges, was Re: Need to Block Outgoing Date: Wed, 10 Mar 2004 08:58:45 UTC Organization: PANIX Public Access Internet and UNIX, NYC In Withheld writes: [ lots snipped ] > (Refresher: An Alzheimer's patient is making dozens of calls daily to > a couple of neighbors; the neighbors are threatening harassment > action. I'm looking for a way to block outbound calls to a handful of > local numbers.) [ snip ] > But the other day I watched her make a call to a local business; she > called 411 (yes, 95 cents per call), asked them for the number, then > pressed "1" (or whatever) to have DA connect the call for her. I recognize how difficult this whole situation is. Dealing with a degrading mental illness like Alzheimers takes a toll on everyone. But I may be able to suggest something that will help, at least a tiny bit. In the above paragraph you mentioned your relative uses directory assistance at $0.95/call. Many telcos will, on the determination that the customer is unable to use a paper telephone book, offer "free" directory assistance (just like in The Good Old Days). The exact requirement for this disability rating varies, but you mentioned in your post (in a section I clipped, now that I look ...) that your relative had serious cataracts. A note to that effect by a medical professional may be enough to get you at least this small amount of relief. Knowledge may be power, but communications is the key dannyb@panix.com [to foil spammers, my address has been double rot-13 encoded] [TELECOM Digest Editor's Note: I think the writer can also get telco to disable the 'press one to have this call connected' option removed from the line. I do know that people have tried to override any restrictions on 900/976 dialing by asking the operator to complete the call, but that won't work. TSPS won't allow the operator to complete the call. I do not know whether or not an operator can complete a call to an otherwise blocked number. If the operator *can* complete such a call, then I doubt 'call blocking' (*60) would protect the called party either, since the call's ID is lost in the switching matrix once it leaves the TSPS place. PAT] ------------------------------ From: AES/newspost Subject: Re: Need to Block Outgoing Calls to Specific Numbers Date: Wed, 10 Mar 2004 08:10:18 -0800 > (Refresher: An Alzheimer's patient is making dozens of calls daily to > a couple of neighbors; the neighbors are threatening harassment > action. I'm looking for a way to block outbound calls to a handful of > local numbers.) Tough problem (in multiple senses). Get a programmable phone with a lot of storable numbers (I've seen 'em with 20 choices), put all the numbers she needs in those, and somehow disable the keyboard for anything else??? [TELECOM Digest Editor's Note: You know that President Reagan has a rather advanced case of Alzheimer's in the past few years. His saint of a wife, Nancy, is with him almost constantly. It **is** tough on all concerned. PAT] ------------------------------ From: visepp@yahoo.de (Martin) Subject: Data and Clock Synchronization Date: 10 Mar 2004 05:48:31 -0800 Organization: http://groups.google.com I'm desiging at a 3 wire pcm audio interface with clock, frame sync and data. Clock, data and frame sync are fed from extern. The max. clock rate starts is 2.048MHz. This clock generates interanlly a 12.288MHz clock. So far so good. The problem is, that I have to synchronize the incoming singal with the 12.288MHz signal but I don't know the phase between the 12.288MHz Clock and the incoming signals. This can be +/- T/2 of the 12.288MHz clock. This can result in cycle slips. Who has experiences which such a problem? I'm implementing this circuit into a Spartan II device. Regards, Martin ------------------------------ From: Joseph Subject: Re: Strange Phone Number Date: Wed, 10 Mar 2004 07:19:09 -0800 Organization: Posted via Supernews, http://www.supernews.com Reply-To: JoeOfSeattle@yahoo.NONOcom On Tue, 09 Mar 2004 22:31:23 GMT, Adam wrote: > Anyone know what type of phone number this is: 646-539-9007 ? > I keep getting calls from this number but when I return the call, > I am asked for a pin. That NPA/NXX is owned by Broadview Networks, Inc. It's a New York City zone 2 office. http://www.telcodata.us/telcodata/telco?npa=646&exchange=539 remove NONO from .NONOcom to reply ------------------------------ Date: Wed, 10 Mar 2004 10:30:52 -0500 (EST) Subject: Re: EchoStar May Lose From: James Bellaire In TD 23-112 Pat said: > You readers who subscribe to satellite: tell us more about it. I've tried not to let it consume my life. :) It is fair to note that Viacom is a huge conglomorate with media outlets across the nation, not only in the 16 cities that were pulled. So watch the news for bias -- in case one has ever watched the news and thought there would be no bias. Echostar had no choice. Without a contract it would have been illegal to continue airing the TV and "cable" feeds that are now slates or gone. They managed to keep them on for a few more weeks thanks to a court order. Viacom offered and accepted no "extension while negotiating" as Time Warner (Turner Network channels such as CNN, TNT, TCM, etc) and Echostar are operating under. They demanded the final contract be signed. That contract asked for 5-7% increases each year for the next several years AND forced carriage of many Viacom channels. And they are using their CBS channels as leverage. Echostar doesn't want the whole package and do not want what will amount to a 40% price increase over the next few years. And now we have a stalemate. Viacom started playing inaccurate banners on their main feeds to ALL cable and satellite providers on Friday evening in an attempt to flood Echostar's phone centers. Plus, as you note, they have been playing this channe "only on DirecTV and cable" ads on TVLand and SpikeTV ... two Viacom channels that remain under contract and will remain on Echostar until at least 2005. But Viacom has the media. They can blast Echostar 24x7 on their feeds that are still airing on DirecTV and cable and put up emotion targeted websites. And in the end, Echostar can do nothing until Viacom *allows* their channels to be aired on Dish Network. It is a mess -- but I as a DishNetwork subscriber still have over 100 video channels in my "120 channel package". This dispute has removed 8 of "my" channels -- and Echostar has moved some channels down from higher packages. Plenty to watch while we wait it out. PLUS they are giving $1 or $2 credits to compensate their customers. ($2 if you lost your Viacom O&O CBS.) It's not the end of the world. James Bellaire http://telecomindiana.com/ [TELECOM Digest Editor's Note: What are you getting now on the empty channels? Were they reassigned to somestuff that had previously been in a more expensive package? PAT] ------------------------------ From: Mark Atwood Organization: EasyNews, UseNet made Easy! Date: Wed, 10 Mar 2004 18:13:12 GMT Subject: More About TiVo, ReplayTV [TELECOM Digest Editor's Note: Due to an editing glich, the subject line on this had to be reconstructed to approximation. PAT] Linc Madison writes: > However, if I catch a glimpse of an ad that interests me, I will rewind > and watch the ad. I have the same experience, my ReplayTV does a decently good job of autozapping the ads, but sometimes it leaves a second or so of the last ad in a block, or a few seconds of the middle of a longer 60 second ad in the middle. And sometimes occationally, rarely, I will see it, jump back, turn off the autoskip, and FF to that ad. PVR is not the death of ads. It's the death of *boring* ads. In the Superbowl before last, the bit that had the most TiVo replaying was the Brittney Spears Pepsi ad. Mark Atwood | When you do things right, mra@pobox.com | people won't be sure you've done anything at all. http://www.pobox.com/~mra ------------------------------ 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, Yahoo Groups, 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: 620-402-0134 Fax 1: 775-255-9970 Fax 2: 530-309-7234 Fax 3: 208-692-5145 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 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 fifty 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. If you donate at least fifty dollars per year we will send you our two-CD set of the entire Telecom Archives; this is every word published in this Digest since our beginning in 1981. 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 V23 #114 ****************************** From editor@telecom-digest.org Wed Mar 10 23:47:22 2004 Received: (from ptownson@localhost) by massis.lcs.mit.edu (8.11.6p2/8.11.3) id i2B4lLW25696; Wed, 10 Mar 2004 23:47:22 -0500 (EST) Date: Wed, 10 Mar 2004 23:47:22 -0500 (EST) From: editor@telecom-digest.org Message-Id: <200403110447.i2B4lLW25696@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 V23 #115 TELECOM Digest Wed, 10 Mar 2004 23:47:00 EST Volume 23 : Issue 115 Inside This Issue: Editor: Patrick A. Townson Celebrity's Son Convicted in Phone Scam Case (Anonymous-No Spam) Re: EchoStar May Lose More After Removing Viacom's CBS (Tony P. Re: EchoStar May Lose More After Removing Viacom's CBS (J Kelly) Re: EchoStar May Lose More After Removing Viacom's CBS (Barry Margolin) Re: Snapshots in Time (Wesrock@aol.com) PRI voice T1 and CallerID Blocking (desafinadonospam@hotmail.com) What Are My Options? (Bruce) Re: Cell Number Portability: An Update (Sammy@nospam.biz) Navicore to Close Its First Round Funding (PressReleaseNetwork.com) Re: Spam and the Law was Re: The Price of Email (jmeissen@aracnet.com) EFFector 17.8: FCC Faces Suit on Regulation of Digital (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. =========================== Addresses herein are not to be added to any mailing list, nor to be sold or given away without explicit written consent. Chain letters, viruses, porn, spam, and miscellaneous junk is definitely unwelcome. We must fight spam for the same reason we fight crime: not because we are naive enough to believe that we will ever stamp it out, but because we do not want the kind of world that results when no one stands against crime. Geoffrey Welsh =========================== See the bottom of this issue for subscription and archive details and the name of our lawyer; other stuff of interest. ---------------------------------------------------------------------- From: Anonymous Subject: Celebrity Chef's Son Guilty in Phone Scam Organization: SBC http://yahoo.sbc.com Date: Thu, 11 Mar 2004 02:44:53 GMT Henry K. Lee, Chronicle Staff Writer Copyright 2004 San Francisco Chronicle URL: sfgate.com/cgi-bin/article.cgi?file=/c/a/2004/03/11/PHONESCAM.TMP The son of Bay Area chef and radio food personality Narsai David was convicted Wednesday of illegally reaping nearly $500,000 by repeatedly dialing 800-numbers on pay phone lines he and a co-defendant leased from Pacific Bell. Daniel David, 38, of Berkeley was found guilty of seven counts of mail fraud, seven counts of using a fictitious name for a fraudulent scheme and five counts of money laundering by a federal jury in San Francisco. The panel, which deliberated for less than two days after a weeklong trial, acquitted David of one count of conspiracy. U.S. District Judge Susan Illston will sentence David on June 25. His attorney, Thomas Carlucci, did not return calls for comment Wednesday, nor did David's father, the celebrity gourmet. A co-defendant in the case, Scott Nisbet, 40, of Berkeley, pleaded guilty to unspecified charges earlier this year as part of a plea agreement, court records show. After the two were arrested in 2002, their fathers -- Nisbet's is retired AC Transit general manager Robert Nisbet -- posted bond for them. According to federal prosecutors, David and Nisbet leased 24 pay phone lines from Pacific Bell from 1998 to 2000, routed 23 of the lines to an empty office in South San Francisco and hooked them up to an auto-dialer. Then, they made more than 2 million telephone calls to 800-numbers. ........Article continues ........ *** FAIR USE NOTICE. This message contains copyrighted material the use of which has not been specifically authorized by the copyright owner. This Internet discussion group is making it available without profit to group members who have expressed a prior interest in receiving the included information in their efforts to advance the understanding of literary, educational, political, and economic issues, for non-profit research and educational purposes only. I believe that this constitutes a 'fair use' of the copyrighted material as provided for in section 107 of the U.S. Copyright Law. If you wish to use this copyrighted material for purposes of your own that go beyond 'fair use,' you must obtain permission from the copyright owner, in this instance San Francisco Chronicle.. For more information go to: http://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/17/107.shtml ------------------------------ From: Tony P. Subject: Re: EchoStar May Lose More After Removing Viacom's CBS Organization: ATCC Date: Wed, 10 Mar 2004 19:54:01 GMT In article , Sammy@nospam.biz says: >> You readers who subscribe to satellite: tell us more about it. What >> is on all of those dark channels today? Anything, or old re-runs of >> shows the satellite operators had in stock or what? PAT] > I guess it makes a good case for staying with cable. Hardly. Look at the latest debacle between Cox and ESPN. It's going to get worse as providers start trying to squeeze more out of cable and satellite companies who then pass it on to their customers. EchoStar giving a $1 credit is ridiculous. They're just skimming as much as they can. > [TELECOM Digest Editor's Note: I turned on the television today more > out of curiosity than anything else. Of course I am on cable, not > satellite, and it appears to me they didn't miss a single beat. All > the usual crummy day time stuff. Jerry Springer (is that Fox? I dunno > for sure) had one of his 'confessions' programs on today. That's where > some poor sap comes out on the stage, tells his life story, Jerry > tells him his wife heard it all backstage, then she marches out and > clobbers the guy (who either had secret mistresses, was secretly gay, > or had some picadillo or another of which she did not approve). While > the wife is 'counseling' her husband there on the stage, another guest > whose claim to fame is his lust for indecent exposure is busily > running amok through the audience and back to the stage, with all his > clothes off. That show is such a riot! And imagine how the > authorities were complaining about Janet Jackson. Sort of hypocritcal > IMO ... PAT] So true, Springer is definitely THE lowest common denominator in television. I suppose notoriety in any form is a good thing. Wasn't he a former politician? They always end up on either television or radio pandering to the lowest of the low. It's in their blood, they can't help it. As far as the nudity, I found the whole Janet Jackson incident to be a non-issue. A few million men got a free peek, as is evident from the number of TiVo recorders that re-played the event over and over. This country has a very strange culture in that on the surface we attempt (unsuccessful depending on region, etc.) to repress sexuality. But the undercurrent is odd, puritanism and sexuality. I'd bet there are a few sociologists out there who have a field day with this stuff. ------------------------------ From: J Kelly Subject: Re: EchoStar May Lose More After Removing Viacom's CBS Date: Wed, 10 Mar 2004 15:46:45 -0600 Organization: http://extra.newsguy.com Reply-To: jkelly@newsguy.com On Tue, 09 Mar 2004 18:24:17 -0800, TELECOM Digest Editor noted in response to Sammy@nospam.biz: >> You readers who subscribe to satellite: tell us more about it. What >> is on all of those dark channels today? Anything, or old re-runs of >> shows the satellite operators had in stock or what? PAT] > I guess it makes a good case for staying with cable. You do that. Cable raises their rates every six months or so. My Dish rate has gone up $1.01 in the past two years. On Wed, 10 Mar 2004 10:30:52 -0500 (EST), James Bellaire wrote: > In TD 23-112 Pat said: >> You readers who subscribe to satellite: tell us more about it. > I've tried not to let it consume my life. :) > It is fair to note that Viacom is a huge conglomorate with media > outlets across the nation, not only in the 16 cities that were pulled. > So watch the news for bias -- in case one has ever watched the news and > thought there would be no bias. > Echostar had no choice. Without a contract it would have been illegal > to continue airing the TV and "cable" feeds that are now slates or > gone. They managed to keep them on for a few more weeks thanks to a > court order. Viacom offered and accepted no "extension while > negotiating" as Time Warner (Turner Network channels such as CNN, TNT, > TCM, etc) and Echostar are operating under. They demanded the final > contract be signed. That contract asked for 5-7% increases each year > for the next several years AND forced carriage of many Viacom > channels. And they are using their CBS channels as leverage. > Echostar doesn't want the whole package and do not want what will > amount to a 40% price increase over the next few years. And now we > have a stalemate. > Viacom started playing inaccurate banners on their main feeds to ALL > cable and satellite providers on Friday evening in an attempt to flood > Echostar's phone centers. Plus, as you note, they have been playing > this channe "only on DirecTV and cable" ads on TVLand and SpikeTV > ... two Viacom channels that remain under contract and will remain on > Echostar until at least 2005. > But Viacom has the media. They can blast Echostar 24x7 on their feeds > that are still airing on DirecTV and cable and put up emotion targeted > websites. And in the end, Echostar can do nothing until Viacom > *allows* their channels to be aired on Dish Network. > It is a mess -- but I as a DishNetwork subscriber still have over 100 > video channels in my "120 channel package". This dispute has removed > 8 of "my" channels -- and Echostar has moved some channels down from > higher packages. Plenty to watch while we wait it out. PLUS they are > giving $1 or $2 credits to compensate their customers. ($2 if you > lost your Viacom O&O CBS.) > It's not the end of the world. > James Bellaire > http://telecomindiana.com/ > [TELECOM Digest Editor's Note: What are you getting now on the empty > channels? Were they reassigned to some stuff that had previously been > in a more expensive package? PAT] They have a slide up saying that the channel is currently unavailable and asking you to tune to channel 101 for the latest information. On channel 101 Dish CEO Charlie Ergen has a loop running with information on what has happened (which is pretty much what the previous poster said) and that they hope to reach an agreement soon so the channels can return. [TELECOM Digest Editor's Note: Channel 101? Isn't that a premium extra pay (outside the basic range) channel? They want you to pay extra to listen to Mr. Ergen? It is a premium channel here on Cable One. Our basic channels are 2 through 62 (sixty channels total, no one or four). One hundred up here are things like MTV-2 and Showtime Movies. I do not get any of that. PAT] ------------------------------ From: Barry Margolin Subject: Re: EchoStar May Lose More After Removing Viacom's CBS Organization: Looking for work Date: Wed, 10 Mar 2004 20:30:59 -0500 In article , Sammy@nospam.biz wrote: > I guess it makes a good case for staying with cable. Cable isn't immune from this type of problem. The cable companies have similar contracts with content providers, and it's possible for their renegotiations to fail just as easily. In fact, I think a few years ago subscribers to a cable company lost access to ABC and Disney Channel for about a week because of a problem similar to the one between Viacom and Dish Networks. Barry Margolin, barmar@alum.mit.edu Arlington, MA [TELECOM Digest Editor's Note: We used to have Time-Warner until last year but I don't think they ever had any disputes. But then last year a company called 'Cable One' took over here. Same local people in charge; the lady who worked in the office here for T-W now works here for Cable One. Her husband is the technician and also drives around the streets all day checking the wires and making hookups, etc. When I was downtown one day they were painting over the Time Warner sign on the front door with a new Cable One sign. I know they now offer cable internet also, something Time Warner said 'would come soon' but it never did until Cable One took over. I do not think the city of Independence would tolerate a lot of trouble out of them with loss of channels, it took them three or four months to get approved for the license from the city. PAT] ------------------------------ From: Wesrock@aol.com Date: Wed, 10 Mar 2004 19:46:41 EST Subject: Re: Snapshots in Time On Wed, 10 Mar 2004 05:31:33 -0800 Sammy@nospam.biz wrote: >> [TELECOM Digest Editor's Note: I remember very well three such 'cuts' >> in my life. > In 1986, I knew the cut time for my local Pacific Telephone Crossbar > to DMS-100. I had two lines at the time, with one connected to the > other, and one on speaker phone at the designated time (2:00 AM > Saturday). They were about 20 minutes late but there was no doubt > when the connection dropped. > Interesting bit of trivia: Why are cuts at 2:00 AM on Saturday rather > than Sunday? Answer: it gives them 24 additional weekend hours to > repair a cut gone bad. > TELECOM Digest Editor's Note: Also, (at least many years ago when the > theory was first developed) [1] Saturday was the slowest day, traffic > wise and [2] 2:00 AM was the least amount of traffic on Saturday. I do > not know if those satistics are still true or not, but old habits are > hard to get rid of. PAT] A uniform time is needed nationwide because toll machines have to be reprogrammed. Every caller in the country needs to be able to call anywhere else in the country, and so every toll machine in the country has to be given the new data at a uniform time. Maybe only some tandems fairly close to the office being cut over will need to have the new information for a particular office, so as to know how to signal and outpulse and send and receive supervision to it, but some have surprising direct trunks to/from distant offices, too. The Distance Dialing Notes carried the dates for a year or two ahead, usually twice a month, either the first and third or the second and fourth weekends of the month, I forget which. There were variations around holidays and the like when traffic might be high and the date would be displaced to the week before or the week after, but everyone throughout the NANP needed to know what days cuts could be done. In a message dated Tue, 09 Mar 2004 05:30:37 GMT was written: > I have heard of (but never witnessed) cutovers happening in the same > building, like going from a Cross-Bar to an electronic switch. All > the wires from the main distributing frame (MDF) were bridged to both > switches and the "new" switch was programmed to do everything EXCEPT > complete the outgoing call. Similarly for trunks, do everyting except > make the final connection. > Once the "magic moment" hit, the new switch would go live with a > console command, and at the same time, a technician with a BIG set of > wire cutters would cut the cables to the old switch. This would > usuallly create a spark, hence the term "flash cut." > Trying to pull off this trick on the other side of the MDF is walking > where angels fear to tread. My hat is off to the folks with the brass > to even try it, much less make it work! It was more or less a routine procedure when offices were cut over, whether from manual magneto or manual common battery or step-by-step or crossbar or whatever to a new office. Whether it was in the same building or not the procedure was about the same, but not exactly as you describe it. First, the new office is not fully connected; at the frame every line is held open by "cutover tools," sort of like toothpicks, at each protector. The cutover devices have strings attached, and good sized groups of them are carried to various locations where a whole bunch of craftsmen will have hold of the strings. To make the cutover, first the main fuse from the battery to the old office is pulled out. Then guys with big wire cutters, or often axes, sever the cable carrying the pairs to the old office. Another crew of guys are there to fan out the pairs so no conductor will touch another one. When all are reported cleared, the signal is given to the guys with the strings to the cutover devices to pull them out. The new office is already turned up, but the cutover devices until then have prevented it from being connected to anything beyond the frame. As the cutover devices are pulled out, the lines are getting battery from the now-operational new office and if a customer goes off-hook he or she will get dial tone from the new office. Or an incoming or outgoing toll call will now be handled by the new office. Of course, the guys who pulled out the strings now go up and down the frame to make sure all the cutover devices came out properly and the contacts made properly. In the days before radios, an important consideration if the two offices were in different buildings, or even a considerable distance apart in the same building, was to make sure a couple of pairs, at least, would not be cut by the axemen and provided with local battery so the new office could be notified to cut it in. Usually the mayor or some other dignitary would be on hand to make the first call on the new office to some other dignitary. But of course if a customer went off hook before that phone or an incoming trunk connected to a local number, that call would actually be the first call. But that wouldn't change the ceremonial nature of the "frist call". Wes Leatherock wesrock@aol.com wleathus@yahoo.com ------------------------------ From: desafinadonospam@hotmail.com Subject: PRI Voice T1 and CallerID Blocking Date: Thu, 11 Mar 2004 02:09:05 GMT Organization: EarthLink Inc. -- http://www.EarthLink.net Is it true that a PRI ISDN voice T1 with incoming calls can always identify the callerID of the calling party? Call blocking can't prevent CallerID being passed along by the PRI ISDN voice T1 circuit? ------------------------------ From: Bruce Subject: What Are My Options? Organization: Comcast Online Date: Wed, 10 Mar 2004 20:01:23 GMT I currently run two small home based businesses. I have a 800 number that is routed to my line at home. I would like to use line 2 for both businesses, but I am not comfortable with this becuase I would not know which business they are calling about. What are some differant options I could do? How can I still look professional, but when a person returns my call, how can I tell which business they are wanting? I was told about "priority ring", but this sounds like distictive ring to me, where I have two different numbers tied to the same line, and then if they dial line A it whould have one pitch, and line B would have another. Would this be the right way to do it and have two different 800 numbers, one going to lineA and the other to lineB I need to keep cost down, but I want a professional image as well. Thanks, Bruce [TELECOM Digest Editor's Note: I have one phone line here with distinctive ringing. I have my toll free line routed into the distinctive (or 'ring-ring') line, so if you call my regular number I get one ring; if you call my 800 line (or accidentally misdial on the ring-ring side) I get the other ringing cadence. This enables me to know *whose nickle* is paying for the call, and allows me to use the proper answer phrase. You can also get a *second* distinctive ring line (short-long-short) [three numbers total on the one line] if you need to have two 800 numbers as well as a 'regular' line. Of course you can still only get *one phone call* at a time, if your businesses are not that large yet. PAT] ------------------------------ From: Sammy@nospam.biz Subject: Re: Cell Number Portability: An Update Date: Wed, 10 Mar 2004 13:10:07 -0800 Organization: Cox Communications I started my attempt to port my eligible land-line number to Cingular Wireless last December 12th. Two FCC complaints later they finally got it right on March 8. My land-line number of long-standing is XXX-0000, and apparently their system gagged on it. They got porting completed for outgoing calls only on Feb 27. It took over two weeks later from them to get it to work both ways. ------------------------------ Date: Wed, 10 Mar 2004 22:05:21 +0400 From: Editor Subject: Navicore to Close Its First Round Funding PRESS RELEASE NETWORK http://www.pressreleasenetwork.com Navicore to Close Its First Round Funding Eqvitec Partners and Holtron Ventures to Finance Advanced Mobile Phone Navigation Software Developer Finland, Helsinki - Mar 10, 2004 (PRN): Navicore Ltd., a provider of advanced navigation and coordination applications for mobile phones, today announced that it has secured its first round of funding from two leading Finnish Technology Venture Capital firms Eqvitec Partners and Holtron Ventures. "This first funding is a powerful endorsement to our mission of bringing user-friendly map and navigation applications to mobile phone users", said Panu Vuorela, CEO of Navicore Ltd. "This funding allows us to ramp up our sales and marketing activity in order to hit the markets in Spring 2004", Vuorela added. Eqvitec was attracted to Navicore's easily deployable navigation and workforce management solution for mobile phones. Their application is extremely easy-to-use and can be utilized in any mobile phone based on Nokia Series 60 platform, commented Jussi Hattula, Investment Director of Eqvitec Partners. "We believe Navicore's mobile map and navigation solutions will create a whole new market segment for business applications. Navicore enables enterprises to leverage the installed base of mobile phones without the need to invest in dedicated GPS navigators", said Sami Ahvenniemi, Investment Director of Holtron Ventures. Navicore's software turns a mobile phone into a GPS navigator with advanced workforce management tools. Featuring a rich set of coordination and collaboration tools, Navicore's mobile client software and enterprise servers offer easy-to-use and accurate positioning and fast routing to mobile sales force, maintenance and surveillance personnel and logistics operators. Navicore's navigation solution is fast, user-friendly and able to adapt dynamically to user preferences. It computes routes effortlessly in a mobile handset. The Telematics information is received from a GPS device that may be integrated or connected wirelessly with Bluetooth. About Navicore Navicore Ltd. is a provider of navigation and coordination applications for personal and business use. Navicore's software turns a mobile phone into a GPS navigator with advanced workforce management tools. Focusing on mobile handsets and smart phones, Navicore's mobile client software and enterprise servers offer easy-to-use and accurate positioning and fast routing to mobile sales force, maintenance and surveillance personnel and logistics operators. http://www.navicore.fi About Eqvitec Partners Eqvitec Partners is the leading private and independent venture-capital firm in the Nordic countries specializing in technology companies. It currently has three funds with a total capital of 260 million euros under management. Eqvitec Partners has invested in approximately 50 Nordic technology companies with growth potential. http://www.eqvitec.com About Holtron Ventures Holtron Ventures Ltd. is a venture capital management company concentrating on early stage investments within the ICT sector in Scandinavia and in Finland. The company mission is to act as a value added investor and to coach entrepreneurs through the various development stages. Holtron Ventures manages three funds: Holtron Capital Partners I Ky, Holtron Capital Fund I Ky and Holtron Capital Fund II Ky. http://www.holtronventures.com For more information, contact: Navicore Ltd. CEO Panu Vuorela Cellular + 358 40 510 0952 Email: panu.vuorela@navicore.fi Eqvitec Partners Investment Director Jussi Hattula Cellular + 358 400 669 955 Email: jussi.hattula@eqvitec.com Holtron Ventures Investment Director Sami Ahvenniemi Cellular + 358 40 560 2734 Email: sami@holtronventures.com Editor & CEO Press Release Network editor@pressreleasenetwork.com http://www.pressreleasenetwork.com ------------------------------ From: jmeissen@aracnet.com Subject: Re: Spam and the Law was Re: The Price of Email is Constant Date: 10 Mar 2004 21:05:26 GMT Organization: http://extra.newsguy.com Barry Margolin wrote: In article , Danny Burstein wrote: > If the East Cupcake Bakery and Internet Service allows its customers > to spam, then we cut it off. Pure and Simple. It and its spammers can > cheerfully wallow in the smelly pit of their own putrid intranet. Yes, > some non spamming customers will get hurt. But that is NOT my problem. An extremely simple and easy to implement approach is for major ISP's to block ALL outbound traffic to port 25 (SMTP). Force all customers on their networks to relay outbound mail through the ISP's mail server. This would place no undo burden on the customer... the ISP is, after all, usually configured to handle outbound mail. And it would stop viruses with built-in SMTP engines dead in their tracks. Earthlink/Mindspring already does that. It was a little bit of a pain to temporarily reconfigure my laptop's mail client when I was out of town and using their network, but I didn't mind. John Meissen jmeissen@aracnet.com ------------------------------ Date: Wed, 10 Mar 2004 17:22:50 -0500 From: Monty Solomon Subject: EFFector 17.8: FCC Faces Suit on Regulation of Digital Broadcast EFFector Vol. 17, No. 8 March 10, 2004 donna@eff.org A Publication of the Electronic Frontier Foundation ISSN 1062-9424 In the 280th Issue of EFFector: * FCC Faces Suit on Regulation of Digital Broadcast Television * Court Orders Record Industry to File 203 Separate Lawsuits * EU Parliament Adopts Controversial IP Enforcement Directive * Action Center Update - Your Voice Is Making a Difference! * Let the Sun Set on PATRIOT - Section 209 * Deep Links (16): Canadian Supreme Court Brings Sanity Back to Copyright * Staff Calendar: 03.11.04 - Fred von Lohmann speaks at Southwestern Law School Symposium, Los Angeles, CA; 03.13.04 - Lee Tien speaks at DePaul University School of Law, Chicago, IL; 03.15.04 - Wendy Seltzer speaks at SXSW, Austin, TX * Administrivia http://www.eff.org/effector/17/8.php ------------------------------ 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, Yahoo Groups, 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: 620-402-0134 Fax 1: 775-255-9970 Fax 2: 530-309-7234 Fax 3: 208-692-5145 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 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 fifty 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. If you donate at least fifty dollars per year we will send you our two-CD set of the entire Telecom Archives; this is every word published in this Digest since our beginning in 1981. 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 V23 #115 ****************************** From editor@telecom-digest.org Thu Mar 11 21:18:55 2004 Received: (from ptownson@localhost) by massis.lcs.mit.edu (8.11.6p2/8.11.3) id i2C2ItD06235; Thu, 11 Mar 2004 21:18:55 -0500 (EST) Date: Thu, 11 Mar 2004 21:18:55 -0500 (EST) From: editor@telecom-digest.org Message-Id: <200403120218.i2C2ItD06235@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 V23 #116 TELECOM Digest Thu, 11 Mar 2004 21:19:00 EST Volume 23 : Issue 116 Inside This Issue: Editor: Patrick A. Townson Viacom and DISH Network Reach Long-Term Agreement (Monty Solomon) EchoStar Reports Fourth Quarter 2003 Subscribersr (Monty Solomon) Pulling the Plug on TV Shows Has Its Costs (Monty Solomon) Angry Viewers Push EchoStar, Viacom Deal (Monty Solomon) Re: EchoStar May Lose More After Removing Viacom's CBS (Mark Crispin) Re: EchoStar May Lose More After Removing Viacom's CBS (Steven J Sobol) Re: EchoStar May Lose More After Removing Viacom's CBS (Garrett Wollman) Re: Celebrity Chef's Son Guilty in Phone Scam (Paul Vader) Re: PRI Voice T1 and CallerID Blocking (Justin Time) One Cell Phone / 2 Numbers? (Chris Hackett) Re: Spam Going Out Under My Name (SELLCOM Tech support) Anybody Know Anything About Broadband Over Power Lines? (Matt Simpson) Re: Snapshots in Time (Nick Landsberg) Off Premise Extension (Michael Muderick) Re: Need to Block Outgoing Calls to Specific Numbers (John C. Fowler) SCO's Tapestry of Lies (Daeron) Seen on a Manhole Cover ... (Lincoln J. King-Cliby) 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. =========================== Addresses herein are not to be added to any mailing list, nor to be sold or given away without explicit written consent. Chain letters, viruses, porn, spam, and miscellaneous junk is definitely unwelcome. We must fight spam for the same reason we fight crime: not because we are naive enough to believe that we will ever stamp it out, but because we do not want the kind of world that results when no one stands against crime. Geoffrey Welsh =========================== See the bottom of this issue for subscription and archive details and the name of our lawyer; other stuff of interest. ---------------------------------------------------------------------- Date: Thu, 11 Mar 2004 07:53:00 -0500 From: Monty Solomon Subject: Viacom and DISH Network Reach Long-Term Agreement Viacom and DISH Network Reach Long-Term Agreement; CBS, MTV Networks and BET Restored NEW YORK, and ENGLEWOOD, Colo., March 11 /PRNewswire-FirstCall/ -- Viacom (NYSE:VIA, VIA.B) and EchoStar Communications Corporation (Nasdaq: DISH) and its DISH Network today announced that they have reached a long-term, multi-channel agreement that provides for the satellite TV distribution of CBS, BET, and the MTV Networks channels previously carried by DISH Network. - http://finance.lycos.com/home/news/story.asp?story=40798560 - http://finance.lycos.com/home/news/story.asp?story=40798569 ------------------------------ Date: Thu, 11 Mar 2004 08:17:48 -0500 From: Monty Solomon Subject: EchoStar Reports Fourth Quarter 2003 Subscribers EchoStar Reports Fourth Quarter 2003 Subscribers; Fourth Quarter 2003 Earnings Call to Be Rescheduled ENGLEWOOD, Colo.--(BUSINESS WIRE)--March 11, 2004--EchoStar Communications Corporation (Nasdaq:DISH) reported today that its DISH Network(TM) satellite television service added approximately 340,000 net new subscribers during the fourth quarter of 2003. DISH Network had approximately 9.425 million subscribers as of Dec. 31, 2003, an increase of 1.245 million subscribers over Dec. 31, 2002. EchoStar also announced today that it may seek a 15-day extension of the filing deadline for its Annual Report on Form 10-K for the year ended Dec. 31, 2003. During EchoStar's previously announced 10 a.m. (MT) conference call and webcast today, management intends to discuss and respond to questions regarding the agreements announced yesterday between EchoStar and Viacom, EchoStar's recent licensing, asset purchase and settlement agreements with Gemstar, and the accounting issue described below. Since EchoStar has not yet released its fourth quarter and full year 2003 financial results, EchoStar does not plan to discuss or respond to questions regarding its earnings or other financial results. The 800-616-6729 call-in number remains unchanged and the conference call will be broadcast live from EchoStar's website at www.echostar.com and www.dishnetwork.com . Analysts and the press are invited to participate in a question-and-answer session following introductory remarks by EchoStar executives. - http://finance.lycos.com/home/news/story.asp?story=40799260 ------------------------------ Date: Thu, 11 Mar 2004 17:46:53 -0500 From: Monty Solomon Subject: Pulling the Plug on TV Shows Has Its Costs By SETH SUTEL AP Business Writer NEW YORK (AP) -- When media titans clash over television rights, there's always the weapon of last resort: pulling the plug. But as the DISH Network and Viacom Inc. found out this week, actually using that weapon can be extremely costly, not only for the two combatants but also for anyone else in the industry hoping to win friends in Washington and in the public. Even when the dispute lasts just 48 hours, as it did in this case, the fallout can be poisonous. Public interest groups and members of Congress are already on a campaign to roll back media consolidation, and a public brawl between two behemoths that traps the viewing public in the middle could hardly come at a worse time. - http://finance.lycos.com/home/news/story.asp?story=40805152 ------------------------------ Date: Thu, 11 Mar 2004 10:42:38 -0500 From: Monty Solomon Subject: Angry Viewers Push EchoStar, Viacom Deal By DAN ELLIOTT Associated Press Writer DENVER (AP) -- After a two-day blackout that brought the wrath of satellite television viewers by the thousands, EchoStar Communications Corp. and Viacom Inc. reached a deal that restored several popular channels such as MTV and Nickelodeon to the DISH Network. The two sides reached a deal early Thursday. Within 20 minutes, Viacom's channels, including VH1, Comedy Central and BET, were back on DISH, EchoStar spokesman Marc Lumpkin said. EchoStar had dropped Viacom channels early Tuesday in a dispute over fees. Up to 9 million DISH satellite television viewers were affected. The dispute also left as many as 2 million DISH viewers without CBS shows when EchoStar pulled the network's programing in cities including New York, Los Angeles, Chicago, Philadelphia, San Francisco, Miami, Boston, Denver, Minneapolis and Dallas. DISH subscribers in those cities were threatened with the loss of the upcoming NCAA men's basketball tournament, which begins March 18 on CBS. Viacom is CBS' parent corporation. - http://finance.lycos.com/home/news/story.asp?story=40800396 ------------------------------ From: Mark Crispin Subject: Re: EchoStar May Lose More After Removing Viacom's CBS Date: Wed, 10 Mar 2004 21:45:50 -0800 Organization: University of Washington On Wed, 10 Mar 2004, J Kelly wrote: > [TELECOM Digest Editor's Note: Channel 101? Isn't that a premium extra > pay (outside the basic range) channel? They want you to pay extra to > listen to Mr. Ergen? It is a premium channel here on Cable One. Our > basic channels are 2 through 62 (sixty channels total, no one or four). > One hundred up here are things like MTV-2 and Showtime Movies. I do > not get any of that. PAT] Satellite channels have no relationship to cable or broadcast channels. Cable and broadcast channel numbers correspond on 2-13. Higher numbers are different on cable than broadcast, and are not necessarily in ascending frequency (for example, 98 and 99 are VHF channels). Analog cable goes up to something like 125. Digital cable has its own channel assignments. Satellite channels, on the other hand, are more or less arbitrarily assigned numbers and have no relationship to frequency. It's just something that the receiver presents. Internally, it maps to such-and-such part of the signal from such-and-such transponder on such-and-such satellite. On DirecTV, the following is a overly-general description of how channels are grouped: 0-99 local channels, HDTV channels (73 and higher) 100-199 pay per view channels 200-399 general viewing channels 400-499 Spanish, Chinese language channels 500-599 premium movie channels (HBO, etc.), adult channels 600-799 sports channels 800-899 music channels 900-999 local channels (older receivers), DirecTV info channels Note that channel 4 for a Seattle DirecTV customer is not the same channel 4 that a San Francisco DirecTV customer gets. So, if you're in a location (such as Medford, OR) that's in the spot beam for Seattle and San Francisco, you could have two DirecTV receivers, side-by-side, each tuned to "channel 4" and showing different programming. -- Mark -- http://staff.washington.edu/mrc Science does not emerge from voting, party politics, or public debate. Si vis pacem, para bellum. [TELECOM Digest Editor's Note: Your outline above is pretty much the same as what we get on Cable One here in Independence, except there is no such thing as channel 4 at all, or channel 1 (or for that matter, channel zero.). But with sixty of the slots from 01 through 62 is our basic stuff. Oddly enough, all the other channel slots just have snow and hash *except for 'channel 70' which is obviously in use for something*, at least instead of snow/hash, there is a black screen and silence. I was downtown today at the Cable One office on Penn Street to pay my bill for this month, and inquired about 'what is seventy used for?' The woman said she did not know, and to ask her husband (who was standing there listening). I did not understand his explan- ation, but then he asked me, 'do you still have that satellite dish on your roof over there on Poplar Street?' I said I do (it is for very specialized service; it points to 61.5 degrees southwest, but it came from DISH, and its special services.) "Well," he said, "if you would sign this form for me, and authorize us to take it off your roof and the receiver that goes with it, what I can do is give you *three months* of free HBO and another *three months* of any other of the music or movie channels we offer. You would save about sixty dollars!" I reminded him that was the third time he had offered me the same deal and I had turned him down each time before. I guess he never has noticed it is not pointed in the same direction and at the same angle as all other DISH things here in town on his various trips down the alley behind my house looking at all *his* wires, boxes, etc. I told him also that the DISH agent here in Independence tried to make me the same deal: first thing I had to do was sign a form authorizing *him* to be my representative with the cable people, AND turn over my cable converter box to be returned, THEN he would gve me several months of DISH service at no charge, etc. The cable guy, and the woman in the office listened to what I said and nodded very solemnly. "Yes, he has done that around town a few times to our customers." they said. I told them I was happy with the way things were now, and would not be changing anything. I noted, "if you guys wanted to give me a full T-1 instead of that half meg I have now for my computer I might be willing to listen to that. I could actually care less about HBO, various movies and (your style of) music. I do use your cable on the back of my Bose radio to get the classical music station KRPS 89.9 out of Pittburg, KS, which is no charge (on the cable account)." He said "anything to do with computers had to come 'from our Phoenix home office' we are not allowed to make any customer deals on that, just to sell it." Thinking that I was 'too smart for my own good', he excused himself and went back to work. When I got back home, the satellite guy was puttering around over at a neighbor's house and I asked him if I could get a way to *upload* to the satellite from my computer, "then I can dump those Cable One people entirely." He said the company did not allow him to make deals like that. "The company (DISH) allows me to give away all the HBO and Showtime and sex movies and regular channels I want to lure guys away from the cable, but I am not allowed to do anything with computers and the internet. Not for free, anyway." I'll just stay put, I guess. PAT] ------------------------------ From: Steven J Sobol Subject: Re: EchoStar May Lose More After Removing Viacom's CBS Date: Wed, 10 Mar 2004 23:46:07 -0600 Tony P. wrote: >> [TELECOM Digest Editor's Note: I turned on the television today more >> out of curiosity than anything else. Of course I am on cable, not >> satellite, and it appears to me they didn't miss a single beat. All >> the usual crummy day time stuff. Jerry Springer (is that Fox? I dunno >> for sure) had one of his 'confessions' programs on today. That's where >> some poor sap comes out on the stage, tells his life story, Jerry >> tells him his wife heard it all backstage, then she marches out and >> clobbers the guy (who either had secret mistresses, was secretly gay, >> or had some picadillo or another of which she did not approve). While >> the wife is 'counseling' her husband there on the stage, another guest >> whose claim to fame is his lust for indecent exposure is busily >> running amok through the audience and back to the stage, with all his >> clothes off. That show is such a riot! And imagine how the >> authorities were complaining about Janet Jackson. Sort of hypocritcal >> IMO ... PAT] > So true, Springer is definitely THE lowest common denominator in > television. I suppose notoriety in any form is a good thing. Wasn't he > a former politician? They always end up on either television or radio > pandering to the lowest of the low. It's in their blood, they can't > help it. First, Jerry Springer is syndicated. Second, yes, he's the former mayor of Cincinnati, and he's running for one of the Ohio seats in the US Senate. He makes me feel embarrassed to be an Ohio native, and I hope he doesn't get elected. JustThe.net Internet & New Media Services, Apple Valley, CA Steven J. Sobol, Geek In Charge / 888.480.4NET (4638) / sjsobol@JustThe.net PGP: C57E 8B25 F994 D6D0 5F6B B961 EA08 9410 E3AE 35ED Domain Names, $9.95/yr, 24x7 service: http://DomainNames.JustThe.net/ ------------------------------ From: wollman@lcs.mit.edu (Garrett Wollman) Subject: Re: EchoStar May Lose More After Removing Viacom's CBS Date: Thu, 11 Mar 2004 05:38:42 UTC Organization: MIT Laboratory for Computer Science In article , Barry Margolin wrote: > Cable isn't immune from this type of problem. The cable companies > have similar contracts with content providers, and it's possible for > their renegotiations to fail just as easily. More easily, in fact, since cable companies must get "retransmission consent" from every local broadcaster they carry,[1] not just the big media conglomerates who own all the cable channels. That's the principal economic reason Comcast is hot to acquire Disney: ABC, through its broadcast stations, has been forcing all of Disney's cable services onto the "basic" tier of cable systems nationwide as a condition of carriage, resulting in a substantial increase in monthly bills for most subscribers. GE does the same with NBC and its stable of cable channels (Bravo, CNBC, MSNBC, and 1/3 of the A&E partnership). EchoStar is merely experiencing the Viacom version of the same phenomenon. Smaller media conglomerates, like E.W. Scripps, don't have nearly the sort of market power, since they own fewer local stations -- but I'm certain that HGTV, Food Network, DIY, and Fine Living are carried on every cable system in markets where EWS owns a broadcast station. Rupert Murdoch is going to be in an interesting position now that he is playing both sides of the fence; Fox is not allowed to give a better deal to DirecTV than it does to EchoStar or Comcast. -GAWollman [1] This is ignoring those broadcasters whose product is of such little economic value that no MSO would pay money to carry it; these stations can force their programming onto cable systems in their market, and onto satellite in those markets where the satellite providers offer local broadcast channels. -- Garrett A. Wollman | As the Constitution endures, persons in every wollman@lcs.mit.edu | generation can invoke its principles in their own Opinions not those of| search for greater freedom. MIT, LCS, CRS, or NSA| - A. Kennedy, Lawrence v. Texas, 539 U.S. ___ (2003) ------------------------------ From: pv+usenet@pobox.com (Paul Vader) Subject: Re: Celebrity Chef's Son Guilty in Phone Scam Date: Thu, 11 Mar 2004 16:56:26 -0000 Organization: Inline Software Creations Anonymous writes: > According to federal prosecutors, David and Nisbet leased 24 pay phone > lines from Pacific Bell from 1998 to 2000, routed 23 of the lines to > an empty office in South San Francisco and hooked them up to an > auto-dialer. Then, they made more than 2 million telephone calls to >800-numbers. Can somebody explain how this nets them any money? I must be missing something about what happens when you call an 800 number on a payphone. And where does money laundering come into it? I think there was something major missing in the article. * * PV something like badgers--something like lizards--and something like corkscrews. [TELECOM Digest Editor's Note: To answer the first question, after AT&T was divested, their 'separations and settlements' arrangement with other telcos went bye-bye. So, the owners of pay phones managed to get a surcharge added to payphone calls terminating on 800 numbers in order to get some money for the use of 'their' equipment, namely the telephone. The person or company who has an 800 number gets billed this additional surcharge for calls which orginated at a payphone, and the local telco (where the call originated, remits the surcharge to the payphone owner (in lieu of coins *not* collected in the box for the call). That's why, now and then here in this Digest when I give a bit of free advertising to a spammer and encourage phone calls to his 800 number, Carl Moore always adds, "be sure to call from a pay phone so the COCOT owner makes a little money also." What these two bozo-clowns were doing was stirring up all the toll- free calls they could so as the owners of the COCOTs (pay phones) they could collect (um, maybe) 25-30 cents on each call, when the various telcos along the way paid off (charging back their subscribers in the process.) After millions of phone calls, that adds up to a nice bit of change. PAT] ------------------------------ From: a_user2000@yahoo.com (Justin Time) Subject: Re: PRI Voice T1 and CallerID Blocking Date: 11 Mar 2004 10:01:20 -0800 Organization: http://groups.google.com desafinadonospam@hotmail.com wrote in message news:: > Is it true that a PRI ISDN voice T1 with incoming calls can always > identify the callerID of the calling party? Call blocking can't > prevent CallerID being passed along by the PRI ISDN voice T1 circuit? Not always true. It depends on what service is being provided on the PRI. If it is an inbound WATS service, you will receive ANI - Automatic Number Identification - for billing purposes. As you are paying for the call, you receive the billing information on the line accessing your trunks, but that's not Caller ID. ANI normally only provides the calling number, not the name associated with the line. If the PRI is configured for 2-way local service, your line may or may not receive Caller ID info. Normally, if the caller blocks their information, it is not carried on the PRI either, unless the setup of the line says you receive billing information, but the exchange carriers have been getting smarter about misconfigured high capacity lines. Exactly what you receive on your PRI will be defined in the local tarrifs filed by the provider. Check with your local governing authority for a copy of the tariff and what you should be receiving on your line. Rodgers Platt ------------------------------ From: Chris Hackett Subject: One Cell Phone / Two Numbers? Date: Thu, 11 Mar 2004 14:14:13 -0500 Hi, Does anyone have any information on phones or carriers that support having two phone numbers active in the same phone at the same time? I'm going to have to start carrying a cell phone for my work. I really want to avoid carrying two cell phones around with me all the time. I've gotten all sorts of conflicting information regarding this potential functionality. Any information on specific phones or carriers that you know who support this functionality (if it exists) would sure be appreciated! Thanks, Chris Hackett [TELECOM Digest Editor's Note: Any number of carriers will support this. There are many cell phone manufacturers who manufacture 'Dual NAM' or 'Quad NAM' service. Buy a 'Dual-' or 'Quad-NAM' phone then ask any cell phone company to turn it on with two numbers. The only catch is, **only one of the two (four) numbers can actually be in service at any time. Incoming calls to the other number(s) are reported as 'out of area' to the caller. The nature of cell phones is such that two or more numbers, both on the same phone available at the same time, is impossible. You have to switch that software in and out each time (which is done with a few key presses.) The 'out of area' calls go to voice mail for your retrieval. This used to be a big thing when (for example) a business person was in two or four different cities a lot, and wanted cell phone service in each town. (Long before roaming became possible or easily paid for.) It was often times much less expensive to have two different carriers in two different cities with a number in each town (thus the Dual-NAM or Quad-NAM approach) than in one place but with a humongous roaming bill each month. It was easier to have these 'foreign exchange' type things with only one actual radio-telephone to carry around with you. I rarely ever see these 'dual-NAM' phones around any more, I guess they still make them. But if you find one, **make certain** the NAM (or software) you want to use is shifted into place **before** you tell the local dealer to turn it on with one of his numbers, otherwise he will write all over it with the new number and you will lose entirely the previous number that was in there. Then go on your way, shifting (with key presses) the soft/firmware you wish to use into place in order to recieve/place calls **on that carrier**. When you do so, the other carrier (represented by the alternate NAM) will be looking for you and not find you anywhere and send your calls to voicemail. Instead of going to all this awkward trouble (now that cellphones and roaming rates -- while still sort of outrageously priced -- are more reasonable), just get a single cell phone, show it to your bosses and say 'here is the number to reach me'. Make your voicemail greeting a generic enough message that neither work callers nor personal callers will be confused by the message and let it go at that. PAT] ------------------------------ From: SELLCOM Tech support Subject: Re: Spam Going Out Under My Name Organization: www.sellcom.com Reply-To: support@sellcom.com Date: Thu, 11 Mar 2004 22:13:56 GMT TELECOM Digest Editor posted on that vast internet thingie: > I had pretty much (foolishly) assumed my name (Patrick A. Townson) and > Editor, both e-residing I'm afraid that the newer viruses are doing that these days. I get a lot of bounces of undeliverables that were "from" me, but from some obscure IP address (if there can be such a thing). Sometimes even an IP starting with 81. The virus harvests email addresses to use and uses them in the from fields. Look at the IP address, that is the key. Steve at SELLCOM http://www.sellcom.com Discount multihandset cordless phones by Siemens, AT&T, Panasonic, Motorola Vtech 5.8Ghz; TMC ET4000 4line Epic phone, OnHoldPlus, Talkswitch, Watchguard! Brick wall "non MOV" surge protection. Mini-Splitter log splitter If you sit at a desk www.ergochair.biz you owe it to yourself. ------------------------------ From: news01@jmatt.net (Matt Simpson) Subject: Anybody Know Anything About Broadband Over Power Lines? Date: 11 Mar 2004 08:51:46 -0800 Organization: http://groups.google.com Does anybody know anything about broadband service provided over power lines? I'm in an area where cable and DSL are not available, and I'm not really thrilled with the satellite option. I've been reading about powerline broadband, which until recently seemed mostly experimental, and hoping it would catch on. Now I'm reading reports that Cinergy is starting to roll the service out to their customers in the Cincinnati are (not geographically far from me). http://www.enquirer.com/editions/2004/03/02/biz_biz1acin.html That makes my dreams about my own local rural co-op getting on the bandwagon seem just a tad more realistic, althought it's probably still a longshot. I realize that even though the power lines are already there, there's still a significant capital startup cost involved before they can start providing the service, so it still might only be attractive in the urban/suburban settings where Cinergy is providing it (that already have cable/DSL) instead of the boondocks that really need it (at least they wouldn't have to worry about competition). Does anybody know anything about this service and how feasible it might be as an option in areas where customers are a long way apart? ------------------------------ From: Nick Landsberg Reply-To: hukolau@NOSPAM.att.net Subject: Re: Snapshots in Time Date: Thu, 11 Mar 2004 04:58:06 GMT Organization: AT&T Worldnet Wesrock@aol.com wrote: > On Wed, 10 Mar 2004 05:31:33 -0800 Sammy@nospam.biz wrote: [SNIP] > In a message dated Tue, 09 Mar 2004 05:30:37 GMT was written: >> I have heard of (but never witnessed) cutovers happening in the same >> building, like going from a Cross-Bar to an electronic switch. All >> the wires from the main distributing frame (MDF) were bridged to both >> switches and the "new" switch was programmed to do everything EXCEPT >> complete the outgoing call. Similarly for trunks, do everyting except >> make the final connection. [SNIP] >> Trying to pull off this trick on the other side of the MDF is walking >> where angels fear to tread. My hat is off to the folks with the brass >> to even try it, much less make it work! > It was more or less a routine procedure when offices were cut > over, whether from manual magneto or manual common battery or > step-by-step or crossbar or whatever to a new office. Whether it was > in the same building or not the procedure was about the same, but not > exactly as you describe it. Wes, you just confirmed my contention that this territory was "where angels fear to tread." It had to go off without a hitch and had to be "choreographed" and planned ... carefully. That it was routine is a credit to the folks who developed the procedure. A shame that this bit of professional paranoia has not been passed down to the modern generation. :) > Wes Leatherock > wesrock@aol.com > wleathus@yahoo.com "It is impossible to make anything foolproof because fools are so ingenious" - A. Bloch ------------------------------ From: Michael Muderick Subject: Off Premise Extension Date: Thu, 11 Mar 2004 04:24:11 -0500 I'm looking to set up a home office for a client. What he wants is to locate his receptionist at one house, with the ability to transfer necessary calls to the client's house. We live in the Phila. area, and the only service that we seem to be able to find to help with this is Centrex. Calls need to be able to be transferred, and, in the case of the absence of the receptionist, automatically ring in the client's house. He'll be using a Panasonic wireless system that has an auto-attendant built-in so calls can be routed to any of 3 extensions. Is there any way around Centrex? The houses are less than a 1/2 mile apart. Does Verizon offer just a dry pair, or loop between two locations? That would be ideal. Michael Muderick [TELECOM Digest Editor's Note: I had a situation a number of years ago quite similar. I had an OPX (off premises extension) to the building answering service in our office. A manual toggle switch allowed me to cut the off-premises end of the line off entirely when I was in my office. When I went out to lunch or home for the evening, as I walked out the door, all I had to do was toggle this switch (have it mounted by the door or in some obvious (will not forget it) place. Tell telco you want an off-premises extension (or OPX) at the receptionist's place and the other end of the the line is at the other guy's house. PAT] ------------------------------ Date: Thu, 11 Mar 2004 05:10:30 -0800 (PST) From: John C. Fowler Subject: Re: Need to Block Outgoing Calls to Specific Numbers Regarding the Alzheimer's patient who calls her neighbors to the point they perceive as harrassment, and who might use directory assistance if you remove all traces of her neighbors' phone numbers from her living space. It has been suggested before that you pay for all of her neighbors to get Call Block service, which would definitely fix it, but it might be equally effective if you just got them all unlisted/unpublished numbers. Unlisted/unpublished numbers are usually cheaper than Call Block. Be sure to get the kind of service that doesn't allow lookups through directory assistance. Then remove all traces of their phone numbers from the lady's possession. Of course, all the neighbors would have to go along with it, but if the alternative is multiple unwanted calls, I imagine they could be persuaded. Note if you remove this outlet of communication for her, you'd probably better make sure she has 900/976 blocking, too, just in case she gets any new ideas when she sees a number for people to "talk to." John C. Fowler, johnfpublic@yahoo.com (E-mail to this address might not be read.) ------------------------------ From: doug_mentohl@yahoo.co.uk (Daeron) Subject: SCO's Tapestry of Lies Date: 11 Mar 2004 07:24:46 -0800 Organization: http://groups.google.com SCO's Tapestry of Lies Bruce Perens Mar 11 2004 SCO management had a problem. Their quarterly financial report was going to show only twenty thousand dollars in income for their SCO Source licensing program. And so, in an announcement timed to distract people from the bad financial report, SCO announced two new lawsuits and license purchases from Computer Associates, Leggett and Platt, and EV1 Servers. Computer Associates' CEO was quick to blast SCO, pointing out that CA had settled a breach-of-contract suit unrelated to Linux with Canopy Group - SCO's main investor - and one of its other companies, Center7 .. [..] On the same day that CA blasted SCO, Open Source evangelist Eric Raymond revealed a leaked email from SCO's strategic consultant Mike Anderer to their management. The email details how, surprise surprise, Microsoft has arranged virtually all of SCO's financing, hiding behind intermediaries like Baystar Capital .. [..] From a finanical standpoint, Canopy Group has already won. Because it's not a public company like SCO, we can't see all that's going on there. However, we know that they have swapped some of their other holdings, including a company called "Vultus", for SCO stock. And of course they've multiplied the value of their existing SCO stock as much as forty times over the past year. I've no doubt that much of this stock has already been converted to cash. The leaked email forecasts SCO's exit from this business in the near future. When they exit, Yarro and Canopy will walk away with tens of millions. http://east.perens.com/Articles/SCO/March2004.html ------------------------------ From: chsvideo@hotmail.com (Lincoln J. King-Cliby) Subject: Seen on a Manhole Cover Date: 10 Mar 2004 20:31:40 -0800 Organization: http://groups.google.com [Or should that be 'personhole cover'?] Hi all, Hoping someone could explain what was going on here for my own curiosity -- My university's campus is about 14 years old, and is in an area that AFAIK is 100% SBC (Pac Bell) serviced. The campus provides its own telephone service off of an Intecom (EADS Telecom North America) PointSpan mega-PBX (45000 port capacity), fed by what appears to be a Pac Bell DMS-100 large remote (That's what DSL Reports tells me thats serving 760-750 -- we have the entire NPA-NXX, and its at the same address as the university). Long background short - I don't think any ILECs are anywhere _near_ the campus. I was walking across campus today and noticed one of the manhole covers blended in with the sorounding concrete better than most had "G T E Telephone" welded in fairly small (1" or so) letters around the border. Thus my question "what was this doing there?" I know its not campus related -- all of the overhead access to the tunnel system is through square "hatches" (mostly we use normal doors, but they're there just in case) -- plus the tunnel system doesn't pass near this point -- and every other manhole I've seen is labeled "ELEC ##", "STORM DRAIN", "TELECOM ##", "SEWER", etc. where ## is the number used on prints to identify that vault, so I don't think it was some cost-saving/recycling thing. What gives -- why to we have a GTE manhole out there? And by the way, what exactly is a "DMS 100 large remote," anyways? Thanks, Lincoln ------------------------------ 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, Yahoo Groups, 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: 620-402-0134 Fax 1: 775-255-9970 Fax 2: 530-309-7234 Fax 3: 208-692-5145 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 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 fifty 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. If you donate at least fifty dollars per year we will send you our two-CD set of the entire Telecom Archives; this is every word published in this Digest since our beginning in 1981. 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 V23 #116 ****************************** From editor@telecom-digest.org Fri Mar 12 00:45:53 2004 Received: (from ptownson@localhost) by massis.lcs.mit.edu (8.11.6p2/8.11.3) id i2C5jr207917; Fri, 12 Mar 2004 00:45:53 -0500 (EST) Date: Fri, 12 Mar 2004 00:45:53 -0500 (EST) From: editor@telecom-digest.org Message-Id: <200403120545.i2C5jr207917@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 V23 #117 TELECOM Digest Fri, 12 Mar 2004 00:46:00 EST Volume 23 : Issue 117 Inside This Issue: Editor: Patrick A. Townson Satellite Seeks Broadband Re-Entry (Monty Solomon) FTC Chairman Doubtful of Anti-Spam List (Monty Solomon) EchoStar Ergen Calls Viacom Deal 'Good Enough' (Monty Solomon) Re: EchoStar May Lose More After Removing Viacom's CBS (J Kelly) Re: Spam and the Law was Re: The Price of Email (ellis@no.spam) Vonage Forward-on-Busy to Landline (Chainsman) Re: Seen on a Manhole Cover (Tony P.) Re: Seen on a Manhole Cover (Steven J Sobol) Re: One Cell Phone / Two Numbers? (Lincoln King-Cliby) Re: One Cell Phone / Two Numbers? (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. =========================== Addresses herein are not to be added to any mailing list, nor to be sold or given away without explicit written consent. Chain letters, viruses, porn, spam, and miscellaneous junk is definitely unwelcome. We must fight spam for the same reason we fight crime: not because we are naive enough to believe that we will ever stamp it out, but because we do not want the kind of world that results when no one stands against crime. Geoffrey Welsh =========================== See the bottom of this issue for subscription and archive details and the name of our lawyer; other stuff of interest. ---------------------------------------------------------------------- Date: Thu, 11 Mar 2004 22:24:46 -0500 From: Monty Solomon Subject: Satellite Seeks Broadband Re-entry By Jim Hu Staff Writer, CNET News.com Hughes Electronics swallowed a bitter pill last year when it ended an ambitious partnership with America Online to deliver high-speed Internet access over the Hughes satellite network. The severance of the $1.5 billion deal offered a tacit admission that the satellite industry's costly attempt to step into the broadband ring was an abysmal failure. The technology was expensive, both for the satellite companies and for consumers. And the competition was fierce, as evidenced by cable modem and DSL's (digital subscriber line) overwhelming dominance of the U.S. broadband market. Now, despite ongoing technical and economic reservations, satellite companies including DirecTV-parent Hughes and refinanced start-up WildBlue are preparing risky plans to re-enter the broadband business -- a reversal that signals they can't afford to sit out the race. http://news.com.com/2100-1034-5172088.html ------------------------------ Date: Thu, 11 Mar 2004 17:45:30 -0500 From: Monty Solomon Subject: FTC Chairman Doubtful of Anti-Spam List By JENNIFER C. KERR Associated Press Writer WASHINGTON (AP) -- The chairman of the Federal Trade Commission said Thursday he is skeptical that a national anti-spam list will mean fewer unwanted e-mails for computer users. The federal "Can Spam" legislation that went into effect Jan. 1 encourages the agency to create a "do-not-spam" list of e-mail addresses. It is similar to the FTC's popular do-not-call registry that blocks unwanted phone calls from telemarketers. People would sign up for the service and submit their e-mail addresses to the government. E-mail senders would then be barred from e-mailing those addresses. The FTC is due to submit a report to Congress by mid-June on establishing such a list. Chairman Timothy Muris, repeating comments he made before the bill passed, said he does not think the FTC can come up with a way to enforce such a list and significantly reduce unwanted e-mail. - http://finance.lycos.com/home/news/story.asp?story=40804923 ------------------------------ Date: Thu, 11 Mar 2004 17:56:45 -0500 From: Monty Solomon Subject: EchoStar Ergen Calls Viacom Deal 'Good Enough' NEW YORK (Dow Jones)--Charlie Ergen, chief executive of EchoStar Communications Inc. (DISH), acknowledged that the contract with Viacom Inc. ( VIAB) isn't as good as he had wanted but it is "good enough." Speaking on a conference call Thursday, Ergen said he believed the final contract is "fair and balanced." Viacom and EchoStar announced a long-term, multi-channel deal early Thursday morning, ending a bitter, public dispute during which EchoStar pulled CBS, MTV, VH1 and other Viacom channels off its system for some 48 hours. The companies also said EchoStar dropped its lawsuit, filed in January, against Viacom. EchoStar accused the media giant of illegally forcing carriage of additional channels as a condition to carry CBS. Ergen didn't disclose the length or financial terms of the contract. He said only that the deal is within the industry norm of three to seven years. He also said he wouldn't dispute Viacom's assertions that the deal asked for price increases of 6 cents per customer. Ergen had previously refuted that figure, saying Viacom had demanded a 40% price hike over the life of the contract. EchoStar, in its agreement, agreed to carry the channels it was previously dead-set against, such as Noggin. Ergen appeared to backtrack on some of his previous statements, saying that he saw value in some of the new channels. http://finance.lycos.com/qc/news/story.aspx?story=200403111919_DJB_000980 ------------------------------ From: J Kelly Subject: Re: EchoStar May Lose More After Removing Viacom's CBS Date: Thu, 11 Mar 2004 15:43:15 -0600 Organization: http://extra.newsguy.com Reply-To: jkelly@newsguy.com On Wed, 10 Mar 2004 15:46:45 -0600, J Kelly wrote: > [TELECOM Digest Editor's Note: Channel 101? Isn't that a premium extra > pay (outside the basic range) channel? They want you to pay extra to > listen to Mr. Ergen? It is a premium channel here on Cable One. Our > basic channels are 2 through 62 (sixty channels total, no one or four). > One hundred up here are things like MTV-2 and Showtime Movies. I do > not get any of that. PAT] On Dish channels start with 100 (except local into local are on their OTA channel). Premiums (HBO etc) start on 300 ------------------------------ From: ellis@no.spam Subject: Re: Spam and the Law was Re: The Price of Email is Constant Date: Fri, 12 Mar 2004 00:13:30 -0000 Organization: S.P.C.A.A. In article , wrote: > An extremely simple and easy to implement approach is for major > ISP's to block ALL outbound traffic to port 25 (SMTP). Force all > customers on their networks to relay outbound mail through the > ISP's mail server. I agree with this but only if they ISP makes provisions for a customer to be allowed to run his own mail server. ------------------------------ From: Chainsman Subject: Vonage Forward-on-Busy to Landline Date: 11 Mar 2004 17:31:27 -0800 Organization: http://netscape.net/ I have two Vonage lines. I want the busy line to forward to the second line, and when the second line is busy I want it to forward to another telephone line (not to voice mail). I cannot get Vonage to do this with call forwarding or with call hunt -- when both lines are busy it goes straight to voice mail but I want it to go to another phone number. Please tell me how I can get this working, or if it's possible. They already do this for call-forwarding but it doesn't seem to work when the phone is busy, only when the phone rings for a number of seconds. [TELECOM Digest Editor's Note: You need to go to the dashboard thing where you review/adjust your Vonage account. From there you go to the 'features' and turn the voicemail OFF. From there, go to the advanced features area where you adjust the order you want your lines to ring in. Lastly, set the amount of time to forward your calls down to the minimum five seconds, which is one ring or less. Don't forget to save your changes as you go along, then **allow a few minutes for Vonage to get the changes into your account**. That should accomplish what you want. Turning the time to wait down to five seconds is needed, (that's the lowest time slot available), If you want voicemail ON for the calls on the one line turn it back on while leaving the other line forwarding to number X only. PAT] ------------------------------ From: Tony P. Subject: Re: Seen on a Manhole Cover Organization: ATCC Date: Fri, 12 Mar 2004 02:24:06 GMT In article , chsvideo@hotmail.com says: > Thus my question "what was this doing there?" I know its not campus > related -- all of the overhead access to the tunnel system is through > square "hatches" (mostly we use normal doors, but they're there just > in case) -- plus the tunnel system doesn't pass near this point -- and > every other manhole I've seen is labeled "ELEC ##", "STORM DRAIN", > "TELECOM ##", "SEWER", etc. where ## is the number used on prints to > identify that vault, so I don't think it was some cost-saving/recycling > thing. > What gives -- why to we have a GTE manhole out there? > And by the way, what exactly is a "DMS 100 large remote," anyways? It's probably trunk lines that run under the campus. ------------------------------ From: Steven J Sobol Subject: Re: Seen on a Manhole Cover Date: Thu, 11 Mar 2004 22:04:59 -0600 Lincoln J. King-Cliby wrote: > I was walking across campus today and noticed one of the manhole > covers blended in with the sorounding concrete better than most had "G > T E Telephone" welded in fairly small (1" or so) letters around the > border. > What gives -- why to we have a GTE manhole out there? Where is San Marcos? I'm in 760 too, but I have a feeling you are much closer to San Diego than I am. DMS-100 is a telco switch. I forget who the manufacturer is. (Nortel?) JustThe.net Internet & New Media Services, Apple Valley, CA PGP: 0xE3AE35ED Steven J. Sobol, Geek In Charge / 888.480.4NET (4638) / sjsobol@JustThe.net Domain Names, $9.95/yr, 24x7 service: http://DomainNames.JustThe.net/ "someone once called me a sofa, but I didn't feel compelled to rush out and buy slip covers." -adam brower * Hiroshima '45, Chernobyl '86, Windows 98/2000/2003 ------------------------------ Date: Thu, 11 Mar 2004 18:47:30 -0800 From: Lincoln King-Cliby Organization: Is the sign of a sick mind Subject: Re: One Cell Phone / Two Numbers? [Hi, Pat - For Spam control, please remove my email address] Chris Hackett wrote: > Hi, > Does anyone have any information on phones or carriers that support > having two phone numbers active in the same phone at the same time? > I'm going to have to start carrying a cell phone for my work. I > really want to avoid carrying two cell phones around with me all the > time. > I've gotten all sorts of conflicting information regarding this > potential functionality. Any information on specific phones or > carriers that you know who support this functionality (if it exists) > would sure be appreciated! > Thanks, > Chris Hackett > [TELECOM Digest Editor's Note: Any number of carriers will support > this. There are many cell phone manufacturers who manufacture 'Dual > NAM' or 'Quad NAM' service. Buy a 'Dual-' or 'Quad-NAM' phone > then ask any cell phone company to turn it on with two numbers. The > only catch is, **only one of the two (four) numbers can actually be > in service at any time. Incoming calls to the other number(s) are > reported as 'out of area' to the caller. The nature of cell phones > is such that two or more numbers, both on the same phone available > at the same time, is impossible. You have to switch that software in > and out each time (which is done with a few key presses.) The 'out of > area' calls go to voice mail for your retrieval. Pat - This isn't quite true -- most (all?) of Nextel's recent phones offer have "alternate line service" as an (extra cost), and their marketing info touts this (one line for business, one line for personal) as a primary use of the feature. Info: http://www.nextel.com/services/digitalcellular/alternatelineservice.shtml My university-issued i90c only has one number on it, so I don't know first hand how this feature works, but I do know that: - There is an icon on the display showing "1" or "2" as the line that an outgoing call would be placed on. - Every time I place a call, the display shows "Line 1 - Connected [phone #] to indicate what line a call was received or placed on. From what I understand, you can flip from one line to the other with very few key presses, and I also believe that you can conference call the two lines together on some phones. Since I have call waiting on my one line, I'm assuming the same thing would happen with "alternate line service" enabled, i.e. if you were on your personal line (Line 2) and a call came in you would get a beep and the display would say something to the effect of "Line 1 - Incoming Call ###########. Take call?" (If you answer no, it dumps to voicemail after giving the caller 4 rings, I'm not sure what happens to the existing call if you choose to take the new one). Lincoln ------------------------------ Date: Thu, 11 Mar 2004 21:37:48 -0600 From: Gordon S. Hlavenka Reply-To: nospam@crashelectronics.com Organization: Crash Electronics Subject: Re: One Cell Phone / Two Numbers? Chris Hackett wrote: > I'm going to have to start carrying a cell phone for my work. I > really want to avoid carrying two cell phones around with me all the > time. My Verizon cellphone on the cheapest plan available, includes "alternate answer" and "busy transfer" which will forward calls from that phone to any other number. I've got them disabled, but you could use them to forward your personal cell number to the business one (or vice versa) then carry only the downstream phone. I use this scheme to forward my landline office phone to my cell. It's better than Call Forwarding because it's cheaper (I pay about $1.30/month extra on the landline) plus you don't have to remember to turn it on or off. Of course, you pay for forwarding the calls -- on the landline this means I pay a penny or two per minute. I dunno how the cellular people handle it; maybe it counts against your minutes? I don't imagine it would be gratis ... Gordon S. Hlavenka http://www.crashelectronics.com "If we imagined he could _find_ the car, we could pretend it might be fixed." - Calvin ------------------------------ 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, Yahoo Groups, 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: 620-402-0134 Fax 1: 775-255-9970 Fax 2: 530-309-7234 Fax 3: 208-692-5145 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 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 fifty 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. If you donate at least fifty dollars per year we will send you our two-CD set of the entire Telecom Archives; this is every word published in this Digest since our beginning in 1981. 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 V23 #117 ****************************** From editor@telecom-digest.org Fri Mar 12 14:43:36 2004 Received: (from ptownson@localhost) by massis.lcs.mit.edu (8.11.6p2/8.11.3) id i2CJhZu14332; Fri, 12 Mar 2004 14:43:36 -0500 (EST) Date: Fri, 12 Mar 2004 14:43:36 -0500 (EST) From: editor@telecom-digest.org Message-Id: <200403121943.i2CJhZu14332@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 V23 #118 TELECOM Digest Fri, 12 Mar 2004 14:42:00 EST Volume 23 : Issue 118 Inside This Issue: Editor: Patrick A. Townson Googling Up Passwords (Monty Solomon) Anti-Spam Lawsuit Complaints (Monty Solomon) Quantum Crypto Reaches 150 km (Monty Solomon) Howard Stern's Schwing Voters (Monty Solomon) Re: EchoStar Ergen Calls Viacom Deal 'Good Enough' (Barry Margolin) Re: EchoStar May Lose More After Removing Viacom's CBS (Tom Betz) Re: EchoStar May Lose More After Removing Viacom's CBS (Wesrock@aol.com) Re: Seen on a Manhole Cover (Fred Goldstein) Re: One Cell Phone / Two Numbers? (Dr. Joel M. Hoffman) Re: Spam and the Law was Re: The Price of Email (jmeissen@aracnet.com) Re: SCO's Tapestry of Lies (Corrected URL) (William Warren) Fax Tone at 3 AM. to a Residence (Gary Kelley) Verizon Gets Offers on Upstate NY Properties (John R Levine) Thanks for the Norvergence Red Flags! (A Nunimuss) 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. =========================== Addresses herein are not to be added to any mailing list, nor to be sold or given away without explicit written consent. Chain letters, viruses, porn, spam, and miscellaneous junk is definitely unwelcome. We must fight spam for the same reason we fight crime: not because we are naive enough to believe that we will ever stamp it out, but because we do not want the kind of world that results when no one stands against crime. Geoffrey Welsh =========================== See the bottom of this issue for subscription and archive details and the name of our lawyer; other stuff of interest. ---------------------------------------------------------------------- Date: Fri, 12 Mar 2004 00:45:13 -0500 From: Monty Solomon Subject: Googling Up Passwords Google is in many ways the most useful tool available to the bad guys, and the most dangerous Web site on the Internet for many, many thousands of individuals and organizations. By Scott Granneman Mar 09 2004 12:58PM PT In my last column, I provided a checklist for Windows users that would help them secure their computers. I created that checklist because it has become increasingly and painfully obvious to me that most home users -- and most small businesses and organizations -- have substandard security practices in place, if they have any at all. The checklist was designed to help secure things on the perimeters: on client computers and at the edges of home and business networks. This week, I want to talk about servers. Specifically, let's talk about the stuff that people are serving without realizing it. Security pros have known about this problem for years, but most computers users still have no idea that they may be revealing far more to the world than they would want. In fact, it wouldn't be far from the truth to say that Google is in many ways the most useful tool available to the bad guys, and the most dangerous Web site on the Internet for many, many thousands of individuals and organizations. http://www.securityfocus.com/columnists/224 ------------------------------ Date: Fri, 12 Mar 2004 09:35:30 -0500 From: Monty Solomon Subject: Anti-Spam Lawsuit Complaints Spam Litigation http://news.findlaw.com/legalnews/documents/index.html#spam * Complaint and Exhibits (America Online, Inc. v. John Does 1-40) (March 9, 2004) http://news.findlaw.com/hdocs/docs/cyberlaw/aoldoes30904cmp.pdf * Complaint and Exhibits (America Online, Inc. v. Davis Wolfgang Hawke, et al. (March 9, 2004) http://news.findlaw.com/hdocs/docs/cyberlaw/aolhawke30904cmp.pdf * Complaint (Earthlink, Inc. v. John Does 1-25, et al. (March 9, 2004) http://news.findlaw.com/hdocs/docs/cyberlaw/elnkdoes30904cmp.pdf * Complaint (Microsoft Corp. v. JDO Media, Inc., et al. (March 9, 2004) http://news.findlaw.com/hdocs/docs/cyberlaw/msjdo30904cmp.pdf * Complaint (Microsoft Corp. v. John Does 1-50 d/b/a Super Viagra Group) (March 9, 2004) http://news.findlaw.com/hdocs/docs/cyberlaw/mssprviag30904cmp.pdf * Complaint (Yahoo!, Inc. v. Eric Head, et al. (March 9, 2004) http://news.findlaw.com/hdocs/docs/cyberlaw/yahoohead30904cmp.pdf ------------------------------ Date: Fri, 12 Mar 2004 11:46:06 -0500 From: Monty Solomon Subject: Quantum Crypto Reaches 150 km A single photon is sent over a 150 km optical link beating the previous transmission record by 50 km. Scientists at NEC in Japan claim to have smashed the transmission distance record for quantum cryptography. The team says it successfully sent a single photon over a 150-km-long optical fiber link. This significantly extends the previous record of 100 km, which was announced in June 2003. Quantum cryptography uses a stream of single photons to transfer a secret key between a transmitter and a receiver. Each transmitted bit of the cryptographic key is encoded upon a single photon. Any attempt to intercept the key changes the quantum state of the photons, which reveals the presence of a hacker. http://optics.org/articles/news/10/3/11/1 ------------------------------ Date: Fri, 12 Mar 2004 02:03:10 -0500 From: Monty Solomon Subject: Howard Stern's schwing voters The raunchy jockey is mobilizing his army of listeners against Bush -- and they could make a difference in November. By Eric Boehlert March 12, 2004 | Declaring a "radio jihad" against President Bush, syndicated morning man Howard Stern and his burgeoning crusade to drive Republicans from the White House is shaping up as a colossal media headache for the GOP, and one they never saw coming. The pioneering shock jock, "the man who launched the raunch," as the Los Angeles Times once put, has emerged almost overnight as the most influential Bush critic in all of American broadcasting, as he rails against the president hour after hour, day after day to a weekly audience of 8 million listeners. Never before has a Republican president come under such withering attack from a radio talk show host with the influence and national reach Stern has. http://salon.com/news/feature/2004/03/12/stern/ ------------------------------ From: Barry Margolin Subject: Re: EchoStar Ergen Calls Viacom Deal 'Good Enough' Organization: Looking for work Date: Fri, 12 Mar 2004 01:35:39 -0500 In article , Monty Solomon wrote: > NEW YORK (Dow Jones)--Charlie Ergen, chief executive of EchoStar > Communications Inc. (DISH), acknowledged that the contract with Viacom > Inc. ( VIAB) isn't as good as he had wanted but it is "good enough." > Speaking on a conference call Thursday, Ergen said he believed the > final contract is "fair and balanced." This may have resolved the conflict between EchoStar and Viacom, but now he's likely to be sued for trademark infringement by Fox News Channel. :) Barry Margolin, barmar@alum.mit.edu Arlington, MA ------------------------------ From: Tom Betz Subject: Re: EchoStar May Lose More After Removing Viacom's CBS Date: Fri, 12 Mar 2004 13:45:07 +0000 (UTC) Organization: XOme Quoth Steven J Sobol in news:telecom23.116.6@telecom- digest.org: > First, Jerry Springer is syndicated. > Second, yes, he's the former mayor of Cincinnati, and he's running for > one of the Ohio seats in the US Senate. > He makes me feel embarrassed to be an Ohio native, and I hope he > doesn't get elected. Have you ever heard him give a political speech? You might be surprised about the guy if you did. I know I was. He's not just the putz he seems to be on his show. charitably dispose of anything when blood is their argument? Now, if these men do not die well, it will be a black matter for the King that led them to it; who to disobey were against all proportion of subjection." - W.S. ------------------------------ From: Wesrock@aol.com Date: Fri, 12 Mar 2004 09:38:51 EST Subject: Re: EchoStar May Lose More After Removing Viacom's CBS In a message dated Wed, 10 Mar 2004 21:45:50 -0800 Mark Crispin writes: > Cable and broadcast channel numbers correspond on 2-13. Higher numbers > are different on cable than broadcast, and are not necessarily in > ascending frequency (for example, 98 and 99 are VHF channels). Analog > cable goes up to something like 125. Digital cable has its own channel > assignments. Another point is that cable and broacast channel assignments may not be the same. In Oklahoma City, Cox Cable has broadcast channel 4, KFOR the NBC outlet, on channel 3. Channel 5, KOCO-TV the ABC outlet, is on cable channel 8. Channel 9, KWTV the CBS outlet, is on cable channel 10. Channel 13, the PBS affiliate, is on cable channel 14. I live in a suburb, and all the auburbs used to be served by Multimedia Cablevision, which had the broadcast stations on the same channels as broadcast. When Multimedia sold out to Cox (which already had everything in the city limits of Oklahoma City, a slightly smaller number of subscribers than the suburban customers served by Multimedia), Cox intentionally moved all the broadcast stations to off-channel assignments on cable. Their justification was that it was easier to prevent leakage of the broadcast signal into the cable system on the same channel causing ghosting and degraded picture. Multimedia seemed to have been able to deal with this adequately, if not always perfectly. But Cox, while they have a theoretical point, isn't perfect either. Wes Leatherock wesrock@aol.com ------------------------------ Date: Fri, 12 Mar 2004 10:21:55 -0500 From: Fred Goldstein Subject: Re: Seen on a Manhole Cover At 10 Mar 2004 20:31:40 -0800, chsvideo@hotmail.com (Lincoln J. King-Cliby) said, > Hoping someone could explain what was going on here for my own > curiosity -- My university's campus is about 14 years old, and is in > an area that AFAIK is 100% SBC (Pac Bell) serviced. > The campus provides its own telephone service off of an Intecom (EADS > Telecom North America) PointSpan mega-PBX (45000 port capacity), fed > by what appears to be a Pac Bell DMS-100 large remote (That's what DSL > Reports tells me thats serving 760-750 -- we have the entire NPA-NXX, > and its at the same address as the university). Long background short > - I don't think any ILECs are anywhere _near_ the campus. > And by the way, what exactly is a "DMS 100 large remote," anyways? The LERG entries, which DSL Reports seems consistent with, are a bit strange. It shows 760-750 as an RSC ("remote switching center", the "large remote"), a remote node off of the San Marcos DMS-100 switch (which also has a lot of Vista prefix codes on it). An RSC can serve a few thousand lines, depending on load. It's run by the host switch's processor, with backhaul trunks to the host, but has its own internal switching matrix (and "emergency standalone" capabilities). It's theoretically possible to put a few trunks onto an RSC, but normally the trunks (to other switches) are all at the host. But if the entire prefix belongs to the university PBX, then the RSC entry wouldn't make sense. PBX trunks are delivered from a host, not an RSC; the purpose of an RSC is to deliver analog (well, and ISDN BRI) lines. Large PBX systems have digital trunks, which are attached to trunk ports on a DMS, and trunk ports are normally at the host. So the PointSpan would be wired to the DMS host, not the remote. On the other hand, if there are a few thousand PacBell lines on campus, or at some point were (e.g., a Centrex, even if used primarily for some random ISDN lines), then the remote would serve them. > ...What gives -- why to we have a GTE manhole out there? Most likely, the campus just happened to be on a backbone route to GTE's territories, which are scattered all over southern California, including the valley north of San Marcos, in western Riverside County. ------------------------------ Date: Fri, 12 Mar 2004 15:24:15 GMT From: joel@exc.com (Dr. Joel M. Hoffman) Subject: Re: One Cell Phone / Two Numbers? Organization: Excelsior Computer Services > I'm going to have to start carrying a cell phone for my work. I > really want to avoid carrying two cell phones around with me all the > time. To the best of my knowledge, even though many phones can switch back and forth between two numbers conveniently, there are no phones that will actually answer to two numbers at a time. If you really need two numbers, I would recommend getting a virtual number and forwarding it to your cell. Then your cell will answer to both the cell phone number and the virtual number. If you need to know which line people called before you answer, get a GSM phone (T-mobile or AT&T, but I think TM is better), which will let you know if your number was dialed directly or indirectly. My GSM Ericsson T38, e.g., shows me "forwarded" right on the screen when I forward to my home phone to my cell and someone calls my home number. Some phones may even support different ring tones for forwarded and non-forwarded calls. -Joel ------------------------------ From: jmeissen@aracnet.com Subject: Re: Spam and the Law was Re: The Price of Email is Constant Date: 12 Mar 2004 17:25:07 GMT Organization: http://extra.newsguy.com In article , wrote: > In article , > wrote: >> An extremely simple and easy to implement approach is for major >> ISP's to block ALL outbound traffic to port 25 (SMTP). Force all >> customers on their networks to relay outbound mail through the >> ISP's mail server. > I agree with this but only if they ISP makes provisions for a customer > to be allowed to run his own mail server. Blocking outbound SMTP traffic doesn't have to affect running mail servers. That's all inbound port 25 traffic. All the standard mail server software can be configured to relay outbound traffic through another server. It might be an issue if you try to host mailing lists, as the high volume of email would raise some flags. But if you're doing that I would hope you're not connecting through AOL, Comcast and their ilk anyway. John Meissen jmeissen@aracnet.com ------------------------------ From: William Warren Subject: Re: SCO's Tapestry of Lies (Corrected URL) Organization: Comcast Online Date: Fri, 12 Mar 2004 12:30:47 GMT Daeron wrote in message news:telecom23.116.16@telecom-digest.org: > SCO's Tapestry of Lies > Bruce Perens Mar 11 2004 > SCO management had a problem. Their quarterly financial report was > going to show only twenty thousand dollars in income for their SCO > Source licensing program. And so, in an announcement timed to distract > people from the bad financial report, SCO announced two new lawsuits > and license purchases from Computer Associates, Leggett and Platt, and > EV1 Servers. > Computer Associates' CEO was quick to blast SCO, pointing out that CA > had settled a breach-of-contract suit unrelated to Linux with Canopy > Group - SCO's main investor - and one of its other companies, Center7 > [..] > On the same day that CA blasted SCO, Open Source evangelist Eric > Raymond revealed a leaked email from SCO's strategic consultant Mike > Anderer to their management. The email details how, surprise surprise, > Microsoft has arranged virtually all of SCO's financing, hiding behind > intermediaries like Baystar Capital .. > [..] > From a finanical standpoint, Canopy Group has already won. Because > it's not a public company like SCO, we can't see all that's going on > there. However, we know that they have swapped some of their other > holdings, including a company called "Vultus", for SCO stock. And of > course they've multiplied the value of their existing SCO stock as > much as forty times over the past year. > I've no doubt that much of this stock has already been converted to > cash. The leaked email forecasts SCO's exit from this business in the > near future. When they exit, Yarro and Canopy will walk away with tens > of millions. http://east.perens.com/SCO/March2004.html ------------------------------ From: Gary Kelley Subject: Fax Tone at 3 a.m. to a Residence Date: Fri, 12 Mar 2004 07:46:11 -0500 Please remove this number from your dialing system, it is a residence and not a fax machine. The caller id number is 646-539-9007 and I traced it back to Telecom and I'm hoping you could help me with this. 954-433-3573 Thanks, Gary [TELECOM Digest Editor's Note: Well Gary, its not *this* Telecom (Digest) you wrote to. I would suggest as an emergency measure you get your local telco involved, by having Call Rejection/Call Blocking (whatever they refer to as *60 there) installed on your line. See if you cannot restrict that number, 646-539-9007 to stop it from reaching you. You should not have to pay for your privacy and well-being even though your local telco may insist there is nothing they can do. They may even decide they cannot block that number since it is out of their immediate network. The above suggestion is just a way for you and your family to get immediate relief temporarily. I feel certain *someone* or *some company* has a misprogrammed fax machine and in their blissful ignorance they are not even aware of the hassles it is causing you. Now as the second step is it possible for you to borrow or rent a fax machine temporarily to install on your line? Let the errant fax machine talk to it and see if you can get any clues, such as the name of the bank, or lawyer or other miscreant trying to get through. If you can get enough clues (such as a voice phone number, company name or the ID of the fax machine itself (note, NOT the caller ID as presented on your display -- most fax machines have a strip on the top of the fax itself with useful information)), then give us here at TELECOM Digest the details you found out and I am sure some of the guys here will be glad to work on it further for you. There was a time, many years ago, when I would have said turn the whole matter over to your local telco's annoynance/nuisance call bureau and ask them to cure it, but there are no longer any really legitimate telcos who care about their subscribers any longer, so some self-help will be needed. Someone here the other day identified 646-539. Its out of New York City, but what telco, tell me again. We can also go that route (through the proprietors of that c.o.) as needed. I am curious about something: if it is true, as is claimed, that 'Ignorance is Bliss' which bunch of droids is the happiest and most contented, Verizon or Southwestern Bell? PAT] ------------------------------ Date: 12 Mar 2004 08:50:26 -0500 From: John R Levine Subject: Verizon Gets Offers on Upstate NY Properties http://www.thedeal.com/NASApp/cs/CS?pagename=NYT&c=TDDArticle&cid=1078867378369 They've gotten interest from a bunch of private equity companies. "For sale are thousands of traditional copper telephone lines in upstate New York, which serve several cities including Albany, Buffalo and Troy. The sale does not appear to include back office systems, said one source, which would suggest that a private equity buyer would need an operating company to fold the lines into." It mentioned that some of the interested parties are also looking at Citizens, which is the next largest telco in NY and would be an obvious merger possibility. Regards, John Levine johnl@iecc.com Primary Perpetrator of The Internet for Dummies Information Superhighwayman wanna-be, http://iecc.com/johnl, Sewer Commissioner "I dropped the toothpaste", said Tom, crestfallenly. ------------------------------ From: A Nunimuss Subject: Thanks For the Norvergence Red Flags! Date: Fri, 12 Mar 2004 14:23:22 -0000 Organization: Sumco I was contacted by a Norvergence rep a few weeks ago. After determining our telecommunications expenditures fit their targeted client profile, they tried to set up an appointment. I had no problem talking to them. Could I sign financial documents on the company's behalf, they asked. I'm not an idiot. I know the opening to a high-pressure sales tactic when I hear one. If you're using high-pressure sales tactics, I immediately assume you are running a scam. Even though I can, I said no. Could a decision maker also be present, they asked. I asked them why they were running a high-pressure sales tactic if they were selling a legitimate product. They said they don't use high-pressure sales tactics, but that they are so busy due to demand that they like the decision makers to be in the room in order to save themselves a trip back. I told them we'd need time to review the documents and the company in any case, and if they weren't interested in giving us the time to reach a proper decision, they could forget coming out. They'd call me back, they said. A few weeks later, I received another call from Norvergence, likely another rep. I had viewed their website by that time and they seemed legitimate, so I scheduled an appointment, even though I was less than impressed with the "sign-on-the-spot" tactic they seemed to be insinuating they'd use. Could I sign financial documents on the company's behalf, they asked. Yes, I said, having no intention of doing so on the spot. With an appointment scheduled, I did more research on Norvergence, finding the threads in here and the review on the TAA website. I called them back and cancelled the appointment because "based on my research of the company, I didn't think they'd be a 'fit' for us." Thanks to all for posting their opinions here and identifying the risks involved with doing business with this company. I should have gone with my instincts. GP [TELECOM Digest Editor's Note: You are quite welcome, on behalf of most of the readers here. One (of several) of my ojectives here at the Digest, at least in recent years, has been to help educate the general public, especially those who use/manage/administer telephone systems, and the job, it seems, never gets done completely. Two things coming up: I have a copy of the disclaimer letter which Nortel sent out to several of their customers and prospective cust- omers about their (Nortel's) relationship (or rather, lack of good relationship) with Norvergence and it has to be sent by FTP to the archives from my personal email. I will try to get that file here with FTP Friday afternoon so you can all read it, or copy it as desired. (I had to learn the hard way *never* to tell anyone the secret backdoor via email into the Archives; now I deal with that problem by continually erasing large amounts of spam which get lodged in there each day.) Because general email to the Digest is limited in size as to what will be accepted by the mailer here at MIT (deliberatly, as a spam fighting tool) this exhibit of Nortel's disclaimer on Norvergence could not be send by email here; it had to come via my personal email. Anyway, watch for it later today. For next: I think we are going to have a new participant here starting in the next week, a gentleman from Tulsa at the university there who maintains the teaching program on telecom. The University will be a sponsor with its announcements and class schedules, etc. A fellow by the name of Charles Gray. Watch for that to happen soon also. For last, this time around, letters and gifts from *nice readers*