From editor@telecom-digest.org Tue Sep 16 22:28:22 2003 Received: (from ptownson@localhost) by massis.lcs.mit.edu (8.11.6p2/8.11.3) id h8H2SMd08344; Tue, 16 Sep 2003 22:28:22 -0400 (EDT) Date: Tue, 16 Sep 2003 22:28:22 -0400 (EDT) From: editor@telecom-digest.org Message-Id: <200309170228.h8H2SMd08344@massis.lcs.mit.edu> X-Authentication-Warning: massis.lcs.mit.edu: ptownson set sender to editor@telecom-digest.org using -f To: ptownson Approved: patsnewlist Subject: TELECOM Digest V22 #651 TELECOM Digest Tue, 16 Sep 2003 22:28:00 EDT Volume 22 : Issue 651 Inside This Issue: Editor: Patrick A. Townson and: Lisa Minter Re: Email Spam and Habeas Warranty Mark? (temp7@thewolfden.org) Re: Email Spam and Habeas Warranty Mark? (Daniel W. Johnson) Point to Point T1, Cisco2514 & Paradyne 3160 - HELP! (Robert Paulson) Re: What Happened to 951 Area Code? (Fritz Whittington) Re: SMS Standard (Richard Dickson) Re: Verisign Gets Even Sleazier, Breaks Anti-Spam Technique (D. Johnson) Re: Private Video Transmission (Tony Pelliccio) Re: Kansas City Teacher Caught up in Child Porn Case (M. Covington) Zagat "2003 Wi-Fi Hotspots" Mini-Guide (Monty Solomon) Service Finds Web Sites Even if Mistyped (Monty Solomon) Developer Moves to Neutralize Web Helper (Monty Solomon) All contents here are copyrighted by Patrick Townson and the individual writers/correspondents. Articles may be used in other journals or newsgroups, provided the writer's name and the Digest are included in the fair use quote. By using -any name or email address- included herein for -any- reason other than responding to an article herein, you agree to pay a hundred dollars to the recipients of the email. WE DO NOT PERMIT NAME/EMAIL ADDRESS HARVESTING FROM THIS JOURNAL. 'SALTED' EMAIL ADDRESSES APPEAR HEREIN TO VERIFY THIS. YOU GET SUED IN SMALL CLAIMS COURT IF YOU GET CAUGHT SPAMMING OR SENDING VIRUSES. DON'T DO IT. See the bottom of this issue for subscription and archive details and the name of our lawyer; other stuff of interest. ---------------------------------------------------------------------- Date: Tue, 16 Sep 2003 16:27:57 CDT Subject: Re: Email Spam and Habeas Warranty Mark? From: Reply-To: temp7@thewolfden.org > From: Phil Earnhardt > Subject: Re: Email Spam and Habeas Warranty Mark? > Date: Tue, 16 Sep 2003 03:27:38 -0600 > On Mon, 15 Sep 2003 13:04:30 CDT, wrote: >> It's a litigation-based approach for dealing with spammers. It's one >> of several such system; this company appears to be more litigitous >> than the others. >> Well, since that's how the whole thing works, I would think so. > That would really depend on who Habeas litagates against. If they also > try to sue any other waterbase-type system out of business, I would > not view that as a positive thing. That's a different discussion. The fact remains that they need to be litigious to protect the trust of their mark when used by spammers to circumvent spam filters. >> Only non-spammers who have an agreement with Habeas can use the >> mark, so spammers using it can be sued to make them stop, thereby >> making the mark *trustworthy*. > That's what makes the whole deal with the CEO's getting ousted look > fishy. Look at Tom Betz's post on this topic. > If Habeas is going to let spammers use their mark, then it makes the > entire system worthless. If not, Habeas needs to explain to the world > exactly why they removed their CEO from the company. Exactly what was > the difference in philosophy that led to her ouster? Since I can't see into the future, however, I'll wait to see how it happens rather than decrying now how its going to fail at some future time. I've seen no evidence that they're allowing spammer to use their syetem; in fact, they've sued several of them, and have broken agreements with companies that began spamming. >> It requires that there be a criticality of users on the Internet who >> will only receive mail with the Habeas watermark in the header. > I fear you do no understand how that system works!! > In does *not* require that everyone use the mark. > It does require that recepients use the watermark as a whitelist. Do > you think there is a criticality of users who honor it that way? At > least at this point in time, there definitely is not. Different discussion again. The primary point is that it does *not* require a criticality of users on the internet using it to make it worthwhile. Each user receiving it can make their own choices on how to accept it. Some many choose to completely ignore it, but that doesn't affect it's usefulness for others. > What it DOES say, *as long as Habeas sues violators*, is that email > WITH the mark does not need to pass through the normal spam checking > hoops. > Will Habeas allow other watermark vendors to be in the marketplace? Or > will they also attempt to sue them. IMO, that's just as important a > question. The answer to that question does not affect how effective Habeas will be, although you may find it an interesting discussion if they go in that direction. > Therefore, the more people who use/send it, the better, > ... the better for Habeas, at the very least. Whether or not that > company's profits are "better" for the Internet as a whole is an open > question. >> but for those that don't use/send it, continue the "normal" spam >> checking techniques. > That would all depend on how critical it became to have such a > whitelist mark on your e-mails. > If it is not at all important -- as is the case now -- then there is > no value proposition for Habeas. All vague points. No sense declaring the answer to them now, though, as there is not enough data to do so. >> It's designed for emails that are not spam but for which senders are >> concerned about it being caught by aggressive spam filters. > ... that would have to be modified to be less agressive on Habeas > watermarks. I'm not sure exactly what point, if any, you're trying to get to here. At the very least, "no", I may simply decide to let all Habeas email through without even running it through the normal spam checking. Beyond that, most reasonable spam checkers allow users to set up their own rules to let Habeas mail through. Beyond that, it will take little effort to modify most spam checkers to give Habeas email a little more trust, if they have not been modified already. If you're saying the only anti-spam measures you'll support are those that magically require zero effort on the part of all users and administrators, you're going to have along wait. > Do tell: what percentage of spam-filtration systems have been so > modified? Which systems have a Habeas watermark increase the odds of 100% of the ones I work with. Still, see the paragraph above. Beyond that, there must be some filters that know about it, otherwise there would be no purpose in spammers using the mark without permission, as they certainly are, so the real world cases would seem to provide answers to your questions. > Do you think that Habeas should be entitled to have exclusivity to the > entire "watermark" concept for this use in e-mail? Different discussion. ------------------------------ From: panoptes@iquest.net (Daniel W. Johnson) Subject: Re: Email Spam and Habeas Warranty Mark? Date: 16 Sep 2003 17:19:47 -0700 Organization: http://groups.google.com/ Phil Earnhardt wrote in message news:: > Do tell: what percentage of spam-filtration systems have been so > modified? Which systems have a Habeas watermark increase the odds of > delivery of the e-mail? Of the systems that have it, what percentage > of the users of those systems have modified their configuration to > allow the Habeas watermarks? SpamAssassin, for one, recognizes the Habeas watermark. (And the default configuration also recognizes sites that misuse it.) If Habeas were to start permitting the mark on actual spam, one character in the configuration file would cause Habeas-marked mail to be rejected rather than accepted. ------------------------------ From: kalis_anon@hotmail.com (HisNameWasRobertPaulson) Subject: Point to Point T1, Cisco2514 & Paradyne 3160 - HELP! Date: 16 Sep 2003 12:12:32 -0700 Organization: http://groups.google.com/ Hello all, this one has me stumped for sure! Essentially, the CSU/DSU is NOT talking to the Cisco ... Any help or advice would be greatly appreciated. Here is the setup: ATT Paradyne 3160 is connected to the Cisco 2514 via serial cable (Cisco CAB-X21MT) one end in the cisco serial connector and the other, a 15 pin 'DTE' perhaps 'X21' connector. The cable is plugging into the Paradyne via the 'DTE' port, although there are a couple DB25 ports on the Paradyne that I am not sure what they are used for. 1) The Paradyne is reporting "LOS at DTE" :: additionaly, two indicators on the device that are on steady, are amber; they are 'OOF/TXD' and 'ALARM/RXD' 2) The Cisco is reporting Interface UP, line protocol DOWN :: additionaly here is some output from a 'sh int s0' ++++++ Why is the Paradyne not talking? I have two of these devices and both exhibit this behaviour ... To make a long story short ... it is not working! Can anyone offer any advice or suggestions? That would be GREATLY appreciated! -Mike ------------------------------ From: Fritz Whittington Subject: Re: What Happened to 951 Area Code? Date: Tue, 16 Sep 2003 19:26:18 GMT Organization: AT&T Worldnet On or about 2003-09-16 02:47, Linc Madison whipped out a trusty #2 pencil and scribbled: > In article , Jeff Sutter > wrote: >> Linc Madison wrote in message >> news:: >> Fortunately, there were some 'can do' politicos on the job, and three >> years later, we have our 7 digit dialing back, while industry is >> still playing the same tune. I'm perplexed why Linc would have us >> dial extra digits. You can implement a tech overlay without >> requiring 1+10D. > No, you can't implement an overlay in California without 1+10D. Dialing > 7D in an overlay area is not allowed because it's not competitively > neutral. You can't have 7D in an overlay area anywhere in the USA. > You could do something like 10D for calls within the overlay area and > 1+10D for calls outside, but it's easier and less confusing just to say > 1+10D for all calls, since California doesn't have the "toll alerting" > feature of "1+ means toll." Now, having lived all my life in Texas, where we do have "toll alerting", I really can't understand the logic of the last paragraph. If you're going to dial 1+10D for *every* call, and have no idea whether it's next door, at the other end of the state, or at the other end of the country, then why not just *NOT* dial the 1 and just dial 10D? *Easier* to dial 10D than 11D, surely? I'll even go so far to say that for *less confusing*, you should be able to dial *either* 1+10D or just 10D and have the call go through. Considering how cheap long distance is now, I don't need a recording that says "We're sorry. You must dial a "1" before this number ... [because it's long distance]". What's even more infuriating is that some numbers in 817 dialed from 214/972/469 are long distance, and some are not. This means you sometimes dial 1-817-xxx-yyyy and get: "We're sorry. It is *NOT NECESSARY* to dial a "1" before this number ... [because it's not long distance, but a local call. But we're not gonna connect you, you're gonna have to hang up and *dial it our way*]. Fritz Whittington I believe that if it were left to artists to choose their own labels, most would choose none. (Ben Shahn) ------------------------------ Subject: Re: SMS Standard From: Richard Dickson Date: Tue, 16 Sep 2003 19:30:59 GMT Organization: Primus Canada rounner@yahoo.com (rounner) wrote: > I am a programmer and wish to send SMS to a mobile using a pc with a > modem. I have no idea about the SMS protocol. Could anyone point me in > the right direction? Sure! Try www.google.com.. ------------------------------ From: panoptes@iquest.net (Daniel W. Johnson) Subject: Re: Verisign Gets Even Sleazier, Breaks Anti-Spam Technique Date: 16 Sep 2003 17:29:18 -0700 Organization: http://groups.google.com/ > [TELECOM Digest Editor's Note: I tried this from massis.lcs.mit.edu > and got these results for 'somenamesomeplace.com' and 'nosuchplace.com': Note that somenamesomeplace.com is not currently registered, but nosuchplace.com is registered at Tucows. If you apply the whois command to those domains, you will see this. >> nslookup nosuchplace.com > Server: lampang.lcs.mit.edu > Address: 18.24.0.120 > Name: nosuchplace.com > Address: 207.136.80.201 >> whois 207.136.80.201 The whois command is for domain names (e.g., internic.net). What's the point of entering an IP address? > Whois Server Version 1.3 > Domain names in the .com and .net domains can now be registered > with many different competing registrars. Go to http://www.internic.net > for detailed information. > No match for "207.136.80.201". > >>> Last update of whois database: Tue, 16 Sep 2003 06:19:27 EDT <<< > (Followed by repeat of earlier disclaimer message.) > Very interesting. PAT] If you found an IP address that got a match in the whois domain lookup, that would be very interesting indeed. This is not. ------------------------------ From: Tony Pelliccio Subject: Re: Private Video Transmission Organization: The Ace Tomato and Cement Company Date: Tue, 16 Sep 2003 15:58:52 -0500 In article , dmckeon@ameritas.com says: > Thank you both for your replies. Another idea I had/was mentioned to > me is to use a web cam on a private network with a wireless NIC. The > signal could be encrypted pretty securely with a 256 bit WEP > encryption. Do you see any benefit to one solution over another? If > I did no with the closed-circuit approach, would the transmitter be > wireless? Could the signal be encrypted? Also, once it is all set > up, how would the police go about detecting the signal, decrypting it, > and tracking down its source? The only thing the police could do is DF the 2.4 GHz signal that the 802.11 card is putting out. As far as the encryption -- at 256 bit WEP they'd need the assistance of the boys at NSA to crack that one. Having worked in law enforcement I can tell you that most departments are just barely at the point where they know what a computer is, let alone networking and wireless even though most use it daily. But they could if they thought about it enlist the help of the communications division, and they may just have gear that can sniff out that 2.4GHz signal. But as I said, they may know where it is, and once they find it they'll know what it is and what it does. And if you use a directional antenna they know that somewhere, 11 or so miles away barring obstacles the signal went there. That's why an omni would be so much better, barring obstacles it could be a 5 to 11 mile circle. Good luck finding the watcher. Height helps too. If they have a TV antenna mast that'd be a good place to put the transmitter and perhaps use the TV antenna itself with some modification to the driven and reflecting elements. ------------------------------ From: Michael A. Covington Subject: Re: Kansas City Teacher Caught up in Child Porn Case Date: Tue, 16 Sep 2003 16:50:19 -0400 One of the very first things we did, when formulating acceptable-use policies for computers at The University of Georgia, was to ensure that people had the right to a hearing of the appropriate type (depending on the charge). All too often, when computers are involved, people forget all about ordinary principles of justice and jurisprudence. There is a long tradition of letting the sysadmin be judge, jury, and executioner. This case certainly warrants some investigation to see if the files look as if they were deliberately saved by the accused person, and if anyone else could have done it. All sorts of dreck arrives in e-mail. ------------------------------ Date: Tue, 16 Sep 2003 15:43:54 -0400 From: Monty Solomon Subject: Zagat "2003 Wi-Fi Hotspots" Mini-Guide Intel, The New Yorker and Zagat Survey Introduce Hotspot Guide Highlighting Great Places to Unwire - Sep 16, 2003 11:00 AM (BusinessWire) SANTA CLARA, Calif. & NEW YORK--(BUSINESS WIRE)--Sept. 16, 2003--Intel Corporation, The New Yorker and Zagat Survey today announced the first Zagat Survey mini-guide designed to help business and leisure travelers find great places to unwire with their notebook PCs. The new mini-guide titled "2003 Wi-Fi Hotspots," highlights more than 50 top-rated Zagat restaurants and hotels that feature public wireless Internet access points, or "hotspots," in five cities, specifically Chicago, Los Angeles, New York, San Francisco and Seattle. Hotspots are areas where users can tap into Wi-Fi -- short for wireless fidelity networks -- with their laptop PCs, personal digital assistants and other devices to surf the Web, access email, exchange instant messages or watch Web-delivered entertainment. The Zagat Survey mini-guide is available in The New Yorker's Sept. 22 issue, which has a national circulation of nearly 1 million. The magazine hits the newsstands Sept. 15. The mini-guide is also available online at www.newyorker.com and www.intel.com/unwire . - http://finance.lycos.com/home/news/story.asp?story=35696942 ------------------------------ Date: Tue, 16 Sep 2003 16:43:49 -0400 From: Monty Solomon Subject: Service Finds Web Sites Even if Mistyped By ANICK JESDANUN AP Internet Writer NEW YORK (AP) -- Mistype a Web address, and the generic error message that appears in your browser window offers few clues about how to reach the site you're seeking. VeriSign Inc., which directs traffic for much of the Internet, launched a service Monday that will change all that. For mistyped addresses for which no Web site exists, it will offer you a list of likely alternatives. Critics complain that the new service, Site Finder, gives a private company too much control over online commerce and lets it profit from an essential monopoly over ".com" and ".net" names. - http://finance.lycos.com/home/news/story.asp?story=35696040 [Lisa Minter note: And, as Joey Lindstrom pointed out a couple issues ago, it also caused a spam fighting tool to get broken. Lisa M.] ------------------------------ Date: Tue, 16 Sep 2003 16:49:33 -0400 From: Monty Solomon Subject: Developer Moves to Neutralize Web Helper By ANICK JESDANUN AP Internet Writer NEW YORK (AP) -- The developer of software that essentially guides Web surfers sought Tuesday to neutralize a controversial service designed to help users who mistype Internet addresses. The Internet Software Consortium, the nonprofit organization that develops BIND software for Internet domain name directories, is writing an "urgent patch" for Internet service providers and others who want to block customers from a new Site Finder service from VeriSign Inc. VeriSign, which keeps the master lists of names ending in ".com" and ".net," launched Site Finder on Monday to steer users to likely alternatives when they type addresses for which no Web site exists. Though VeriSign gets unspecified revenues from search engine partners whose technology powers Site Finder, company officials described the service as primarily a navigation tool to help lost Internet users. Critics, however, say the service eliminates user choice, gives a private company too much control over online commerce and could violate longstanding Internet standards. http://finance.lycos.com/qc/news/story.aspx?story=35701504 ------------------------------ TELECOM Digest is an electronic journal devoted mostly but not exclusively to telecommunications topics. It is circulated anywhere there is email, in addition to various telecom forums on a variety of networks such as Compuserve and America On Line, and other forums. It is also gatewayed to Usenet where it appears as the moderated newsgroup 'comp.dcom.telecom'. TELECOM Digest is a not-for-profit, mostly non-commercial educational service offered to the Internet by Patrick Townson. All the contents of the Digest are compilation-copyrighted. You may reprint articles in some other media on an occasional basis, but please attribute my work and that of the original author. Contact information: Patrick Townson/TELECOM Digest Post Office Box 50 Independence, KS 67301 Phone: 620-330-6774 Fax 1: 775-255-9970 Fax 2: 775-306-8390 Fax 3: 775-642-0603 Fax 4: 530-309-7234 Email: editor@telecom-digest.org Subscribe: telecom-subscribe@telecom-digest.org Unsubscribe:telecom-unsubscribe@telecom-digest.org This Digest is the oldest continuing e-journal about telecomm- unications on the Internet, having been founded in August, 1981 and published continuously since then. Our archives are available for your review/research. We believe we are the second oldest e-zine/ mailing list on the internet in any category! URL information: http://telecom-digest.org Anonymous FTP: mirror.lcs.mit.edu/telecom-archives/archives/ (or use our mirror site: ftp.epix.net/pub/telecom-archives) Email <==> FTP: telecom-archives@telecom-digest.org Send a simple, one line note to that automated address for a help file on how to use the automatic retrieval system for archives files. You can get desired files in email. ************************************************************************* * TELECOM Digest is partially funded by a grant from * * Judith Oppenheimer, President of ICB Inc. and purveyor of accurate * * 800 & Dot Com News, Intelligence, Analysis, and Consulting. * * http://ICBTollFree.com, http://1800TheExpert.com * * Views expressed herein should not be construed as representing * * views of Judith Oppenheimer or ICB Inc. * ************************************************************************* ICB Toll Free News. Contact information is not sold, rented or leased. One click a day feeds a person a meal. Go to http://www.thehungersite.com Copyright 2003 ICB, Inc. and TELECOM Digest. All rights reserved. Our attorney is Bill Levant, of Blue Bell, PA. In addition, gifts from Mike Sandman, Chicago's Telecom Expert have enabled me to replace some obsolete computer equipment and enter the 21st century sort of on schedule. His mail order telephone parts/supplies service based in the Chicago area has been widely recognized by Digest readers as a reliable and very inexpensive source of telecom-related equipment. Please request a free catalog today at http://www.sandman.com --------------------------------------------------------------- A new sponsor for the Digest is Teledeal. They offer Directory Assistance (411) Savings. TeleDeal Inc. specializes in helping businesses and organizations save over 80% on live operator directory assistance calls. Rates are as low as $.27/411 call. TeleDeal also offers a premium real-time 411 Internet database service. Visit http://www.1800teledeal.com or call 1-800-TELEDEAL The Directory Assistance Experts * We Know 411 TeleDeal Inc. George Jones, President ---------------------------------------------------------------- Finally, the Digest is funded by gifts from generous readers such as yourself who provide funding in amounts deemed appropriate. Your help is important and appreciated. A suggested donation of twenty dollars per year per reader is considered appropriate. See our address above. Please make at least a single donation to cover the cost of processing your name to the mailing list. All opinions expressed herein are deemed to be those of the author. Any organizations listed are for identification purposes only and messages should not be considered any official expression by the organization. End of TELECOM Digest V22 #651 ****************************** From editor@telecom-digest.org Wed Sep 17 11:43:25 2003 Received: (from ptownson@localhost) by massis.lcs.mit.edu (8.11.6p2/8.11.3) id h8HFhPs12947; Wed, 17 Sep 2003 11:43:25 -0400 (EDT) Date: Wed, 17 Sep 2003 11:43:25 -0400 (EDT) From: editor@telecom-digest.org Message-Id: <200309171543.h8HFhPs12947@massis.lcs.mit.edu> X-Authentication-Warning: massis.lcs.mit.edu: ptownson set sender to editor@telecom-digest.org using -f To: ptownson Approved: patsnewlist Subject: TELECOM Digest V22 #652 TELECOM Digest Wed, 17 Sep 2003 11:43:00 EDT Volume 22 : Issue 652 Inside This Issue: Editor: Patrick A. Townson and: Lisa Minter What *Are* They Smoking Re: Verisign Gets Even Sleazier (joppenheimer) Re: Verisign Gets Even Sleazier, Breaks Anti-Spam Technique (L. Madison) Re: What Happened to 951 Area Code? (Linc Madison) Re: What Happened to 951 Area Code? (Group Special Mobile) Re: What Happened to 951 Area Code? (Steven Lichter) Re: What Happened to 951 Area Code? (Jeff Sutter) All contents here are copyrighted by Patrick Townson and the individual writers/correspondents. Articles may be used in other journals or newsgroups, provided the writer's name and the Digest are included in the fair use quote. By using -any name or email address- included herein for -any- reason other than responding to an article herein, you agree to pay a hundred dollars to the recipients of the email. WE DO NOT PERMIT NAME/EMAIL ADDRESS HARVESTING FROM THIS JOURNAL. 'SALTED' EMAIL ADDRESSES APPEAR HEREIN TO VERIFY THIS. YOU GET SUED IN SMALL CLAIMS COURT IF YOU GET CAUGHT SPAMMING OR SENDING VIRUSES. DON'T DO IT. See the bottom of this issue for subscription and archive details and the name of our lawyer; other stuff of interest. ---------------------------------------------------------------------- Reply-To: From: Subject: What *Are* They Smoking Re: Verisign Gets Even Sleazier Date: Tue, 16 Sep 2003 23:48:39 -0400 Organization: ICB Inc./WhoSells800.com > In an unusual kind of grassroots movement, some network administrators > have begun to invent and launch technical countermeasures against > VeriSign. A discussion thread on the North American Network Operators' > Group mailing list was titled "What *are* they smoking?" and offered > technical tips on how to configure routers and servers to block access > to VeriSign's site, so Web users would receive the traditional > "nonexistent domain" error message." Judith -------- http://ICBTollFreeNews.com _ http://800Consulting.com 160 East 26 Street, Suite 6E New York, New York 10010 212 684-7210, 1 800 The Expert -----Original Message----- From: domainpolicy [mailto:domainpolicy@yahoo.com] Sent: Tuesday, September 16, 2003 9:27 PM To: DOMAINPOLICY@yahoogroups.com Subject: [DOMAIN POLICY] http://news.com.com/2100-1032_3-5077530.html - VERISIGN REDIRECTS ERROR PAGES VeriSign redirects error pages Criticism is quickly growing over VeriSign's surprise decision to take control of all unassigned .com and .net domain names, a move that has wreaked havoc on many e-mail utilities and antispam filters. On Monday, VeriSign began to redirect domain lookups for misspelled or nonexistent names to its own site, a process that has confused Internet e-mail utilities and drawn angry denunciations of the company's business practices from frustrated network administrators. The Mountain View, Calif.-based company enjoys a government-granted monopoly as the master database administrator for .com and .net. VeriSign's new policy is intended to generate more advertising revenue from additional visitors to its network of Web sites. But the change has had the side effect of rewiring a portion of the Internet that software designers always had expected to behave a certain way, snarling antispam mechanisms that check to see if the sender's domain exists, complicating the analysis of network problems, and possibly even polluting search engine results. A representative for VeriSign did not respond to a request for comment Tuesday. On Monday, VeriSign released an eight-page paper describing the implementation of its "Site Finder" program, saying it "improves the user Web-browsing experience when the user has submitted a query for a nonexistent second-level domain in the .com and .net second-level domains ... (Previously) his or her Web browser returned an error message that contained no useful information." In an unusual kind of grassroots movement, some network administrators have begun to invent and launch technical countermeasures against VeriSign. A discussion thread on the North American Network Operators' Group mailing list was titled "What *are* they smoking?" and offered technical tips on how to configure routers and servers to block access to VeriSign's site, so Web users would receive the traditional "nonexistent domain" error message. "There are already modifications to BIND software to take responses that contain that VeriSign address and turn it into a nonexistent domain error," Karl Auerbach, a veteran Internet engineer and former board member of the Internet Corporation for Assigned Names and Numbers (ICANN), said about the standard utility used for domain name lookups. "There are also several Internet service provider-type people dealing with routing information who are already talking about blocking (the VeriSign site). I believe some have." VeriSign is not the first domain-name company to try to profit from typos and errors, but because .com and .net represent such a huge percentage of Internet names, its decisions have the most profound impact. Some of the other top-level domains that have adopted a similar policy include .cc, .museum, .nu, .ph, .tm and .ws. Microsoft's Internet Explorer also returns a similar error message and search box, but because the redirection is performed by the end user's computer, the effect is limited. The antispam foil Yakov Shafranovich, co-chair of the Anti-Spam Research Group organized under the Internet Research Task Force, said some spam blockers are being thrown for a loop, because the computer that VeriSign uses to respond to misspelled or nonexistent domains is misconfigured. The VeriSign software -- named the "Snubby Mail Rejector Daemon v1.3" -- does not follow Internet standards, Shafranovich said. He also warned the VeriSign change was creating problems -- for example, leading some older versions of SpamAssassin to view the entire Internet as a source of spam. "Some of the antispam tools in our group broke because of this," Shafranovich said. "They put up an SMTP server, but it's not a real SMTP server." One post to an Internet Engineering Task Force mailing list quipped: "This certainly qualifies as 'most broken SMTP implementation ever.' Will the protocol police please send out a squad car to pick up the suspects?" SMTP stands for the Simple Mail Transport Protocol, the Internet's workhorse standard. VeriSign's decision, which was done without consulting the Internet standards groups, came just a few days after the U.S. Federal Trade Commission accused the company of deceptive business practices for sending "domain name expiration notices" to competitors' customers in early 2002. Neither ICANN, which in principle oversees VeriSign's actions as the domain name registrar, nor the U.S. Department of Commerce, which has a contract with VeriSign, responded to requests for comment. An ICANN representative said, "We have no comment at this time, but I hope that we'll have something over the next few days." A representative for the Commerce Department referred questions to ICANN and VeriSign. The government's contract says VeriSign "shall take all reasonable steps to ensure the continued ... functionality and accessibility" of the domain name registration system. Auerbach said he strongly dislikes VeriSign's new policy, but he admits: "ICANN and the Department of Commerce can't clearly say that (VeriSign is) violating Internet standards. It's impossible for Internet standards to enumerate all the dumb things you can do." Critics say VeriSign's move evokes privacy and national security implications as well. Because passwords sometimes are included after the hostname in Web links, a misspelled domain name could transmit sensitive information to the company. Also, because of the way network providers cache domain name queries, VeriSign's policy means that it will take longer for new domains to propagate -- something that could be a problem if a Web site is launched to deliver emergency information about an earthquake or a terrorist attack, for example. Earlier this year, VeriSign was dealt a harsh rebuke in a similar matter by the highly regarded Internet Architecture Board. Referring to the Domain Name System (DNS), the board's unanimous statement said: "The system VeriSign had deployed for .com and .net contains significant DNS protocol errors, risks the further development of secure DNS, and confuses the resolution mechanisms of the DNS with application-based search systems." ------------------------------ Subject: Re: Verisign Gets Even Sleazier, Breaks Anti-Spam Technique From: Linc Madison Reply-To: Telecom@LincMad.com Organization: LincMad.com Consulting Date: Wed, 17 Sep 2003 10:43:51 GMT In article , Daniel W. Johnson wrote: >> [TELECOM Digest Editor's Note: I tried this from massis.lcs.mit.edu >> and got these results for 'somenamesomeplace.com' and >> 'nosuchplace.com': > Note that somenamesomeplace.com is not currently registered, but > nosuchplace.com is registered at Tucows. If you apply the whois > command to those domains, you will see this. >>> % nslookup nosuchplace.com >> Name: nosuchplace.com >> Address: 207.136.80.201 >>> % whois 207.136.80.201 > The whois command is for domain names (e.g., internic.net). What's > the point of entering an IP address? The point is to see who owns the IP block in which that address is found. However, the correct syntax is % whois -h whois.arin.net 207.136.80.201 OrgName: Look Communications Inc. OrgID: LTVI Address: 301-5415 Dundas Street West City: Toronto StateProv: ON PostalCode: M9B-1B5 Country: CA NetRange: 207.136.64.0 - 207.136.127.255 CIDR: 207.136.64.0/18 NetName: LOOKTVI-01 NetHandle: NET-207-136-64-0-1 Parent: NET-207-0-0-0-0 NetType: Direct Allocation NameServer: NS1.IDIRECT.COM NameServer: NS2.IDIRECT.COM Comment: RegDate: 2000-07-03 Updated: 2000-07-03 TechHandle: ZL29-ARIN TechName: Look Communications Inc. TechPhone: +1-416-233-7150 TechEmail: abuse [at] look [dot] ca //munged to prevent harvesting # ARIN WHOIS database, last updated 2003-09-16 19:15 # Enter ? for additional hints on searching ARIN's WHOIS database. Of course, ARIN may refer you to another regional registry, such as RIPE, APNIC, LACNIC, etc., as for example here: % whois -h whois.arin.net 200.12.34.56 OrgName: Latin American and Caribbean IP address Regional Registry OrgID: LACNIC Address: Potosi 1517 City: Montevideo StateProv: PostalCode: 11500 Country: UY ReferralServer: whois://whois.lacnic.net NetRange: 200.0.0.0 - 200.255.255.255 CIDR: 200.0.0.0/8 NetName: LACNIC-200 NetHandle: NET-200-0-0-0-1 Parent: NetType: Allocated to LACNIC NameServer: TINNIE.ARIN.NET NameServer: NS.LACNIC.ORG NameServer: NS.DNS.BR NameServer: NS2.DNS.BR Comment: This IP address range is under LACNIC responsibility for further Comment: allocations to users in LACNIC region. Comment: Please see http://www.lacnic.net/ for further details, or check the Comment: WHOIS server located at whois.lacnic.net RegDate: 2002-07-27 Updated: 2003-06-12 TechHandle: LACNIC-ARIN TechName: LACNIC Hostmaster TechPhone: (+55) 11 5509-3522 TechEmail: abuse [at] lacnic [dot] net OrgTechHandle: LACNIC-ARIN OrgTechName: LACNIC Hostmaster OrgTechPhone: (+55) 11 5509-3522 OrgTechEmail: abuse [at] lacnic [dot] net # ARIN WHOIS database, last updated 2003-09-16 19:15 # Enter ? for additional hints on searching ARIN's WHOIS database. ----------------------------- When tracking down a spam to send complaints, I usually resolve the host name of any associated web site into a numeric IP address (using "host" instead of the now deprecated "nslookup") and then do a "whois" on the numeric IP address so that I can send my complaint to the owner of the block in which the web site is located. Often, that is the ISP that provides the web hosting for the spammer. For instance, % host couponsbyemail1.com couponsbyemail1.com has address 69.24.236.208 couponsbyemail1.com mail is handled (pri=10) by boing002.topica.com couponsbyemail1.com mail is handled (pri=20) by bmx001.topica.com couponsbyemail1.com mail is handled (pri=20) by bmx002.topica.com couponsbyemail1.com mail is handled (pri=10) by boing001.topica.com % whois -h whois.arin.net 69.24.236.208 Arclight Networks ARCLIGHT-ARIN-BLOCK-1 (NET-69-24-224-0-1) 69.24.224.0 - 69.24.239.255 Topica, Inc. NET-69-24-236-0-TOPICA (NET-69-24-236-0-1) 69.24.236.0 - 69.24.239.255 # ARIN WHOIS database, last updated 2003-09-16 19:15 # Enter ? for additional hints on searching ARIN's WHOIS database. % whois -h whois.arin.net NET-69-24-236-0-1 OrgName: Topica, Inc. OrgID: TOPICA Address: 620 Folsom Street Address: Suite 300 City: San Francisco StateProv: CA PostalCode: 94107 Country: US NetRange: 69.24.236.0 - 69.24.239.255 CIDR: 69.24.236.0/22 NetName: NET-69-24-236-0-TOPICA NetHandle: NET-69-24-236-0-1 Parent: NET-69-24-224-0-1 NetType: Reallocated NameServer: NS1.TOPICA.COM NameServer: NS2.TOPICA.COM NameServer: NS3.TOPICA.COM Comment: RegDate: 2003-03-31 Updated: 2003-03-31 OrgAbuseHandle: TIR-ARIN OrgAbuseName: Topica ISP Relations OrgAbusePhone: +1-415-344-0800 OrgAbuseEmail: isp-abuse@get.topica.com OrgTechHandle: TOG-ARIN OrgTechName: Topica Operations Group OrgTechPhone: +1-415-344-0800 OrgTechEmail: hostmaster@get.topica.com # ARIN WHOIS database, last updated 2003-09-16 19:15 # Enter ? for additional hints on searching ARIN's WHOIS database. % whois -h whois.arin.net NET-69-24-224-0-1 OrgName: Arclight Networks OrgID: ARCLI Address: 244 Jackson St Address: Suite 200 City: San Francisco StateProv: CA PostalCode: 94111 Country: US NetRange: 69.24.224.0 - 69.24.239.255 CIDR: 69.24.224.0/20 NetName: ARCLIGHT-ARIN-BLOCK-1 NetHandle: NET-69-24-224-0-1 Parent: NET-69-0-0-0-0 NetType: Direct Allocation NameServer: NS1.ARCLIGHTNETWORKS.NET NameServer: NS2.ARCLIGHTNETWORKS.NET Comment: RegDate: 2003-02-20 Updated: 2003-02-20 OrgAbuseHandle: ARCLI-ARIN OrgAbuseName: Arclight-Abuse OrgAbusePhone: +1-415-425-2541 OrgAbuseEmail: abuse@arclightnetworks.net OrgTechHandle: NOC263-ARIN OrgTechName: Network Operations Center OrgTechPhone: +1-415-425-2541 OrgTechEmail: hostmaster@arclightnetworks.net # ARIN WHOIS database, last updated 2003-09-16 19:15 # Enter ? for additional hints on searching ARIN's WHOIS database. - = - = - = - = - = - = - = - In the example above, the IP address is part of a suballocation to one company (Topica) out of a larger block assigned to an upstream provider (Arclight). The initial pass at the ARIN database will normally just return pointers to the various other records, which you can then query by NetName or NetHandle. So that's what WHOIS can tell you about an IP address, if you go to the right server. Incidentally, it looks like 64.94.110.11, a.k.a. sitefinder-idn.verisign.com, is the address that VeriSign is using for its new "service" to help people who make typos in their URLs. If they do it consistently, ISPs can just block that single IP address at the router level to protect their users against VeriSign's land grab. Likewise, you can know for certain that any domain that resolves (either by Address or Mail-eXchange record) to 64.94.110.11, is an unregistered domain that VeriSign is helpfully redirecting to its own server for its own purposes. Of course, I would expect the mail server there to get overwhelmed by spam and bounce messages from spam. I would be very surprised if any e-mail to a non-existent domain went anywhere other than the rabbit hole. -- www dot LincMad dot com / Telecom at LincMad dot com Linc Madison * San Francisco, California ------------------------------ Subject: Re: What Happened to 951 Area Code? From: Linc Madison Reply-To: Telecom@LincMad.com Organization: LincMad.com Consulting Date: Wed, 17 Sep 2003 11:17:47 GMT In article , Fritz Whittington wrote: > On or about 2003-09-16 02:47, Linc Madison whipped out a trusty #2 > pencil and scribbled: >> You could do something like 10D for calls within the overlay area >> and 1+10D for calls outside, but it's easier and less confusing >> just to say 1+10D for all calls, since California doesn't have the >> "toll alerting" feature of "1+ means toll." > > Now, having lived all my life in Texas, where we do have "toll > alerting", I really can't understand the logic of the last paragraph. > If you're going to dial 1+10D for *every* call, and have no idea > whether it's next door, at the other end of the state, or at the > other end of the country, then why not just *NOT* dial the 1 and just > dial 10D? *Easier* to dial 10D than 11D, surely? Less confusing to dial 1+10D because in California you never, ever, ever dial just 10D. It would be confusing if in 310 you could dial 10D, while in neighboring 323 you have to dial 1+ if you dial the area code. The rule in California is, you dial 1+ if and only if you dial the area code. In an overlay, you always dial the area code, so in a California overlay you would always dial 1+10D. Of course, another point you raised, about dialing 1+10D for a call that turns out to be local (e.g., from Dallas to a Fort Worth "metro" number), and being forced to hang up and redial without the 1+, hits on one of my pet peeves. The FCC has recommended that all states and all telcos *permit* *optional* 1+10D on any call within the NANP, whether it is local or toll, and whether it is the same or different area code. You can permit optional 7D and/or 10D on some subset of calls -- either local calls, as in Texas, or calls within the same overlay region, as in Pennsylvania -- but there is no sensible reason ever to block 1+10D. Why does anyone need to be protected from accidentally making a free local call?? Once upon a time, in some places, dialing the 1+ would automatically seize a toll trunk and generate a toll billing record, so you did actually need to block 1+ on local calls to protect the consumer from being charged for a call that should be free. However, in the 21st century, the switches can figure out whether a call is local or toll and both route and bill it accordingly. In any case, if the INC has its way, no one will ever dial 1+ at all. They want to eliminate it to pave the way for NANP number format expansion. Since that expansion now looks to be decades away, though, we'll probably have 1+ for a while longer, at least until we get a critical mass of people who pay either a flat monthly rate for unlimited long distance, or a low enough per-minute toll charge to not care. In California, though, you can't have 7D and 10D coexisting in the same area, due to numbering conflicts. For example, there is a 408-925-xxxx prefix not far from NPA 925. In fact, 408-925 is even a local call to and from one or two rate centers in 925. Los Angeles is a far bigger mess, with prefixes like 562-310 and 310-323 dotted all over the place. Of course, if you permit 10D for all calls in the NANP -- or even just all calls within the USA -- you have to prohibit 7D entirely. www dot LincMad dot com / Telecom at LincMad dot com Linc Madison * San Francisco, California ------------------------------ From: Group Special Mobile Subject: Re: What Happened to 951 Area Code? Date: Wed, 17 Sep 2003 05:09:17 -0700 Organization: Posted via Supernews, http://www.supernews.com Reply-To: look@signature_for_reply_instructions On Tue, 16 Sep 2003 19:26:18 GMT, Fritz Whittington wrote: > I'll even go so far to say that for *less confusing*, you should be > able to dial *either* 1+10D or just 10D and have the call go through. > Considering how cheap long distance is now, I don't need a recording > that says "We're sorry. You must dial a "1" before this > number ... [because it's long distance]". What's even more infuriating > is that some numbers in 817 dialed from 214/972/469 are long > distance, and some are not. This means you sometimes dial > 1-817-xxx-yyyy and get: "We're sorry. It is *NOT NECESSARY* to dial a > "1" before this number ... [because it's not long distance, but a local > call. But we're not gonna connect you, you're gonna have to hang up > and *dial it our way*]. Well, one of the few things that Qwest did right was to standardize dialing in western Washington. When the area codes 425 and 253 were added in the greater Seattle area back in 1997 they also made the dialing "standardized" in that within the area code you could dial just 7 digits, but you can also dial 10 digits (area code plus number) or 1+10 digits. We do have toll alerting so if you attempt to dial a toll call without the leading 1 you'll get a recording advising you to prepend a 1 before the number. To send an email reply send to GSMthemobilestandard (@) yahoo.com ------------------------------ From: stevenl11@aol.com (Steven Lichter) Date: 17 Sep 2003 05:28:09 GMT Organization: AOL http://www.aol.com Subject: Re: What Happened to 951 Area Code? There was a rather good article in today's Press-Enterprise about the area code change. I believe you can find it by going to pe.net and searching the online news articles Apple Elite II 909-359-5338. Home of GBBS/LLUCE, support for the Apple II 24 hours 2400/14.4. An OggNet Server. The only good spammer is a dead one!!! Have you hunted one down today? (c) I Kill Spammers, Inc. A Rot In Hell Company. ------------------------------ From: lurkeroo@yahoo.com (Jeff Sutter) Subject: Re: What Happened to 951 Area Code? Date: 17 Sep 2003 02:25:45 -0700 Organization: http://groups.google.com/ Linc Madison wrote in message news:: > In article , Jeff Sutter > wrote: >> Linc Madison wrote in message >> news:: >> Fortunately, there were some 'can do' politicos on the job, and three >> years later, we have our 7 digit dialing back, while industry is >> still playing the same tune. I'm perplexed why Linc would have us >> dial extra digits. You can implement a tech overlay without >> requiring 1+10D. > No, you can't implement an overlay in California without 1+10D. Dialing > 7D in an overlay area is not allowed because it's not competitively > neutral. You can't have 7D in an overlay area anywhere in the USA. This is the same rubbish that industry blathered years ago when they said the sky was falling, and we would run out of prefixes within months. Neither splits nor overlays are competitively neutral to the people and businesses who dwell in the impacted area, who now must dial unnecessary extra digits to call their neighbor, or pay thousands of dollars for new stationary, and untold amounts in lost business. You CAN retain 7D dialing for the existing area code, and everyone can dial 1+10 if they want to dial numbers in the tech overlay. Likewise, cellphones and other devices in the tech area can have 7 digit dialing amongst themselves, and 1+10D when they want to call the incumbent area code. I'll gladly have the area code on my cellphone and fax changed to a tech area code, and program my automated dialing features to deal with that. But don't you dare tell me we have to have 1+10D imposed on us because some wannabe phone company gets their feelings hurt. That's nonsense. The telecom industry is rather short on credibility. Its been 20 years since Judge Green promised us competition, and instead, we've seen a plethora of mergers and monopolistic behavior. Inevitably, basic local service is degraded, and new charges appear on the bill each year. The running-out-of-prefixes yarn is just another scam, like number portability, the AlGore Tax, the "FCC Access charge", and USF charges. So good luck. Maybe while we're distracted with our budget and recall crises, The new Ma Bells and their wireless family can try to sneak 1+10D past us again. But something tells me, we'll be better prepared for the battle this time. Cheers, Jeff. ------------------------------ TELECOM Digest is an electronic journal devoted mostly but not exclusively to telecommunications topics. It is circulated anywhere there is email, in addition to various telecom forums on a variety of networks such as Compuserve and America On Line, and other forums. It is also gatewayed to Usenet where it appears as the moderated newsgroup 'comp.dcom.telecom'. TELECOM Digest is a not-for-profit, mostly non-commercial educational service offered to the Internet by Patrick Townson. All the contents of the Digest are compilation-copyrighted. You may reprint articles in some other media on an occasional basis, but please attribute my work and that of the original author. Contact information: Patrick Townson/TELECOM Digest Post Office Box 50 Independence, KS 67301 Phone: 620-330-6774 Fax 1: 775-255-9970 Fax 2: 775-306-8390 Fax 3: 775-642-0603 Fax 4: 530-309-7234 Email: editor@telecom-digest.org Subscribe: telecom-subscribe@telecom-digest.org Unsubscribe:telecom-unsubscribe@telecom-digest.org This Digest is the oldest continuing e-journal about telecomm- unications on the Internet, having been founded in August, 1981 and published continuously since then. Our archives are available for your review/research. We believe we are the second oldest e-zine/ mailing list on the internet in any category! URL information: http://telecom-digest.org Anonymous FTP: mirror.lcs.mit.edu/telecom-archives/archives/ (or use our mirror site: ftp.epix.net/pub/telecom-archives) Email <==> FTP: telecom-archives@telecom-digest.org Send a simple, one line note to that automated address for a help file on how to use the automatic retrieval system for archives files. You can get desired files in email. ************************************************************************* * TELECOM Digest is partially funded by a grant from * * Judith Oppenheimer, President of ICB Inc. and purveyor of accurate * * 800 & Dot Com News, Intelligence, Analysis, and Consulting. * * http://ICBTollFree.com, http://1800TheExpert.com * * Views expressed herein should not be construed as representing * * views of Judith Oppenheimer or ICB Inc. * ************************************************************************* ICB Toll Free News. Contact information is not sold, rented or leased. One click a day feeds a person a meal. Go to http://www.thehungersite.com Copyright 2003 ICB, Inc. and TELECOM Digest. All rights reserved. Our attorney is Bill Levant, of Blue Bell, PA. In addition, gifts from Mike Sandman, Chicago's Telecom Expert have enabled me to replace some obsolete computer equipment and enter the 21st century sort of on schedule. His mail order telephone parts/supplies service based in the Chicago area has been widely recognized by Digest readers as a reliable and very inexpensive source of telecom-related equipment. Please request a free catalog today at http://www.sandman.com --------------------------------------------------------------- A new sponsor for the Digest is Teledeal. They offer Directory Assistance (411) Savings. TeleDeal Inc. specializes in helping businesses and organizations save over 80% on live operator directory assistance calls. Rates are as low as $.27/411 call. TeleDeal also offers a premium real-time 411 Internet database service. Visit http://www.1800teledeal.com or call 1-800-TELEDEAL The Directory Assistance Experts * We Know 411 TeleDeal Inc. George Jones, President ---------------------------------------------------------------- Finally, the Digest is funded by gifts from generous readers such as yourself who provide funding in amounts deemed appropriate. Your help is important and appreciated. A suggested donation of twenty dollars per year per reader is considered appropriate. See our address above. Please make at least a single donation to cover the cost of processing your name to the mailing list. All opinions expressed herein are deemed to be those of the author. Any organizations listed are for identification purposes only and messages should not be considered any official expression by the organization. End of TELECOM Digest V22 #652 ****************************** From editor@telecom-digest.org Wed Sep 17 12:47:47 2003 Received: (from ptownson@localhost) by massis.lcs.mit.edu (8.11.6p2/8.11.3) id h8HGlk813637; Wed, 17 Sep 2003 12:47:47 -0400 (EDT) Date: Wed, 17 Sep 2003 12:47:47 -0400 (EDT) From: editor@telecom-digest.org Message-Id: <200309171647.h8HGlk813637@massis.lcs.mit.edu> X-Authentication-Warning: massis.lcs.mit.edu: ptownson set sender to editor@telecom-digest.org using -f To: ptownson Approved: patsnewlist Subject: TELECOM Digest V22 #653 TELECOM Digest Wed, 17 Sep 2003 12:47:00 EDT Volume 22 : Issue 653 Inside This Issue: Editor: Patrick A. Townson and: Lisa Minter RIAA Tactics Under Scrutiny (Monty Solomon) Small PBX For Home/Small Business Use; Where to Find? (Dean West) Separating Bursty Errors From Random Noise on Comm Channel (Porky Pig Jr) Re: Microsoft Wireless-G (Walt Howard) Re: Email Spam and Habeas Warranty Mark? (Phil Earnhardt) Re: Point to Point T1, Cisco2514 & Paradyne 3160 - HELP! (Al Gillis) Re: Developer Moves to Neutralize Web Helper (Ed Clarke) Re: Private Video Transmission (Dan McKeon) All contents here are copyrighted by Patrick Townson and the individual writers/correspondents. Articles may be used in other journals or newsgroups, provided the writer's name and the Digest are included in the fair use quote. By using -any name or email address- included herein for -any- reason other than responding to an article herein, you agree to pay a hundred dollars to the recipients of the email. WE DO NOT PERMIT NAME/EMAIL ADDRESS HARVESTING FROM THIS JOURNAL. 'SALTED' EMAIL ADDRESSES APPEAR HEREIN TO VERIFY THIS. YOU GET SUED IN SMALL CLAIMS COURT IF YOU GET CAUGHT SPAMMING OR SENDING VIRUSES. DON'T DO IT. See the bottom of this issue for subscription and archive details and the name of our lawyer; other stuff of interest. ---------------------------------------------------------------------- Date: Tue, 16 Sep 2003 23:53:30 -0400 From: Monty Solomon Subject: RIAA Tactics Under Scrutiny WASHINGTON -- A U.S. appeals court wrestled with questions Tuesday over whether the music industry can use special copyright subpoenas in its campaign to track and sue computer users who download songs over the Internet. Judge John Roberts of the U.S. Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia challenged Recording Industry Association of America lawyer Donald Verrilli Jr. on whether computer users downloading music were any different from people who maintain libraries in their homes. Roberts questioned whether the fact that copyrighted files were publicly accessible on someone's computer necessarily means the Internet user is illegally distributing those files. File-sharing software typically stores downloaded music in a computer folder that is freely available for other Internet users to browse. http://www.wired.com/news/digiwood/0,1412,60460,00.html ------------------------------ From: dean.west@originarea.com (Dean West) Subject: Small PBX For Home/Small Business Use; Where to Find? Date: 16 Sep 2003 22:55:11 -0700 Organization: http://groups.google.com/ Many people here have often discussed using a PBX for home use. Now that I am ready to buy I cant find one. I need 3 incoming and outgoing lines to the phone company. I also need around 15 telephone sets in and around the house. Touch tone service is essential. Does anyone know of a vendor for these or have one that they want to sell? Thank you. [Lisa Minter note: Is the Melco Company still in business making little mini-style PBXs? Patrick told me when he was living in Chicago several years ago he had one of those, called the '212' because it had 2 telephone lines and 12 extensions, but there was a larger version called '424' because there were 4 phone company lines and 24 extensions. A totally computerized unit in a little box which either mounted on the wall or sat on a desktop. Not cheap; I think he said it cost a thousand dollars. Lisa M. ] ------------------------------ From: porky_pig_jr@my-deja.com (Porky Pig Jr) Subject: Separating Bursty Errors From Random Noise on Communication Channel Date: 17 Sep 2003 08:51:10 -0700 Organization: http://groups.google.com/ Hello, I'm looking for some algorithm/technique/whatever to separate the random noise from bursty errors on communication channel. Details: we test the channel by sending continious stream of bits. Each flipped bit is detected. We end up with a trace where '0' is bit correctly delivered and '1' is flipped bit (error). We can observe fairly long error-free periods, which just a few occasional errors. We speculate those errors are random, and check for randomness confirms this guess. We can further analyze these error-free periods, do some distribution fitting (seems like interarrival times of errors fit Pareto rather than exponential distribution, but these are details). We can compute BER, and other statistics. We call it Good phase (G) HOwever the channel is not isolated from the external world, and every once in a while, we have a burst of errors coming in. It is fairly easy to detect them on a trace. Errors are 'clustered' sort of. BER is high. Runing ACF shows high degreee of positive autocorrelation (meaning of course that interarrival between errors are not random). We call it Bad Phase (B) What I"m looking for is some systematic way to separate Good Phase from Bad phase. Unfortunately it is not that easy. By looking at distribution of all interarrival times in the trace, it is hard to detect any discontinuities. Seems like clustered errors start slowly, then BER increases till some point, then quickly terminates, that is returns to Good phase. Is there any signal processing techniques I should consider? Someone has recommended to perform spectral analysis, but it didn't show any distinct areas we can filter. TIA. ------------------------------ From: howard@rumba.ee.ualberta.ca (Walt Howard) Subject: Re: Microsoft Wireless-G Date: Wed, 17 Sep 2003 04:27:41 +0000 (UTC) Organization: A poorly-installed InterNetNews site In article , Monty Solomon wrote: > Microsoft Unleashes New Fast and Easy-to-Use Home Networking > Products With Automatic Security > Ratified and Wi-Fi-Certified, the Wireless-G Lineup Includes the Only > First-Party Solution for Wireless Xbox Gaming > REDMOND, Wash., Sept. 16 /PRNewswire-FirstCall/ -- Microsoft Corp. > (Nasdaq: MSFT) today unveiled Wireless-G, an innovative > Wi-Fi(R)-certified 802.11g wireless networking solution. Utilizing > powerful security technologies, ... Would these be the same powerful security technologies that brought us the ability for anyone to change anyone else's hotmail password? Or perhaps the same powerful security technologies that brought us not one, but two patches to hold out the MSBlast worm? Sorry, but the only "powerful security technology" that I know of in Microsoft products was brought in whole from MIT, and their attempts to develop their own have been inept at best. I don't think I'll trust this one. Walt Howard /"\ ASCII Ribbon Campaign InterNet: whoward@ieee.org \ / No HTML in mail or news! BellNet: +1 780 492 6306 X / \ ------------------------------ From: Phil Earnhardt Subject: Re: Email Spam and Habeas Warranty Mark? Date: Wed, 17 Sep 2003 03:50:21 -0600 Organization: http://extra.newsguy.com On Tue, 16 Sep 2003 16:27:57 CDT, wrote: >> That would really depend on who Habeas litagates against. If they also >> try to sue any other waterbase-type system out of business, I would >> not view that as a positive thing. >> That's a different discussion. No, it's not. The OP asked for "experience with or comments on" the Habeas system; it's perfectly legitimate to talk about such things in this discussion. Now, it may not be something that you're *willing* to discuss, but that's completely different from attempting to claim such issues are somehow out of bounds in the discussion. If Habeas positions itself as one of many watermark-based systems, I have no objection to its existence. If it tries to litigate any other watermark-based systems out of existence, I have a huge problem with that. The marketplace should decide which systems are legitimate. Not the lawyers. > The fact remains that they need to be litigious to protect the trust of > their mark when used by spammers to circumvent spam filters. I have no disagreement with this. All of the watermark-based systems must vigorously protect against forgeries. >> That's what makes the whole deal with the CEO's getting ousted look >> fishy. Look at Tom Betz's post on this topic. >> If Habeas is going to let spammers use their mark, then it makes the >> entire system worthless. If not, Habeas needs to explain to the world >> exactly why they removed their CEO from the company. Exactly what was >> the difference in philosophy that led to her ouster? > Since I can't see into the future It has nothing to do with the future; it has to do with current events of the company. Habeas needs to clearly spell out exactly what the difference of opinion was with their founding CEO which led to her ouster in August of 2003. > I've seen no evidence that they're allowing spammer to use > their syetem; in fact, they've sued several of them, and have broken > agreements with companies that began spamming. You failed to respond to the question I asked in my previous posting. Habeas removed its CEO -- one of the lawyers who was most respected in the spam-fighting community for her efforts with the MAPS. Unless they thoroughly and satisfactorily explain that action, they will lose goodwill in the community. >> It does require that recepients use the watermark as a whitelist. Do >> you think there is a criticality of users who honor it that way? At >> least at this point in time, there definitely is not. > Different discussion again. Different than what? It's entire appropriate to the topic being discussed here. > The primary point is that it does *not* > require a criticality of users on the internet using it to make it > worthwhile. It has to do with the value proposition of the system. What do you mean by "worthwhile"? Is it "worthwhile" at this instant? To whom? How are you measuring such worthiness? Clearly, you have thought about such systems extensively. What is your relationship to Habeas and/or to the industry? > Each user receiving it can make their own choices on how > to accept it. Some many choose to completely ignore it, but that > doesn't affect it's usefulness for others. See my earlier comments. I have no objection to watermark-based systems in general. I have a huge issue with a startup that tries to litigate itself into a position of having a monopoly on watermark-based systems. >> Will Habeas allow other watermark vendors to be in the marketplace? Or >> will they also attempt to sue them. IMO, that's just as important a >> question. > The answer to that question does not affect how effective Habeas will > be, although you may find it an interesting discussion if they go in > that direction. Just like I'd like Habeas to be forthcoming about why their CEO was ousted, I'd like them to be forthcoming about this issue. Clearly, Habeas -- and, apparently, you -- view watermark systems as a viable means for a significant percentage of "legitimate" e-mail to get around SPAM filters at some point in the future. Does Habeas intend to sue anyone else who has such systems -- do they want to tax everybody who intends to use watermarks on e-mail? Or will they let the marketplace sort out the players in this marketplace? It's a vital question right now. >>> Therefore, the more people who use/send it, the better, >> ... the better for Habeas, at the very least. Whether or not that >> company's profits are "better" for the Internet as a whole is an open >> question. Agreed? >>> It's designed for emails that are not spam but for which senders are >>> concerned about it being caught by aggressive spam filters. >> ... that would have to be modified to be less agressive on Habeas >> watermarks. > Beyond that, most reasonable spam checkers allow users to set up their > own rules to let Habeas mail through. Most have the potential to do it. What's crucial for the value proposition of the watermark vendors is how many individuals/companies actually do it. > Beyond that, it will take little effort to modify most spam checkers > to give Habeas email a little more trust, if they have not been > modified already. Since the filters key off of fields in the header and strings in the text of messages, it should be trivial to modify their behavior for *any* watermark-based system. > If you're saying the only anti-spam measures you'll support are those > that magically require zero effort on the part of all users and > administrators, you're going to have a long wait. I'm saying that I have a huge issue with a company trying to corner the market on e-mail watermarks by litigating any competitors out of business. Habeas could be forthcoming if that's what they intend to do. If they intend to do that, I see no reason for the Internet community to bend over backwards to create structures solely for the supports of a monopoly. >> Do tell: what percentage of spam-filtration systems have been so >> modified? Which systems have a Habeas watermark increase the odds of > 100% of the ones I work with. Still, see the paragraph above. I'm looking for a statistic. Despite its appearance, your number is not one. ;-( > Beyond that, there must be some filters that know about it, otherwise > there would be no purpose in spammers using the mark without > permission, as they certainly are, so the real world cases would seem > to provide answers to your questions. Spammers don't appear to be operating their business on statistics, either. Spamming is not about efficiently delivering well-composed e-mails to target recipients; it has more to do with spraying as many messages as possible and vaguely hoping that some "stick". The adding of fake-watermarks is merely a "feature" that some vendor selling to spammers decided to offer. If you have any literature from those vendors-to-spammers that makes a convincing case that the delivery rate of such messages would be notably higher, I'd love for you to post it. >> Do you think that Habeas should be entitled to have exclusivity to the >> entire "watermark" concept for this use in e-mail? > Different discussion. ENTIRELY appropriate discussion to be having here. Whether or not you're willing to answer the question is a ... different discussion. What is your interest in the success of watermark-based systems? Or do you solely have an interest in the success of Habeas in this industry? --phil ------------------------------ From: Al Gillis Subject: Re: Point to Point T1, Cisco2514 & Paradyne 3160 - HELP! Date: Wed, 17 Sep 2003 02:57:53 -0700 Organization: http://extra.newsguy.com Mike... With the Paradyne "Loss of Signal", "Out Of Frame" and "Alarm" indicators all on I'd spend some time looking at the incoming access circuit. It's not making the trip from the Central Office to your CSU. Before I called the service provider to open a trouble ticket I'd look at the local wiring (the cable from the CSU to the wall jack, the inside wiring, the jumpers at however many distribution frames there are, and finally at the interface between you and your local exchange carrier). Another thing -- if this is a T-1 or 56kb with a termination plug-in (aka SmartJack) you should check to see that the device still has power (look for illuminated LEDs). If all the stuff on your side of the interface looks OK then call the service provider. Good Luck! Al "HisNameWasRobertPaulson" wrote in message news:telecom22.651.3@telecom-digest.org: > Hello all, this one has me stumped for sure! > Essentially, the CSU/DSU is NOT talking to the Cisco ... Any help or > advice would be greatly appreciated. > Here is the setup: > ATT Paradyne 3160 is connected to the Cisco 2514 via serial cable > (Cisco CAB-X21MT) one end in the cisco serial connector and the other, > a 15 pin 'DTE' perhaps 'X21' connector. The cable is plugging into the > Paradyne via the 'DTE' port, although there are a couple DB25 ports on > the Paradyne that I am not sure what they are used for. > 1) The Paradyne is reporting "LOS at DTE" :: additionaly, two > indicators on the device that are on steady, are amber; they are > 'OOF/TXD' and 'ALARM/RXD' > 2) The Cisco is reporting Interface UP, line protocol DOWN :: > additionaly here is some output from a 'sh int s0' > > ++++++ > Why is the Paradyne not talking? I have two of these devices and both > exhibit this behaviour ... > To make a long story short ... it is not working! Can anyone offer > any advice or suggestions? That would be GREATLY appreciated! > -Mike ------------------------------ From: Ed Clarke Subject: Re: Developer Moves to Neutralize Web Helper Date: 17 Sep 2003 12:14:32 GMT Organization: Ciliophora Associates, Inc. Reply-To: clarke@cilia.org In article , Monty Solomon wrote: > By ANICK JESDANUN AP Internet Writer > NEW YORK (AP) -- The developer of software that essentially guides Web > surfers sought Tuesday to neutralize a controversial service designed > to help users who mistype Internet addresses. > The Internet Software Consortium, the nonprofit organization that > develops BIND software for Internet domain name directories, is > writing an "urgent patch" for Internet service providers and others > who want to block customers from a new Site Finder service from > VeriSign Inc. The major complaint about this is that it violates several RFCs. The effect is that every .com/.net domain now has a valid reverse IP address. This has a catastrophic effect on anti-spam software and also can cause severe problems with search engine spiders. Do a reverse lookup on "www.verisign-is-an-evil-bunch-of-wankers.com". Right now that resolves to 64.94.110.11 aka sitefinder-idn.verisign.com. How appropriate. ------------------------------ From: dmckeon@ameritas.com (Dan McKeon) Subject: Re: Private Video Transmission Date: 17 Sep 2003 06:16:17 -0700 Organization: http://groups.google.com/ Tony Pelliccio wrote in message news:: > In article , dmckeon@ameritas.com > says: >> Thank you both for your replies. Another idea I had/was mentioned to >> me is to use a web cam on a private network with a wireless NIC. The >> signal could be encrypted pretty securely with a 256 bit WEP >> encryption. Do you see any benefit to one solution over another? If >> I did no with the closed-circuit approach, would the transmitter be >> wireless? Could the signal be encrypted? Also, once it is all set >> up, how would the police go about detecting the signal, decrypting it, >> and tracking down its source? > The only thing the police could do is DF the 2.4 GHz signal that the > 802.11 card is putting out. As far as the encryption -- at 256 bit WEP > they'd need the assistance of the boys at NSA to crack that one. > Having worked in law enforcement I can tell you that most departments > are just barely at the point where they know what a computer is, let > alone networking and wireless even though most use it daily. > But they could if they thought about it enlist the help of the > communications division, and they may just have gear that can sniff > out that 2.4GHz signal. But as I said, they may know where it is, and > once they find it they'll know what it is and what it does. And if you > use a directional antenna they know that somewhere, 11 or so miles > away barring obstacles the signal went there. > That's why an omni would be so much better, barring obstacles it could > be a 5 to 11 mile circle. Good luck finding the watcher. Height helps > too. If they have a TV antenna mast that'd be a good place to put the > transmitter and perhaps use the TV antenna itself with some > modification to the driven and reflecting elements. Tony- It's great to get a perspective from someone who understands networking AND has law enforcement experience. In movies, they always call on their "all knowing" computer pro in times like this. To here that most departments have a vague if any understanding of computers is enlightening. Where does this computer guru police image come from? Is that total Hollywood fabrication? ------------------------------ TELECOM Digest is an electronic journal devoted mostly but not exclusively to telecommunications topics. It is circulated anywhere there is email, in addition to various telecom forums on a variety of networks such as Compuserve and America On Line, and other forums. It is also gatewayed to Usenet where it appears as the moderated newsgroup 'comp.dcom.telecom'. TELECOM Digest is a not-for-profit, mostly non-commercial educational service offered to the Internet by Patrick Townson. All the contents of the Digest are compilation-copyrighted. You may reprint articles in some other media on an occasional basis, but please attribute my work and that of the original author. Contact information: Patrick Townson/TELECOM Digest Post Office Box 50 Independence, KS 67301 Phone: 620-330-6774 Fax 1: 775-255-9970 Fax 2: 775-306-8390 Fax 3: 775-642-0603 Fax 4: 530-309-7234 Email: editor@telecom-digest.org Subscribe: telecom-subscribe@telecom-digest.org Unsubscribe:telecom-unsubscribe@telecom-digest.org This Digest is the oldest continuing e-journal about telecomm- unications on the Internet, having been founded in August, 1981 and published continuously since then. Our archives are available for your review/research. We believe we are the second oldest e-zine/ mailing list on the internet in any category! URL information: http://telecom-digest.org Anonymous FTP: mirror.lcs.mit.edu/telecom-archives/archives/ (or use our mirror site: ftp.epix.net/pub/telecom-archives) Email <==> FTP: telecom-archives@telecom-digest.org Send a simple, one line note to that automated address for a help file on how to use the automatic retrieval system for archives files. You can get desired files in email. ************************************************************************* * TELECOM Digest is partially funded by a grant from * * Judith Oppenheimer, President of ICB Inc. and purveyor of accurate * * 800 & Dot Com News, Intelligence, Analysis, and Consulting. * * http://ICBTollFree.com, http://1800TheExpert.com * * Views expressed herein should not be construed as representing * * views of Judith Oppenheimer or ICB Inc. * ************************************************************************* ICB Toll Free News. Contact information is not sold, rented or leased. One click a day feeds a person a meal. Go to http://www.thehungersite.com Copyright 2003 ICB, Inc. and TELECOM Digest. All rights reserved. Our attorney is Bill Levant, of Blue Bell, PA. In addition, gifts from Mike Sandman, Chicago's Telecom Expert have enabled me to replace some obsolete computer equipment and enter the 21st century sort of on schedule. His mail order telephone parts/supplies service based in the Chicago area has been widely recognized by Digest readers as a reliable and very inexpensive source of telecom-related equipment. Please request a free catalog today at http://www.sandman.com --------------------------------------------------------------- A new sponsor for the Digest is Teledeal. They offer Directory Assistance (411) Savings. TeleDeal Inc. specializes in helping businesses and organizations save over 80% on live operator directory assistance calls. Rates are as low as $.27/411 call. TeleDeal also offers a premium real-time 411 Internet database service. Visit http://www.1800teledeal.com or call 1-800-TELEDEAL The Directory Assistance Experts * We Know 411 TeleDeal Inc. George Jones, President ---------------------------------------------------------------- Finally, the Digest is funded by gifts from generous readers such as yourself who provide funding in amounts deemed appropriate. Your help is important and appreciated. A suggested donation of twenty dollars per year per reader is considered appropriate. See our address above. Please make at least a single donation to cover the cost of processing your name to the mailing list. All opinions expressed herein are deemed to be those of the author. Any organizations listed are for identification purposes only and messages should not be considered any official expression by the organization. End of TELECOM Digest V22 #653 ****************************** From editor@telecom-digest.org Thu Sep 18 01:07:01 2003 Received: (from ptownson@localhost) by massis.lcs.mit.edu (8.11.6p2/8.11.3) id h8I570r17399; Thu, 18 Sep 2003 01:07:01 -0400 (EDT) Date: Thu, 18 Sep 2003 01:07:01 -0400 (EDT) From: editor@telecom-digest.org Message-Id: <200309180507.h8I570r17399@massis.lcs.mit.edu> X-Authentication-Warning: massis.lcs.mit.edu: ptownson set sender to editor@telecom-digest.org using -f To: ptownson Approved: patsnewlist Subject: TELECOM Digest V22 #654 TELECOM Digest Thu, 18 Sep 2003 01:07:00 EDT Volume 22 : Issue 654 Inside This Issue: Editor: Patrick A. Townson and: Lisa Minter Re: Email Spam and Habeas Warranty Mark? (temp7@thewolfden.org) Re: Email Spam and Habeas Warranty Mark? (John R. Levine) Re: Small PBX For Home/Small Business Use; Where to Find? (Chip G) Re: Small PBX For Home/Small Business Use; Where to Find? (T Pelliccio) Re: Small PBX For Home/Small Business Use; Where to Find? (SayNoToCross) Re: Small PBX For Home/Small Business Use; Where to Find? (Carl Navarro) Re: Verizon Has "811-xxxx"-Like Problem? (John C. Fowler) What Else Does VeriSign's Site Finder do? (joppenheimer@icbtollfree.com) Re: Private Video Transmission (GlowingBlueMist) Re: Kansas City Teacher Caught up in Child Porn Case (Strom Carlson) Re: Separating Bursty Errors From Random Noise on Comm Channel (Dorsey) The Fast-Forward, On-Demand, Network-Smashing Future of TV (M Solomon) All contents here are copyrighted by Patrick Townson and the individual writers/correspondents. Articles may be used in other journals or newsgroups, provided the writer's name and the Digest are included in the fair use quote. By using -any name or email address- included herein for -any- reason other than responding to an article herein, you agree to pay a hundred dollars to the recipients of the email. WE DO NOT PERMIT NAME/EMAIL ADDRESS HARVESTING FROM THIS JOURNAL. 'SALTED' EMAIL ADDRESSES APPEAR HEREIN TO VERIFY THIS. YOU GET SUED IN SMALL CLAIMS COURT IF YOU GET CAUGHT SPAMMING OR SENDING VIRUSES. DON'T DO IT. See the bottom of this issue for subscription and archive details and the name of our lawyer; other stuff of interest. ---------------------------------------------------------------------- Date: Wed, 17 Sep 2003 13:09:50 CDT Subject: Re: Email Spam and Habeas Warranty Mark? From: Reply-To: temp7@thewolfden.org > From: Phil Earnhardt > Subject: Re: Email Spam and Habeas Warranty Mark? > Date: Wed, 17 Sep 2003 03:50:21 -0600 [Edited for brevity while trying to maintain threads.] > On Tue, 16 Sep 2003 16:27:57 CDT, wrote: > >>> That would really depend on who Habeas litagates against. If they also >>> try to sue any other waterbase-type system out of business, I would >>> not view that as a positive thing. >>> That's a different discussion. > No, it's not. The OP asked for "experience with or comments on" the > Habeas system; it's perfectly legitimate to talk about such things in > this discussion. Now, it may not be something that you're *willing* to > discuss, but that's completely different from attempting to claim such > issues are somehow out of bounds in the discussion. But the suing of OTHER businesses does not directly affect how well the Habeas system works. The Habeas system does not depend on them suing non-copyright infringing entities. Whether they sue these other enties or not, their model is still useable, and therefore the above is a different discussion. >>> If Habeas is going to let spammers use their mark, then it makes the >>> entire system worthless. If not, Habeas needs to explain to the world >>> exactly why they removed their CEO from the company. Exactly what was >>> the difference in philosophy that led to her ouster? >> Since I can't see into the future > It has nothing to do with the future; it has to do with current events > of the company. Habeas needs to clearly spell out exactly what the > difference of opinion was with their founding CEO which led to her > ouster in August of 2003. I believe that no matter what sort of opinions the current CEO has, the only facts that matter are how the company behaves in the upcoming months. (Actions speak louder than words.) If you don't trust them, don't use them, but merely removing the CEO does not imply the company is going downhill. Knowing why they removed the CEO might be interesting and might be damning; but it might also be a lie. > posting. Habeas removed its CEO -- one of the lawyers who was most > respected in the spam-fighting community for her efforts with the > MAPS. Unless they thoroughly and satisfactorily explain that action, > they will lose goodwill in the community. They will possibly loose some goodwill, such as yours, but probably not all of it. And if their company does not loose effectiveness, no one will care. >>> It does require that recepients use the watermark as a whitelist. Do >>> you think there is a criticality of users who honor it that way? At >>> least at this point in time, there definitely is not. >> Different discussion again. > Different than what? It's entire appropriate to the topic being > discussed here. No, because as I noted, the system does not require a criticality, so the discussion that at this time there is not a criticality has no bearing on the issue. Whether or not anyone else out there honors their mark, I can choose to do so. (Although future effect may be that they close their doors if I'm the only one using it, but that's not what the above is referring to.) %> > The primary point is that it does *not* %> > require a criticality of users on the internet using it to make it %> > worthwhile. %> %> It has to do with the value proposition of the system. %> %> What do you mean by "worthwhile"? Is it "worthwhile" at this instant? %> To whom? How are you measuring such worthiness? Whether or not anyone else out there honors their mark, I can choose to do so. That refers to anyone using it, and the fact that as long as the mark is trustworthy, any percentage of receivers can filter based on it, and it becomes worthwhile in incrementally improving spam blocking effectiveness. > Clearly, you have thought about such systems extensively. What is your > relationship to Habeas and/or to the industry? None, other than random user, email receiver, and frequent spam target. >> Each user receiving it can make their own choices on how >> to accept it. Some many choose to completely ignore it, but that >> doesn't affect it's usefulness for others. > See my earlier comments. I have no objection to watermark-based > systems in general. I have a huge issue with a startup that tries to > litigate itself into a position of having a monopoly on > watermark-based systems. I could find little information on Habeas suing other non-spam companies; I'd be interested in references. > Clearly, Habeas -- and, apparently, you -- view watermark systems as a > viable means for a significant percentage of "legitimate" e-mail to > get around SPAM filters at some point in the future. I find it a novel idea that could improve the effectivenes of spam filtering software with minor effort on the part of the programmers. With spammers as creative as they are, any spam filter used for a publicly visible email address needs to be agressive to make any serious dent in the incoming spam, but agressive filters made errors. A method such as Habeas' could incrementally improve agressive filters as long as the mark is trustworthy. > Does Habeas intend to sue anyone else who has such systems -- do > they want to tax everybody who intends to use watermarks on e-mail? > Or will they let the marketplace sort out the players in this > marketplace? It's a vital question right now. I imagine they'll act like any other business out there; i.e. sue when they can to protect their interests, patent various ideas, and shut down those who infringe of their rights. >>>> Therefore, the more people who use/send it, the better, >>> ... the better for Habeas, at the very least. Whether or not that >>> company's profits are "better" for the Internet as a whole is an open >>> question. > Agreed? Not sure exactly what you want me to agree to. If they make good profits and more companies use their service, then my spam filters will work better, they'll be able to sure more infringers, more junk mail will be blocked, internet users will be happier, etc., etc. > What's crucial for the value > proposition of the watermark vendors is how many individuals/companies > actually do it. That may be true for senders, but for receivers, just one commonly used vendor is enough. For senders, they may prefer to have more than one option, but if they don't like the market players, they're always free to implement something themselves (and not just watermarking). This is certainly not a required method, and if a sender does not find value in having their email make it through spam filters, then they can simply not use it. > Since the filters key off of fields in the header and strings in the > text of messages, it should be trivial to modify their behavior for > *any* watermark-based system. Why'd you ask me if you already knew the answer? >> If you're saying the only anti-spam measures you'll support are those >> that magically require zero effort on the part of all users and >> administrators, you're going to have a long wait. > I'm saying that I have a huge issue with a company trying to corner > the market on e-mail watermarks by litigating any competitors out of > business. Generalize that statement just a bit (i.e. remove "on e-mail watermarks") and you have a common business model. Can't fault Habeas for playing the same as others. > Habeas could be forthcoming if that's what they intend to > do. If they intend to do that, I see no reason for the Internet > community to bend over backwards to create structures solely for the > supports of a monopoly. Agreed on the last half of that sentence. Of course, it may still be an effective thing to do. > The adding of fake-watermarks is merely a "feature" that some vendor > selling to spammers decided to offer. If you have any literature from > those vendors-to-spammers that makes a convincing case that the > delivery rate of such messages would be notably higher, I'd love for > you to post it. Logic should get us halfway there: if watermarks are used to pass email through spam filters and spammers use them, then spammer email will pass through spam filters because the watermarks declare them as not being spam. >>> Do you think that Habeas should be entitled to have exclusivity to the >>> entire "watermark" concept for this use in e-mail? >> Different discussion. > ENTIRELY appropriate discussion to be having here. Whether or not > you're willing to answer the question is a ... different discussion. If they can patent their method, then they get exclusivity on it's implementation. Otherwise no, but the courts will throw out the cases that have no bearing, and they'll be countersued as necessary. Beyond that, as mentioned above, whether they sue non-spammers or not does not affect how their system works. Many companies are happy to crush their competitors however they can, be it suing them, undercutting their costs, spreading rumors, trashing them in advertisements, etc. Now, you may not like them, you may even detest them, but many people detest Microsoft and they're still doing fine. ------------------------------ From: johnl@iecc.com (John R. Levine) Subject: Re: Email Spam and Habeas Warranty Mark? Date: 17 Sep 2003 22:21:08 -0400 Organization: I.E.C.C., Trumansburg NY USA > That would really depend on who Habeas litagates against. If they also > try to sue any other waterbase-type system out of business, I would > not view that as a positive thing. The only people they've ever sued or threatened to sue are spammers using their mark without permission. The suggestion that they'd sue competititors is a complete red herring. > If Habeas is going to let spammers use their mark, then it makes the > entire system worthless. If not, Habeas needs to explain to the world > exactly why they removed their CEO from the company. Exactly what was > the difference in philosophy that led to her ouster? I'm on their advisory board and I have my suspicions (not all of which are black and awful) but I don't really know. We're getting in touch with the new management to find out. > Do tell: what percentage of spam-filtration systems have been so > modified? Which systems have a Habeas watermark increase the odds of > delivery of the e-mail? Of the systems that have it, what percentage > of the users of those systems have modified their configuration to > allow the Habeas watermarks? Quite a lot, it turns out, including AOL, SBC, and RoadRunner, three of the biggest ISPs around. > Do you think that Habeas should be entitled to have exclusivity to > the entire "watermark" concept for this use in e-mail? I dunno. Have you stopped beating your wife? Regards, John Levine johnl@iecc.com Primary Perpetrator "The Internet for Dummies", Info Superhighwayman wanna-be http://iecc.com/johnl Sewer Commissioner "A book is a sneeze." - E.B. White, on the writing of Charlotte's Web ------------------------------ From: Chip G Subject: Re: Small PBX For Home/Small Business Use; Where to Find? Organization: Comcast Online Date: Wed, 17 Sep 2003 17:45:00 GMT How about Asterisk? http://www.asteriskpbx.com Dean West wrote in message news:telecom22.653.2@telecom-digest.org: > Many people here have often discussed using a PBX for home use. Now > that I am ready to buy I cant find one. > I need 3 incoming and outgoing lines to the phone company. > I also need around 15 telephone sets in and around the house. > Touch tone service is essential. > Does anyone know of a vendor for these or have one that they want to > sell? > Thank you. ------------------------------ From: Tony Pelliccio Subject: Re: Small PBX For Home/Small Business Use; Where to Find? Organization: The Ace Tomato and Cement Company Date: Wed, 17 Sep 2003 14:58:29 -0500 In article , dean.west@originarea.com says: > Many people here have often discussed using a PBX for home use. Now > that I am ready to buy I cant find one. > I need 3 incoming and outgoing lines to the phone company. > I also need around 15 telephone sets in and around the house. > Touch tone service is essential. > Does anyone know of a vendor for these or have one that they want to > sell? I bought a Partner II phone system with 16 phones for $550 off ebay. You want to go for the later model systems with auto-attendants and voice mail if you need it. And the thing about the Partner system is that it just works, all the time. Unlike the 416 series KSU's I've dealt with which were pieces of proprietary crap. Granted, it's 4 wires to a set but if you're plunking the money down, why not. ------------------------------ From: SayNoToCrossposters Subject: Re: Small PBX For Home/Small Business Use; Where to Find? Organization: Comcast Online Date: Thu, 18 Sep 2003 02:03:03 GMT Home system ... probably looking for something inexpensive. You are probably looking at a Panasonic system of some sort. They seem to work well ... I tend to like the KXT line although I am using a Tadiran Coral 1 with vmail and voip :). Ok, so I'm a phone geek. You might try Graybar or ebay to find something. The biggest problem with home systems is the lack of good cabling ... if you can get all "home runs" you are good to go. Luckilly I built my house and cabled it extensively. Good Luck. ------------------------------ From: Carl Navarro Subject: Re: Small PBX For Home/Small Business Use; Where to Find? Reply-To: cnavarro@wcnet.org Date: Wed, 17 Sep 2003 23:17:57 GMT Organization: Road Runner High Speed Online -- Northeast Ohio On 16 Sep 2003 22:55:11 -0700, dean.west@originarea.com (Dean West) wrote: > Many people here have often discussed using a PBX for home use. Now > that I am ready to buy I cant find one. > I need 3 incoming and outgoing lines to the phone company. > I also need around 15 telephone sets in and around the house. > Touch tone service is essential. > Does anyone know of a vendor for these or have one that they want to > sell? > Thank you. > [Lisa Minter note: Is the Melco Company still in business making > little mini-style PBXs? Patrick told me when he was living in > Chicago several years ago he had one of those, called the '212' > because it had 2 telephone lines and 12 extensions, but there was > a larger version called '424' because there were 4 phone company > lines and 24 extensions. A totally computerized unit in a little box > which either mounted on the wall or sat on a desktop. Not cheap; > I think he said it cost a thousand dollars. Lisa M. ] Lisa, I believe Melco was absorbed by Augat and the Max 212 424 and 824 are history. Dean, Depending on what type of system you need, you can find both new and used. My favorite would be the Panasonic KX-TA624 carded 3x16 to let you add voice mail and multi-line sets as you get the funds. Base system price is about $800-900 for the 3x16 configuration and you need one display phone for programming (about $160). You may go to auction and grab a used system. I got a Comdial 14x32 with 10 phones for less than $200, but I happen to remember how to install one :-) IF the system ad says "as good as a Nortel" or something like that, it isn't. If you want to mix single line and multi-line sets, grab a Partner or Panasonic. If you want Caller-ID to a single line device, grab at least a 4.1 Partner or a new Partner. Panasonic doesn't do CID to single line devices normally, unless you happen to get a TD-308 with the CID module. However, new Panasonic TA and TD (except the 308) come with CID modules included. If you need more help, drop me an e-mail. Carl Navarro ------------------------------ Date: Wed, 17 Sep 2003 16:38:40 -0700 (PDT) From: John C. Fowler Subject: Re: Verizon Has "811-xxxx"-Like Problem? Carl Moore wrote: > I still have a Delaware telephone number, which is a remote-forward > since I no longer live there. There is a problem with the bill for > that account (a check for $16 was mistakenly put through for $10, > and the $6 difference continues to be billed despite a debit memo > issued by the bank after I found a discrepancy). But when I call > the 800 number listed for billing questions, after I have punched in > the telephone number (including area code), I eventually am told by > the automated system that I have reached the wrong office! Generally the best way to deal with brain-dead 800 number systems is not to play their game. Don't punch in your telephone number. Pretend like you're one of those holdouts still using a rotary-dial phone. Hopefully, after a timeout (and maybe a little extra begging to please, please, please punch in your phone number), you will eventually get a human, who can either help you or give you a better phone number to dial. If that doesn't work, you can also check out the company's website. Some companies have a way to submit customer service requests electronically. Of course, then you have to give them your E-mail address, so go create a junk E-mail account if you have any concerns about that. Good luck! John C. Fowler johnfpublic@yahoo.com (which is itself a junk account, so don't be surprised if I don't respond to mail sent to it.) ------------------------------ Reply-To: From: Subject: What Else Does VeriSign's Site Finder do? Date: Wed, 17 Sep 2003 20:33:54 -0400 Organization: ICB Inc./WhoSells800.com From ICANNWatch's "VeriSign Typo Squats" thread: (http://new.icannwatch.org/article.pl?sid=03/09/15/1730233&mode=thread), trademark attorney John Berryhill reveals, "The Sitefinder page is also generated for (a) domain names with no nameservers, (b) domain names in the redemption grace period (RGP) and (c) domain names on registrar hold. The names may indeed to be registered to someone, and that someone might very well object to the use of their name by Verisign, along the same lines as the register.com parking page claim. The fact that RGP names are included provides extremely valuable intelligence to a few insiders at Verisign. They are in a position to know, with certainty, the traffic levels on domain names which are soon to be released. In conjunction with the wait-list service, this information is a gold mine. The fact that Verisign is resolving on-hold names also frustrates reliance on the way things have historically worked. Take UDRP-cancelled domain names, for example. Bodacious-tatas.com was cancelled in a UDRP proceeding. To prevent resolution of that domain name, the complainant filed a lawsuit in India, where lawsuits move slowly enough to permanently keep a domain name on ice. Despite these efforts, Verisign is now earning pay-per-click revenue on the domain, and Verisign will be the only party to be able to earn revenue from this domain name for the foreseeable future. Verisign will, of course, obtain John Zuccarini's revenue stream in the event that the court handling the Zuccarini case orders his domain names to be pulled out of the root. Again, nice timing." ICB is following the story here: http://www.icbtollfree.com/article_free.cfm?articleId=5891 . -------- http://ICBTollFreeNews.com _ http://800Consulting.com 160 East 26 Street, Suite 6E New York, New York 10010 212 684-7210, 1 800 The Expert ------------------------------ From: GlowingBlueMist Subject: Re: Private Video Transmission Date: Wed, 17 Sep 2003 21:17:06 -0400 I remember reading one of the do it yourself electronic magazines that had an example of how to repeat a TV signal from an antenna mounted on a mountain top down to a home in the valley by using a home built microwave system. The system used coffee cans for antennas to direct the signal. Add in a scrambler circuit and you would be good. I like the method as one can aim the signal at a building or other object and use it as a reflector. The receiving antenna could be quite an angle away from the one the originating source was sending it to or just point and shoot if you have a line of sight to the receiver. You could have say 8 receivers spread out over a large city and selectively aim the sending source at different buildings to bounce the signal to the right receiver. Adding a laser range finding beam makes it much easier to align things. The good/or bad guys could find a receiving site, check the aim of the signal and would go to the wrong building unless they figured out it was being bounced from there and not originating from there. You could lead them around the city in that fashion till you run out of pre-setup receivers. When I was in the Air Force we would could bounce signals off of buildings, mountain tops, and billboards with little trouble as long as the geometry was right, not that we could admit using civilian buildings as our reflectors during training or exercises. I agree that using the PC wireless method is more in touch with what is more available technology wise. ------------------------------ From: strom@1ringydingy.com (Strom Carlson) Subject: Re: Kansas City Teacher Caught up in Child Porn Case Date: 17 Sep 2003 09:45:04 -0700 Organization: http://groups.google.com/ > Someone can also steal your phone when you are out. It's easy to get > at the little box where the phone line comes in, unplug your wire and > plug in a phone there. They can then use your line for whatever they > want. If they threaten people, it will be YOUR number on the caller > ID. > We can't very well lock that box because whenever the phone company > repair people need access to the box, they would need a key. > Obviously, it would totally impractical to carry thousands of keys > around in the trucks to access the boxes. Actually, the NID has a space for a padlock, which makes it inaccessible to anyone who doesn't have the special telephone company screwdriver. When you open the NID with the phone company screwdriver, the padlock swings off with the rest of the cover. Sure, if someone _really_ wants to steal your phone service, they can go to the trouble of finding such a screwdriver, but 99% of the time, they'll just move on to another box. -Strom ------------------------------ From: kludge@panix.com (Scott Dorsey) Subject: Re: Separating Bursty Errors From Random Noise on Comm Channel Date: 17 Sep 2003 12:53:36 -0400 Organization: Former users of Netcom shell (1989-2000) Porky Pig Jr wrote: > I'm looking for some algorithm/technique/whatever to separate the > random noise from bursty errors on communication channel. A quick look at the power spectrum of your errors will be very enlightening. --scott "C'est un Nagra. C'est suisse, et tres, tres precis." ------------------------------ Date: Wed, 17 Sep 2003 15:39:43 -0400 From: Monty Solomon Subject: The Fast-Forward, On-Demand, Network-Smashing Future of Television What happens when digital video recorders give viewers control of the TV schedule, the content, and the ads? The whole world is watching. By Frank Rose Wired Magazine Issue 11.10 - October 2003 It all started with the VCR. In 1975, when Sony introduced the notion of "time shift," as cofounder Akio Morita dubbed it, television was a staid and profitable business controlled by three national broadcast networks. All in the Family, the number-one show, was watched in 30 percent of American homes. Cable was something you got for better reception. The big question facing the industry was whether Happy Days would propel ABC to the top. (It did.) This year's top series, CSI, was on in just 16 percent of households. The three broadcast networks are now six, most of them struggling to make a profit. More than 300 additional channels are available through digital cable and satellite. And time-shifting has progressed to the point that millions of viewers rely not on a VCR but on a digital video recorder, which makes it easy to find anything on those hundreds of channels and watch it anytime while fast-forwarding through the ads. The revolution that started in analog is now exploding in digital, and suddenly everything about television is up for grabs -- the way we watch it and the ads that pay for it, the kinds of programs we get and the future of the networks that carry them. The DVR, pioneered in the late '90s by TiVo, is the linchpin. It's taking hold at the same time that digital compression -- which multiplies tenfold the number of signals a slice of bandwidth can carry -- is enabling cable and satellite providers to pump out channels targeted to narrowly defined audiences. Throw in electronic programming guides -- search functions that essentially let you Google your TV -- and the implications for Hollywood are, as one exec puts it, "cataclysmic." Technology is empowering the couch potato. The fundamental premise of traditional broadcasting is its ability to control the viewer -- to deliver tens of millions of eyeballs to advertisers and to direct those eyeballs from prime time all the way to late night. That control has been eroding ever since the advent of the VCR, but now it's being blasted away entirely. http://www.wired.com/wired/archive/11.10/tv.html ------------------------------ TELECOM Digest is an electronic journal devoted mostly but not exclusively to telecommunications topics. It is circulated anywhere there is email, in addition to various telecom forums on a variety of networks such as Compuserve and America On Line, and other forums. It is also gatewayed to Usenet where it appears as the moderated newsgroup 'comp.dcom.telecom'. TELECOM Digest is a not-for-profit, mostly non-commercial educational service offered to the Internet by Patrick Townson. All the contents of the Digest are compilation-copyrighted. You may reprint articles in some other media on an occasional basis, but please attribute my work and that of the original author. Contact information: Patrick Townson/TELECOM Digest Post Office Box 50 Independence, KS 67301 Phone: 620-330-6774 Fax 1: 775-255-9970 Fax 2: 775-306-8390 Fax 3: 775-642-0603 Fax 4: 530-309-7234 Email: editor@telecom-digest.org Subscribe: telecom-subscribe@telecom-digest.org Unsubscribe:telecom-unsubscribe@telecom-digest.org This Digest is the oldest continuing e-journal about telecomm- unications on the Internet, having been founded in August, 1981 and published continuously since then. Our archives are available for your review/research. We believe we are the second oldest e-zine/ mailing list on the internet in any category! URL information: http://telecom-digest.org Anonymous FTP: mirror.lcs.mit.edu/telecom-archives/archives/ (or use our mirror site: ftp.epix.net/pub/telecom-archives) Email <==> FTP: telecom-archives@telecom-digest.org Send a simple, one line note to that automated address for a help file on how to use the automatic retrieval system for archives files. You can get desired files in email. ************************************************************************* * TELECOM Digest is partially funded by a grant from * * Judith Oppenheimer, President of ICB Inc. and purveyor of accurate * * 800 & Dot Com News, Intelligence, Analysis, and Consulting. * * http://ICBTollFree.com, http://1800TheExpert.com * * Views expressed herein should not be construed as representing * * views of Judith Oppenheimer or ICB Inc. * ************************************************************************* ICB Toll Free News. Contact information is not sold, rented or leased. 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 --------------------------------------------------------------- A new sponsor for the Digest is Teledeal. They offer Directory Assistance (411) Savings. TeleDeal Inc. specializes in helping businesses and organizations save over 80% on live operator directory assistance calls. Rates are as low as $.27/411 call. TeleDeal also offers a premium real-time 411 Internet database service. Visit http://www.1800teledeal.com or call 1-800-TELEDEAL The Directory Assistance Experts * We Know 411 TeleDeal Inc. George Jones, President ---------------------------------------------------------------- Finally, the Digest is funded by gifts from generous readers such as yourself who provide funding in amounts deemed appropriate. Your help is important and appreciated. A suggested donation of twenty dollars per year per reader is considered appropriate. See our address above. Please make at least a single donation to cover the cost of processing your name to the mailing list. All opinions expressed herein are deemed to be those of the author. Any organizations listed are for identification purposes only and messages should not be considered any official expression by the organization. End of TELECOM Digest V22 #654 ****************************** From editor@telecom-digest.org Thu Sep 18 21:18:42 2003 Received: (from ptownson@localhost) by massis.lcs.mit.edu (8.11.6p2/8.11.3) id h8J1IgS25272; Thu, 18 Sep 2003 21:18:42 -0400 (EDT) Date: Thu, 18 Sep 2003 21:18:42 -0400 (EDT) From: editor@telecom-digest.org Message-Id: <200309190118.h8J1IgS25272@massis.lcs.mit.edu> X-Authentication-Warning: massis.lcs.mit.edu: ptownson set sender to editor@telecom-digest.org using -f To: ptownson Approved: patsnewlist Subject: TELECOM Digest V22 #655 TELECOM Digest Thu, 18 Sep 2003 21:17:00 EDT Volume 22 : Issue 655 Inside This Issue: Editor: Patrick A. Townson and: Lisa Minter Isabel and East Coast Conditions (Lisa Minter) E-Voting Audit Ready for Public (Monty Solomon) JetBlue Shared Passenger Data (Monty Solomon) Re: Small PBX For Home/Small Business Use; Where to Find? (M. Solomon) Re: Small PBX For Home/Small Business Use; Where to Find? (Kyler Laird) TXU Phone Line Auction Draws a Crowd (Eric Friedebach) Re: What Happened to 951 Area Code? (Linc Madison) Hearing Impaired Devices/Services (Marise_A_Klapka) Re: Email Spam and Habeas Warranty Mark? (Tom Betz) Re: SMS Standard (John R. Levine) Re: SMS Standard (rounner) Many Wireless Devices + One House = Many Problems? (Mike) AT&T Takes on Qwest in Ariz., Minn. Local Service (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. WE DO NOT PERMIT NAME/EMAIL ADDRESS HARVESTING FROM THIS JOURNAL. 'SALTED' EMAIL ADDRESSES APPEAR HEREIN TO VERIFY THIS. YOU GET SUED IN SMALL CLAIMS COURT IF YOU GET CAUGHT SPAMMING OR SENDING VIRUSES. DON'T DO IT. See the bottom of this issue for subscription and archive details and the name of our lawyer; other stuff of interest. ---------------------------------------------------------------------- From: Lisa Minter Date: Thu, 18 Sep 2003 21:04:42 EDT Subject: Isabel and East Coast Conditions We have been watching the news and weather stations on cable TV all afternoon seeing Isabel start to hit the east coast of the USA, and it has been interesting to me to see the widespread geographical territory involved in this storm; from the Carolinas clear up through Delaware, Washington, DC and New Jersey. Power is out in a few areas, and Washington, DC was evacuated as nearly as possible a few hours ago. A picture of a very frightened President Bush on television said he and other non-essential government employees had been ordered to leave for their safety for the duration of the storm, which is supposed to reach its peak between 9 PM tonight and 4 or 5 AM Friday morning. I was wondering how the telephone service is holding up over there? What about cell phones as substitutes? Perhaps Carl Moore or other readers in the mid-Atlantic area can write some reports on it for the Digest. A fellow I chat with on Yahoo Messenger who is in the Marines at that large base in North Carolina said yesterday in chat to me he and his buddies were being assigned to help with sandbagging and other duties for the next few days. Any reports from readers of the Digest in the area of the storm? Lisa Minter ------------------------------ Reply-To: Monty Solomon From: Monty Solomon Subject: E-Voting Audit Ready for Public Date: Thu, 18 Sep 2003 11:54:08 -0400 By Kim Zetter A security audit ordered by Maryland Gov. Robert Ehrlich on Diebold Election Systems' touch-screen voting machines is complete, and a version of it is ready for public consumption. Shareese DeLeaver of the governor's office said the 200-page report has been shown to Diebold officials and is now being reviewed by the state's Department of Budget and Management and the State Board of Elections. The report was commissioned by the governor after researchers at Johns Hopkins University and Rice University discovered serious security flaws (PDF) in code for the AccuVote-TS voting terminals. A redacted version of the report, with information useful to malicious crackers taken out, will be available on the state's website Friday or early next week. The severity of Hurricane Isabel and the amount of energy the governor's office must devote to recovery from the storm will determine the timing of the report's posting. Last month Gov. Ehrlich charged Science Applications International, or SAIC, in San Diego with conducting the audit before the state would proceed with a $55.6 million purchase and servicing contract for Diebold's electronic voting machines. Ehrlich said it was imperative the government ensure the integrity of the election process by conducting "a thorough, fully independent review of the Diebold system." Diebold has maintained that its system has no security vulnerabilities. http://www.wired.com/news/technology/0,1282,60486,00.html ------------------------------ Reply-To: Monty Solomon From: Monty Solomon Subject: JetBlue Shared Passenger Data Date: Thu, 18 Sep 2003 11:51:55 -0400 By Ryan Singel JetBlue Airways confirmed on Thursday that in September 2002, it provided 5 million passenger itineraries to a defense contractor for proof-of-concept testing of a Pentagon project unrelated to airline security -- with help from the Transportation Security Administration. The contractor, Torch Concepts, then augmented that data with Social Security numbers and other sensitive personal information, including income level, to develop what looks to be a study of whether passenger-profiling systems such as CAPPS II are feasible. The study (PDF), titled "Homeland Security -- Airline Passenger Risk Assessment," which JetBlue says was based on an unauthorized use of its data, was presented at a February technology conference. http://www.wired.com/news/privacy/0,1848,60489,00.html ------------------------------ Date: Thu, 18 Sep 2003 03:39:05 -0400 From: Monty Solomon Subject: Re: Small PBX For Home/Small Business Use; Where to Find? dean.west@originarea.com (Dean West) wrote to ask about Small PBX For Home/Small Business Use; Where to Find? > Many people here have often discussed using a PBX for home use. Now > that I am ready to buy I cant find one. > I need 3 incoming and outgoing lines to the phone company. > I also need around 15 telephone sets in and around the house. > Touch tone service is essential. Panasonic systems are available from many vendors. Here are a couple. http://www.ablecomm.com/ http://smarthome.com/phonesystems.html Check out the Asterisk Open Source PBX http://www.asterisk.org/ http://www.digium.com/ Monty ------------------------------ Subject: Re: Small PBX For Home/Small Business Use; Where to Find? From: Kyler Laird Organization: Insight Broadband Date: Thu, 18 Sep 2003 15:20:15 GMT >> I need 3 incoming and outgoing lines to the phone company. >> I also need around 15 telephone sets in and around the house. > How about Asterisk? http://www.asteriskpbx.com That was my first reaction. Then I read about people spending $550 on proprietary solutions. For an Asterisk system, if you want all phones to be independent, you're talking about something like four of the 4-port FXS interfaces ($305 each) http://store.yahoo.com/asteriskpbx/witd4pofxsbu.html and then three of the single-port FXOs ($100 each). http://store.yahoo.com/asteriskpbx/wildcardx100p.html (Is there a cheaper way to do it? T-1 interface?) That's $1520 just in telephony hardware. Then there's the host (~$500), telephone instruments (which might already be available), and whatever level of support that's required (could be $0). I'd certainly prefer to spend ~$2K on a system that I control than $500 on a proprietary box (especially at home where I might want to do *really* weird stuff), but I can see how it would be hard for some people to justify paying the higher purchase price. --kyler ------------------------------ From: Eric Friedebach Subject: TXU Phone Line Auction Draws a Crowd Date: Wed, 17 Sep 2003 21:42:01 -0500 Organization: Standard Operational Bull By Tom Johnson and Dane Hamilton NEW YORK (Reuters) - Power company TXU Corp. has whittled the list of potential buyers for its telecommunications assets to about six after a robust auction pushed the potential pricetag above $600 million, sources close to the situation said Wednesday. A TXU spokeswoman declined to comment, but TXU Chief Financial Officer Dan Farell confirmed the Dallas-based company was now working with about six potential buyers. He was speaking at Merrill Lynch's Power & Gas Leaders Conference. http://www.forbes.com/newswire/2003/09/17/rtr1084717.html Eric Friedebach ------------------------------ Subject: Re: What Happened to 951 Area Code? From: Linc Madison Reply-To: Telecom@LincMad.com Organization: LincMad.com Consulting Date: Thu, 18 Sep 2003 06:59:48 GMT In article , Jeff Sutter wrote: >> No, you can't implement an overlay in California without 1+10D. >> Dialing 7D in an overlay area is not allowed because it's not >> competitively neutral. You can't have 7D in an overlay area >> anywhere in the USA. > This is the same rubbish that industry blathered years ago when they > said the sky was falling, and we would run out of prefixes within > months. It's not rubbish. It's a fact. Seven-digit dialing in an overlay is ILLEGAL under U.S. federal law. Period. GET USED TO IT. > Neither splits nor overlays are competitively neutral to the people > and businesses who dwell in the impacted area, who now must dial > unnecessary extra digits to call their neighbor, or pay thousands of > dollars for new stationary, and untold amounts in lost business. Now *THIS* is rubbish! You betray your abysmal lack of knowledge and understanding of all things telecom. You need to go back to lurking until you actually learn how to string together a coherent paragraph without making a total fool of yourself. The term "competitively neutral" refers to the competition among local telephone carriers. *OF COURSE* a split or an overlay has an impact on the customers, but that has NO BEARING on the question of competitive neutrality. The question is whether the area code relief has a *DIFFERENT* impact on the customers of one particular *TELCO*. > You CAN retain 7D dialing for the existing area code, and everyone > can dial 1+10 if they want to dial numbers in the tech overlay. > Likewise, cellphones and other devices in the tech area can have 7 > digit dialing amongst themselves, and 1+10D when they want to call > the incumbent area code. There is NO SUCH THING as a "tech overlay." All overlays in the United States -- by law -- are "all services" overlays. The FCC has said that it will *consider* making an exception, but none has been granted yet, and none ever will be granted. The promise to consider them was nothing but a feint to get people to shut up about the issue. > I'll gladly have the area code on my cellphone and fax changed to a > tech area code, and program my automated dialing features to deal > with that. But don't you dare tell me we have to have 1+10D imposed > on us because some wannabe phone company gets their feelings hurt. > That's nonsense. What is nonsense is the astonishingly ignorant claim that you can put fax machines in a separate area code. Never mind the legal issues, it is impossible to begin with. I can put a fax machine on any telephone line that I can put a telephone on, and vice-versa. You might as well propose separate area codes based on the color of the handset. Of course, the claim that it would actually *help* even if it were possible, is equally ignorant. Likewise, you can't separate cellphones out, because in the very near future, there will be local number portability between wireless and landline prefixes. Right now, if I see a phone number 310-213-xxxx, I know that it's a Sprint PCS cellphone. By the end of the year, though, it could be T-Mobile or Cingular or any other wireless carrier, and the plan is to extend that to any other carrier that serves the Gardena area, including SBC. You can't separate numbers by technology -- in practical terms, beyond the simple fact that it's illegal -- unless they occupy separate prefixes. Fax machines don't, and cellphones won't for much longer. You decry the sorry state of competition, and yet in the same breath you want to hamstring the new entrants. That's called "talking out of both sides of your mouth." As you make so pointedly clear, there are a lot of people who don't like dialing 1+10D and will resist it far beyond reason. That means that if a new telco only has numbers in the new overlay code, and their customers have to dial 1+10D to call everyone else (or vice-versa), that new telco will have a much more difficult time selling its service. That makes it more difficult for a new telco to compete, which is supposed to be the goal. > So good luck. Maybe while we're distracted with our budget and > recall crises, The new Ma Bells and their wireless family can try to > sneak 1+10D past us again. But something tells me, we'll be better > prepared for the battle this time. There won't be 1+10D because there won't be an overlay in California any time soon. The CPUC has ruled quite clearly on that issue. However, there *WILL* be a geographic split of 310 some time very soon, and a split of 909 is pretty likely. Sooner or later, and I'd count on it within the next ten years, some area code in greater Los Angeles will have split to the point that it just can't split any more. For example, where would you propose to split area code 714 when it runs out of prefixes again -- probably within 3 to 5 years? At that point, there will be an all-services overlay, complete with mandatory 1+10D dialing, no matter what you and the rest of your ignorant ilk say about it, because there will be no other viable option. Area codes 760, 714, 818, 408, 415, 510, 805, 323, and 707 are all likely by the end of the decade. Some of those -- like 760 and 707 -- are easy to split; others -- like 714, 415, and 323 -- pose serious challenges to drawing a split line. In fact, you cannot split 415, no matter what you do, because fully 80% of the numbers are in one single rate center. Try learning a little bit and understanding the issue before you mindlessly pontificate about it. If you want to portray your rantings as anything other than mindless pontification, then address these questions: * How can you separate out fax numbers into a different area code? * How can you separate out cellular numbers with the advent of LNP between wireless and landline carriers? * How do you propose for new carriers to get customers if their subscribers are at an inherent disadvantage on an issue that you claim as tremendously important? * In an area code like 310, where over 97% of prefixes have been assigned, how do you propose to recover the random pockets of unused numbers without forcing large numbers of end-users to change their 7D phone numbers? Answer those questions, and someone just *MIGHT* take you seriously. www dot LincMad dot com / Telecom at LincMad dot com Linc Madison * San Francisco, California ------------------------------ Subject: Hearing Impaired Devices/Services From: Marise_A_Klapka@withheld at reader request Date: Thu, 18 Sep 2003 08:00:29 -0500 [Lisa - please withhold my e-mail address. Thanks.] I am looking for a device or service whereby someone who is hearing impaired can see in written word what callers are saying, and can in turn respond by speaking into the telephone. The old TTY devices I've seen involve a machine at both ends and both users typing only. I do recall knowing an elderly lady where quite a few years ago her calls went thru a service before ringing her phone, and then the service, probably through some type of voice recognition, sent out typewritten words on a little sort of teletype machine. Her phone was plugged into the machine so she could then respond verbally to the caller. Any suggestions are appreciated. Marise [Lisa Minter note: We had a discussion quite similar to this a month or two ago here in the Digest. Teletype/TTY machines are becoming rather obsolete these days; computer chat rooms and 'messenger' boxes is where things are at now. Your hearing impaired person could get Yahoo Messenger (to name one example, or MSN Messenger for another) and allow anyone/everyone to make contact that way, then use the voice call option on Yahoo (again, for example) to respond audibly to the correspondent. The older style TTY machines are still available through a third-party exchange and if the normal hearing person tips off the exchange operator in advance about the special circumstances those can be used as well. But Yahoo/MSN Messengers, with their camera options and voice options are much better, in my opinion. Lisa M.] ------------------------------ From: Tom Betz Subject: Re: Email Spam and Habeas Warranty Mark? Date: Thu, 18 Sep 2003 18:27:55 +0000 (UTC) Organization: Anything johnl@iecc.com (John R. Levine) wrote in news:telecom22.654.2@telecom-digest.org: [ about Habeas' future intentions ] > I'm on their advisory board and I have my suspicions (not all of which > are black and awful) but I don't really know. We're getting in touch > with the new management to find out. I'm rather concerned to find out that the new management hasn't already contacted YOU with regard to these matters. Please do keep us posted. ------------------------------ From: johnl@iecc.com (John R. Levine) Subject: Re: SMS Standard Date: 18 Sep 2003 16:29:00 -0400 Organization: I.E.C.C., Trumansburg NY USA > I am a programmer and wish to send SMS to a mobile using a pc with a > modem. I have no idea about the SMS protocol. Could anyone point me > in the right direction? Unless you plan to use a wireless modem that plugs into a cell phone and somehow persuade your cell phone to send SMS commanded by the modem, I'd use my modem to call my ISP and send e-mail to the e-mail gateways that every wireless carrier has for its SMS users. You do need to figure out which carrier a number belongs to in order to know which gateway you want, e.g. 3115552368@mobile.mycingular.com for Cingular, but you can probably collect the carrier name when you collect the phone number. Be aware that if you're planning to send a lot of messages, carriers have stringent bulk limits on the mail gateways, and if you're planning to send spam, you're going to get sued and you'll lose. Regards, John Levine johnl@iecc.com Primary Perpetrator: "The Internet for Dummies" Info Superhighwayman wanna-be, http://iecc.com/johnl, Sewer Commissioner "I dropped the toothpaste", said Tom, crestfallenly. ------------------------------ From: rounner@yahoo.com (rounner) Subject: Re: SMS Standard Date: 18 Sep 2003 16:07:00 -0700 Organization: http://groups.google.com/ Richard Dickson wrote in message news:: > rounner@yahoo.com (rounner) wrote: >> I am a programmer and wish to send SMS to a mobile using a pc with a >> modem. I have no idea about the SMS protocol. Could anyone point me in >> the right direction? > Sure! Try www.google.com.. Richard, The same applies to every single post in google groups. BTW programming algorithm and communication with the carrier to organize/register an SMS message is not a simple, well documented thing, and is not sitting in some meta search. A simpleton like me needs his hand held by a genius like you. ------------------------------ From: mikeford@socal.rr.com (Mike) Subject: Many Wireless Devices + One House = Many Problems? Date: 18 Sep 2003 15:52:45 -0700 Organization: http://groups.google.com/ I currently have one Vtech 920 2 line 900 mhz analog phone, 4 corded phones, no wireless lan, LOTS of cat5 running all over plus other older and odder network types. I want to have maybe 4 or 5 cordless two line phones, still a couple corded phones, a fast wireless lan, and still a lot of cat5 etc. I have heard that by using the 900 mhz phones I will avoid interference with the wireless network, but I can't find any 900 mhz two line phones that offer multiple handsets (at a reasonable price). What happens if I just put several "base station" phones in the same house? BTW I actually am very happy with the Vtech 920, and they are still offered new on ebay, so I am tempted to just wing it and see what happens. Any idea if the newer Vtech 2931 might be compatible with my old 920? Thanks, ------------------------------ From: Eric Friedebach Subject: AT&T Takes on Qwest in Ariz., Minn. Local Service Date: Thu, 18 Sep 2003 18:18:51 -0500 Organization: Standard Operational Bull WASHINGTON, Sept 18 (Reuters) - U.S. long-distance telephone carrier AT&T Corp. on Thursday said it has launched local residential service in Arizona and Minnesota, challenging the dominant local player Qwest Communications International Inc. Qwest in June won approval from federal regulators to offer long-distance services in Minnesota, which allows the carrier to bundle the two services to customers and challenge AT&T and others for market share. Denver-based Qwest has applied to offer long-distance in Arizona and the Federal Communications Commission is slated to rule by Dec. 3. It must prove its local networks are open to competition before it can offer the long-haul services. http://www.forbes.com/newswire/2003/09/18/rtr1085628.html Eric Friedebach ------------------------------ TELECOM Digest is an electronic journal devoted mostly but not exclusively to telecommunications topics. It is circulated anywhere there is email, in addition to various telecom forums on a variety of networks such as Compuserve and America On Line, and other forums. It is also gatewayed to Usenet where it appears as the moderated newsgroup 'comp.dcom.telecom'. TELECOM Digest is a not-for-profit, mostly non-commercial educational service offered to the Internet by Patrick Townson. All the contents of the Digest are compilation-copyrighted. You may reprint articles in some other media on an occasional basis, but please attribute my work and that of the original author. Contact information: Patrick Townson/TELECOM Digest Post Office Box 50 Independence, KS 67301 Phone: 620-330-6774 Fax 1: 775-255-9970 Fax 2: 775-306-8390 Fax 3: 775-642-0603 Fax 4: 530-309-7234 Email: editor@telecom-digest.org Subscribe: telecom-subscribe@telecom-digest.org Unsubscribe:telecom-unsubscribe@telecom-digest.org This Digest is the oldest continuing e-journal about telecomm- unications on the Internet, having been founded in August, 1981 and published continuously since then. Our archives are available for your review/research. We believe we are the second oldest e-zine/ mailing list on the internet in any category! URL information: http://telecom-digest.org Anonymous FTP: mirror.lcs.mit.edu/telecom-archives/archives/ (or use our mirror site: ftp.epix.net/pub/telecom-archives) Email <==> FTP: telecom-archives@telecom-digest.org Send a simple, one line note to that automated address for a help file on how to use the automatic retrieval system for archives files. You can get desired files in email. ************************************************************************* * TELECOM Digest is partially funded by a grant from * * Judith Oppenheimer, President of ICB Inc. and purveyor of accurate * * 800 & Dot Com News, Intelligence, Analysis, and Consulting. * * http://ICBTollFree.com, http://1800TheExpert.com * * Views expressed herein should not be construed as representing * * views of Judith Oppenheimer or ICB Inc. * ************************************************************************* ICB Toll Free News. Contact information is not sold, rented or leased. One click a day feeds a person a meal. Go to http://www.thehungersite.com Copyright 2003 ICB, Inc. and TELECOM Digest. All rights reserved. Our attorney is Bill Levant, of Blue Bell, PA. In addition, gifts from Mike Sandman, Chicago's Telecom Expert have enabled me to replace some obsolete computer equipment and enter the 21st century sort of on schedule. His mail order telephone parts/supplies service based in the Chicago area has been widely recognized by Digest readers as a reliable and very inexpensive source of telecom-related equipment. Please request a free catalog today at http://www.sandman.com --------------------------------------------------------------- A new sponsor for the Digest is Teledeal. They offer Directory Assistance (411) Savings. TeleDeal Inc. specializes in helping businesses and organizations save over 80% on live operator directory assistance calls. Rates are as low as $.27/411 call. TeleDeal also offers a premium real-time 411 Internet database service. Visit http://www.1800teledeal.com or call 1-800-TELEDEAL The Directory Assistance Experts * We Know 411 TeleDeal Inc. George Jones, President ---------------------------------------------------------------- Finally, the Digest is funded by gifts from generous readers such as yourself who provide funding in amounts deemed appropriate. Your help is important and appreciated. A suggested donation of twenty dollars per year per reader is considered appropriate. See our address above. Please make at least a single donation to cover the cost of processing your name to the mailing list. All opinions expressed herein are deemed to be those of the author. Any organizations listed are for identification purposes only and messages should not be considered any official expression by the organization. End of TELECOM Digest V22 #655 ****************************** From editor@telecom-digest.org Fri Sep 19 12:54:18 2003 Received: (from ptownson@localhost) by massis.lcs.mit.edu (8.11.6p2/8.11.3) id h8JGsIf02414; Fri, 19 Sep 2003 12:54:18 -0400 (EDT) Date: Fri, 19 Sep 2003 12:54:18 -0400 (EDT) From: editor@telecom-digest.org Message-Id: <200309191654.h8JGsIf02414@massis.lcs.mit.edu> X-Authentication-Warning: massis.lcs.mit.edu: ptownson set sender to editor@telecom-digest.org using -f To: ptownson Approved: patsnewlist Subject: TELECOM Digest V22 #656 TELECOM Digest Fri, 19 Sep 2003 12:53:00 EDT Volume 22 : Issue 656 Inside This Issue: Editor: Patrick A. Townson and: Lisa Minter Re: SMS Standard (Michael D. Sullivan) Re: SMS Standard (A. Beilby) Re: Small PBX For Home/Small Business Use; Where to Find? (SayNo) Re: Small PBX For Home/Small Business Use; Where to Find? (R. Bonomi) Re: Hearing Impaired Devices/Services (William Warren) Re: Hearing Impaired Devices/Services (Robert Bonomi) Re: E-Voting Audit Ready for Public (Thomas A. Horsley) Re: What Happened to 951 Area Code? (Michael D. Sullivan) Where is the Best Source of VSAT Technologies? (Nicholus Kamau) Windows to Power ATMs in 2005 (Monty Solomon) JetBlue 'Fesses Up, Quietly (Monty Solomon) VeriSign Sued Over Controversial Web Service (Monty Solomon) All contents here are copyrighted by Patrick Townson and the individual writers/correspondents. Articles may be used in other journals or newsgroups, provided the writer's name and the Digest are included in the fair use quote. By using -any name or email address- included herein for -any- reason other than responding to an article herein, you agree to pay a hundred dollars to the recipients of the email. WE DO NOT PERMIT NAME/EMAIL ADDRESS HARVESTING FROM THIS JOURNAL. 'SALTED' EMAIL ADDRESSES APPEAR HEREIN TO VERIFY THIS. YOU GET SUED IN SMALL CLAIMS COURT IF YOU GET CAUGHT SPAMMING OR SENDING VIRUSES. DON'T DO IT. See the bottom of this issue for subscription and archive details and the name of our lawyer; other stuff of interest. ---------------------------------------------------------------------- From: Michael D. Sullivan Subject: Re: SMS Standard Date: Fri, 19 Sep 2003 02:14:36 GMT On 18 Sep 2003 16:07:00 -0700, rounner posted the following to comp.dcom.telecom: > Richard Dickson wrote in message > news:: > [snippage] BTW > programming algorithm and communication with the carrier to > organize/register an SMS message is not a simple, well documented > thing, and is not sitting in some meta search. A simpleton like me > needs his hand held by a genius like you. And it will get even more difficult once wireless number portability goes into effect. One won't be able to use the area code and CO prefix to determine the carrier the message should go to any more. Michael D. Sullivan Bethesda, MD, USA (delete NOSPAM from address to mail me) ------------------------------ From: beilby@cuic.ca (A Beilby) Subject: Re: SMS Standard Date: 19 Sep 2003 07:19:49 -0700 Organization: http://groups.google.com/ rounner@yahoo.com (rounner) wrote in message news:: > I am a programmer and wish to send SMS to a mobile using a pc with a > modem. I have no idea about the SMS protocol. Could anyone point me in > the right direction? > Thanks. You'll need to get yourself access to a Short Message Service Center. Some web hosts offer this service. Essentially then you can build web-side forms or applications that then access the server side scripts of the SMSC. The SMSC does the hard integration work of integrating with the wireless and other portals (home location registers) to deliver the message. There are off-the shelf packages that already do the integration with Outlook etc, (all you then need is web access), which might have been what the reference to a Google search was about. Alex Beilby ------------------------------ From: SayNoToCrossposters Subject: Re: Small PBX For Home/Small Business Use; Where to Find? Organization: Comcast Online Date: Fri, 19 Sep 2003 03:53:24 GMT Kyler Laird wrote in message news:telecom22.655.5@telecom-digest.org: >>> I need 3 incoming and outgoing lines to the phone company. >>> I also need around 15 telephone sets in and around the house. >> How about Asterisk? http://www.asteriskpbx.com > That was my first reaction. Then I read about people spending $550 on > proprietary solutions. > For an Asterisk system, if you want all phones to be independent, you're > talking about something like four of the 4-port FXS interfaces ($305 each) > http://store.yahoo.com/asteriskpbx/witd4pofxsbu.html > and then three of the single-port FXOs ($100 each). > http://store.yahoo.com/asteriskpbx/wildcardx100p.html > (Is there a cheaper way to do it? T-1 interface?) > That's $1520 just in telephony hardware. Then there's the host > (~$500), telephone instruments (which might already be available), and > whatever level of support that's required (could be $0). > I'd certainly prefer to spend ~$2K on a system that I control than > $500 on a proprietary box (especially at home where I might want to do > *really* weird stuff), but I can see how it would be hard for some > people to justify paying the higher purchase price. > --kyler Not including the time to get it to work properly ... not to mention the 5 nines and the lower cost. Remember, a Panasonic KXT in a 3x8 is actually a 3x16 ... 8 digital 8 analog. ------------------------------ Subject: Re: Small PBX For Home/Small Business Use; Where to Find? Organization: Not Much From: c-ns!bonomi@uunet.uu.net (Robert Bonomi) Date: Fri, 19 Sep 2003 04:14:44 GMT In article , Kyler Laird wrote: >>> I need 3 incoming and outgoing lines to the phone company. >>> I also need around 15 telephone sets in and around the house. >> How about Asterisk? http://www.asteriskpbx.com > That was my first reaction. Then I read about people spending $550 on > proprietary solutions. > For an Asterisk system, if you want all phones to be independent, you're > talking about something like four of the 4-port FXS interfaces ($305 each) > http://store.yahoo.com/asteriskpbx/witd4pofxsbu.html > and then three of the single-port FXOs ($100 each). > http://store.yahoo.com/asteriskpbx/wildcardx100p.html > (Is there a cheaper way to do it? T-1 interface?) No a T-1 interface doesn't help. That'd be for connection to the TELCO. and he's only talking about -three- telco lines. T-1 is gross overkill for that. But, if he's already got PCs at some/many of the places he wants phones, then VoIP is available, *and* cost-effective. There are USB phones, that work with the stock MS-Windows software, that sell for US$50/phone. Add something like $20 to the cost of the server, to cover the ethernet interface card -- if it doesn't already have one, which any current "500 dollar machine" _should_. > That's $1520 just in telephony hardware. Then there's the host > (~$500), Asterisk doesn't need the 'latest and greatest' hardware. For a 3-line system, an old 233 mhz Pentium is proably plenty of horsepower. Market value for a machine like that is in the $100 range, maybe. In addition to that, you need the $300 worth of interfaces to the telco. With VoIP, add $20 for a new ethernet card -- or $5 for a used one. The big expense in the proposed installation is probably going to be the *wiring*. Lots of the low-cost systems use proprietary phones, _and_ require as many as 4 pairs to each phone location. > telephone instruments (which might already be available), and > whatever level of support that's required (could be $0). > I'd certainly prefer to spend ~$2K on a system that I control than > $500 on a proprietary box (especially at home where I might want to do > *really* weird stuff), but I can see how it would be hard for some > people to justify paying the higher purchase price. If you need/want voice-mail and/or auto-attendant-type features, Asterisk starts to look a _lot_ more attractive, even in your proposed configuration. ------------------------------ From: William Warren Subject: Re: Hearing Impaired Devices/Services Organization: Comcast Online Date: Fri, 19 Sep 2003 02:43:52 GMT wrote in message news:telecom22.655.8@telecom-digest.org... > [Lisa - please withhold my e-mail address. Thanks.] > I am looking for a device or service whereby someone who is hearing > impaired can see in written word what callers are saying, and can in > turn respond by speaking into the telephone. The old TTY devices I've > seen involve a machine at both ends and both users typing only. [snip] Most states have relay centers for Hearing-Impaired customers, and it's routine for the relay operator to translate from spoken to typed test in one direction while allowing the other direction to go through by voice. Your friend will need a TTY, but will only use it to read what the relay operator types, and the person at the other end of the line needs only a telephone. This is very common for "Late deafened" customers, i.e., those who have lost their hearing late in life: they can speak OK, (but can't type a reply for various reasons), and the operator at the relay center only translates one side of the conversation. Please check with your phone company, or the office for persons with disabilities in your state government. HTH. Bill ------------------------------ Subject: Re: Hearing Impaired Devices/Services Organization: Not Much From: c-ns!bonomi@uunet.uu.net (Robert Bonomi) Date: Fri, 19 Sep 2003 04:19:14 GMT In article , wrote: > [Lisa - please withhold my e-mail address. Thanks.] > I am looking for a device or service whereby someone who is hearing > impaired can see in written word what callers are saying, and can in > turn respond by speaking into the telephone. The old TTY devices I've > seen involve a machine at both ends and both users typing only. I do > recall knowing an elderly lady where quite a few years ago her calls > went thru a service before ringing her phone, and then the service, > probably through some type of voice recognition, sent out typewritten > words on a little sort of teletype machine. Her phone was plugged > into the machine so she could then respond verbally to the caller. > Any suggestions are appreciated. One can cobble up something that'll do this, with noting more than one of those old 'suction cup' pickups that you stick on a phone to record your conversations, and a PC with (a) a sound-card, and (b) some 'speech recognition' software. ------------------------------ Subject: Re: E-Voting Audit Ready for Public From: tom.horsley@att.net (Thomas A. Horsley) Organization: AT&T Worldnet Date: Fri, 19 Sep 2003 01:41:04 GMT > A security audit ordered by Maryland Gov. Robert Ehrlich on Diebold > Election Systems' touch-screen voting machines is complete, and a > version of it is ready for public consumption. Forget security for a minute. There is a pair of simple facts that seem to constantly go completely unnoticed about touch-screen voting: In order for a citizen to cast a vote on a touch screen machine, he or she has to have access to a limited number of working, powered up, pieces of complicated electronic equipment (probably stored in a 100 degree dusty warehouse between elections). In order for a citizen to cast a vote on an optical scanner, he or she has to have access to a working #2 pencil. The difference between those two requirements seems to me so gigantic that no sane person would ever consider touch screen systems, but crazed gadget mania is apparently not limited to guys with new credit cards let loose at Circuit City :-). >>==>> The *Best* political site >>==+ email: Tom.Horsley@worldnet.att.net icbm: Delray Beach, FL | Free Software and Politics <<==+ ------------------------------ From: Michael D. Sullivan Subject: Re: What Happened to 951 Area Code? Date: Fri, 19 Sep 2003 02:22:00 GMT On Thu, 18 Sep 2003 06:59:48 GMT, Linc Madison posted the following to comp.dcom.telecom: > here is NO SUCH THING as a "tech overlay." All overlays in the United > States -- by law -- are "all services" overlays. The FCC has said that > it will *consider* making an exception, but none has been granted yet, > and none ever will be granted. The promise to consider them was > nothing but a feint to get people to shut up about the issue. In fact, the FCC has approved two specialized overlays. The first was in New York in the 1990s, before the flat ban on tech overlays was adopted. That one has since become an all-services overlay. The FCC exempted it from 10-digit dialing for the initial period when it was limited to wireless/fax/telco-internal use. The second was earlier this year (late spring/early summer), when the FCC granted Connecticut's request for authority to implement a specialized overlay (I think it was to have been limited to wireless and perhaps a few specialized uses). This was approved, subject to a variety of conditions, most important of which is that it is to be limited in duration and then become an all- services overlay. The FCC took this step after it had adopted a decision to eliminate the flat ban on specialized overlays and consider them on a case-by-case basis. Michael D. Sullivan Bethesda, MD, USA (delete NOSPAM from address to mail me) ------------------------------ From: nmwando@yahoo.com (nicholus kamau) Subject: Where is the Best Source of VSAT Technologies Date: 19 Sep 2003 07:31:20 -0700 Organization: http://groups.google.com/ Where do I get the best source of VSAT technologies ... on the web whether paid or free? ------------------------------ Reply-To: Monty Solomon From: Monty Solomon Subject: Windows to Power ATMs in 2005 Date: Fri, 19 Sep 2003 11:25:37 -0400 By Elisa Batista Within three years, most bank machines that dispense cash will run on the Windows operating system, according to a study published last week. By 2005, 65 percent of bank ATMs (not including free-standing machines in places like convenience stores and casinos) in the United States will use a stripped-down version of Windows. About 12 percent of the machines will use the operating system by the end of this year, according to Gwenn Bezard, an analyst at market researcher Celent. Bezard asked 20 of the top 60 banks in the country about their plans to upgrade ATMs. He also interviewed the top 10 ATM manufacturers and software vendors. He concluded the banking industry is ready to scrap IBM's OS/2 operating system, which powers most ATMs today. They would prefer Windows, a platform they consider "open" in that it is compatible with their internal corporate networks. Also, it's so ubiquitous that they can add features to all their ATMs without having to write multiple pieces of code for different machines. http://www.wired.com/news/technology/0,1282,60497,00.html ------------------------------ Reply-To: Monty Solomon From: Monty Solomon Subject: JetBlue 'Fesses Up, Quietly Date: Fri, 19 Sep 2003 11:20:19 -0400 By Ryan Singel JetBlue Airways began sending out apologetic e-mails Thursday to customers who are infuriated that the airline gave 5 million passenger records to a defense contractor investigating national security issues. The form letter, provided by JetBlue to Wired News, confirmed a Wired News story that JetBlue turned over the names, addresses and phone numbers of its customers in September 2002 in response to an "exceptional request from the Department of Defense to assist their contractor, Torch Concepts, with a project regarding military base security." The e-mail was carefully worded to say that data was never provided to a government agency or used for airline security testing, that the sole copy had been destroyed, and that the Torch presentation was developed without JetBlue's knowledge. The company also expressed regret and promised never to turn over passenger information again without court order. The letter will not be placed on the company's website, but will go out under the name of JetBlue's CEO, David Neeleman, said JetBlue spokesman Gareth Edmundson-Jones. The e-mail closed with, "I am saddened that we have shaken your faith in JetBlue but I assure you personally that we are committed to making this right." Jones added the company was "flabbergasted" when they first saw the Torch Concepts presentation. The Torch presentation (PDF) shows that Torch investigated the viability of airline passenger profiling, by combining the JetBlue data with Social Security numbers, income levels, number of children and vehicle ownership that Torch purchased from Acxiom, a company that sells consumer data. http://www.wired.com/news/politics/0,1283,60502,00.html ------------------------------ Date: Fri, 19 Sep 2003 07:30:27 -0400 From: Monty Solomon Subject: VeriSign Sued Over Controversial Web Service By Elinor Mills Abreu SAN FRANCISCO, Sept 18 (Reuters) - An Internet search company on Thursday filed a $100 million antitrust lawsuit against VeriSign Inc. (NASDAQ:VRSN), accusing the Web address provider of hijacking misspelled and unassigned Web addresses with a service it launched this week. The lawsuit filed in federal court in Orlando, Florida, alleges antitrust violations, unfair competition and violations of the Deceptive and Unfair Trade Practices Act and asks the court to order VeriSign to put a halt to the service, said Robert Hart, a spokesman for Popular Enterprises LLC, the Orlando-based parent company of search provider Netster.com. Not only is VeriSign making money off the redirected searches, but it is improperly interfering with competing services, including Netster's SmartBrowse and similar services run by Internet service providers like AOL Time Warner Inc.'s (NYSE:AOL) America Online and Microsoft Corp. (NASDAQ:MSFT), Popular Enterprises said. - http://finance.lycos.com/home/news/story.asp?story=35739976 ------------------------------ TELECOM Digest is an electronic journal devoted mostly but not exclusively to telecommunications topics. It is circulated anywhere there is email, in addition to various telecom forums on a variety of networks such as Compuserve and America On Line, and other forums. It is also gatewayed to Usenet where it appears as the moderated newsgroup 'comp.dcom.telecom'. TELECOM Digest is a not-for-profit, mostly non-commercial educational service offered to the Internet by Patrick Townson. All the contents of the Digest are compilation-copyrighted. You may reprint articles in some other media on an occasional basis, but please attribute my work and that of the original author. Contact information: Patrick Townson/TELECOM Digest Post Office Box 50 Independence, KS 67301 Phone: 620-330-6774 Fax 1: 775-255-9970 Fax 2: 775-306-8390 Fax 3: 775-642-0603 Fax 4: 530-309-7234 Email: editor@telecom-digest.org Subscribe: telecom-subscribe@telecom-digest.org Unsubscribe:telecom-unsubscribe@telecom-digest.org This Digest is the oldest continuing e-journal about telecomm- unications on the Internet, having been founded in August, 1981 and published continuously since then. Our archives are available for your review/research. We believe we are the second oldest e-zine/ mailing list on the internet in any category! URL information: http://telecom-digest.org Anonymous FTP: mirror.lcs.mit.edu/telecom-archives/archives/ (or use our mirror site: ftp.epix.net/pub/telecom-archives) Email <==> FTP: telecom-archives@telecom-digest.org Send a simple, one line note to that automated address for a help file on how to use the automatic retrieval system for archives files. You can get desired files in email. ************************************************************************* * TELECOM Digest is partially funded by a grant from * * Judith Oppenheimer, President of ICB Inc. and purveyor of accurate * * 800 & Dot Com News, Intelligence, Analysis, and Consulting. * * http://ICBTollFree.com, http://1800TheExpert.com * * Views expressed herein should not be construed as representing * * views of Judith Oppenheimer or ICB Inc. * ************************************************************************* ICB Toll Free News. Contact information is not sold, rented or leased. One click a day feeds a person a meal. Go to http://www.thehungersite.com Copyright 2003 ICB, Inc. and TELECOM Digest. All rights reserved. Our attorney is Bill Levant, of Blue Bell, PA. In addition, gifts from Mike Sandman, Chicago's Telecom Expert have enabled me to replace some obsolete computer equipment and enter the 21st century sort of on schedule. His mail order telephone parts/supplies service based in the Chicago area has been widely recognized by Digest readers as a reliable and very inexpensive source of telecom-related equipment. Please request a free catalog today at http://www.sandman.com --------------------------------------------------------------- A new sponsor for the Digest is Teledeal. They offer Directory Assistance (411) Savings. TeleDeal Inc. specializes in helping businesses and organizations save over 80% on live operator directory assistance calls. Rates are as low as $.27/411 call. TeleDeal also offers a premium real-time 411 Internet database service. Visit http://www.1800teledeal.com or call 1-800-TELEDEAL The Directory Assistance Experts * We Know 411 TeleDeal Inc. George Jones, President ---------------------------------------------------------------- Finally, the Digest is funded by gifts from generous readers such as yourself who provide funding in amounts deemed appropriate. Your help is important and appreciated. A suggested donation of twenty dollars per year per reader is considered appropriate. See our address above. Please make at least a single donation to cover the cost of processing your name to the mailing list. All opinions expressed herein are deemed to be those of the author. Any organizations listed are for identification purposes only and messages should not be considered any official expression by the organization. End of TELECOM Digest V22 #656 ****************************** From editor@telecom-digest.org Sat Sep 20 13:08:38 2003 Received: (from ptownson@localhost) by massis.lcs.mit.edu (8.11.6p2/8.11.3) id h8KH8cc13724; Sat, 20 Sep 2003 13:08:38 -0400 (EDT) Date: Sat, 20 Sep 2003 13:08:38 -0400 (EDT) From: editor@telecom-digest.org Message-Id: <200309201708.h8KH8cc13724@massis.lcs.mit.edu> X-Authentication-Warning: massis.lcs.mit.edu: ptownson set sender to editor@telecom-digest.org using -f To: ptownson Approved: patsnewlist Subject: TELECOM Digest V22 #657 TELECOM Digest Sat, 20 Sep 2003 13:08:00 EDT Volume 22 : Issue 657 Inside This Issue: Editor: Patrick A. Townson and: Lisa Minter What Took Motorola So Long? (Eric Friedebach) Re: Small PBX For Home/Small Business Use; Where to Find? (Pete Harris) Re: Small PBX For Home/Small Business Use; Where to Find? (Steven Sobol) Re: Small PBX For Home/Small Business Use; Where to Find? (COTTP) Re: Small PBX For Home/Small Business Use; Where to Find? (Carl Navarro) Liability Recording (JB) Re: Kansas City Teacher Caught up in Child Porn Case (Fritz Whittington) E911 Requirements (PBX Maniac) Re: SMS Standard (Laura Halliday) Re: What Else Does VeriSign's Site Finder do? (Mr. Richmond) Virus Poses as Microsoft Update (Patrick Townson) Re: What Happened to 951 Area Code? (Jeff Sutter) Intel Comm Summit: Anyone Going? (Ken Alper) EPIC Alert 10.19 (Monty Solomon) New Virus Preys on Old IE Flaw / Alert! W32.Swen.A@mm (Monty Solomon) Trillian Plugs Back Into Yahoo, MSN (Monty Solomon) All contents here are copyrighted by Patrick Townson and the individual writers/correspondents. Articles may be used in other journals or newsgroups, provided the writer's name and the Digest are included in the fair use quote. By using -any name or email address- included herein for -any- reason other than responding to an article herein, you agree to pay a hundred dollars to the recipients of the email. WE DO NOT PERMIT NAME/EMAIL ADDRESS HARVESTING FROM THIS JOURNAL. 'SALTED' EMAIL ADDRESSES APPEAR HEREIN TO VERIFY THIS. YOU GET SUED IN SMALL CLAIMS COURT IF YOU GET CAUGHT SPAMMING OR SENDING VIRUSES. DON'T DO IT. See the bottom of this issue for subscription and archive details and the name of our lawyer; other stuff of interest. ---------------------------------------------------------------------- From: Eric Friedebach Subject: What Took Motorola So Long? Date: Sat, 20 Sep 2003 11:39:05 -0500 Organization: Standard Operational Bull Mark Tatge, 09.19.03, Forbes.com CHICAGO - The surprising part about Motorola Chief Executive Christopher B. Galvin's decision late Friday to quit is why the 53-year-old grandson of the company founder wasn't booted out sooner. Wall Street lost confidence three years ago in Motorola and Galvin's ability to solve the telecommunications giant's problems, issues Galvin has been either incapable or unwilling to tackle. http://www.forbes.com/2003/09/19/cz_mt_0919galvin.html Eric Friedebach ------------------------------ From: pete@bg.com (Pete Harris) Subject: Re: Small PBX For Home/Small Business Use; Where to Find? Date: 18 Sep 2003 22:58:31 -0700 Organization: http://groups.google.com/ > I need 3 incoming and outgoing lines to the phone company. > I also need around 15 telephone sets in and around the house. 15-room house? All ri-i-ight !!! Or is this a frat house? We've got a VOIP system with 6 lines and 16 exetnsions for $1450 including handsets and gateway, but you need to contribute one PC per phone -- OK for the frat house, maybe not so good for the 15-room mansion. - Pete bg.com/qphone.html ------------------------------ From: Steven J Sobol Subject: Re: Small PBX For Home/Small Business Use; Where to Find? Date: Fri, 19 Sep 2003 12:40:02 -0500 Kyler Laird wrote: > For an Asterisk system, if you want all phones to be independent, you're > talking about something like four of the 4-port FXS interfaces ($305 each) > http://store.yahoo.com/asteriskpbx/witd4pofxsbu.html > and then three of the single-port FXOs ($100 each). > http://store.yahoo.com/asteriskpbx/wildcardx100p.html > (Is there a cheaper way to do it? T-1 interface?) IP phones. The XTEN seems nice, at $50 a pop. I'm using the free version which has fewer features -- call quality is good, I've been talking on mine all day. The IP phones can call each other with no PSTN lines required, and then you have X number of PSTN lines for calls into/out from the office. JustThe.net Internet & Multimedia Services 22674 Motnocab Road * Apple Valley, CA 92307-1950 Steve Sobol, Proprietor 888.480.4NET (4638) * 248.724.4NET * sjsobol@JustThe.net ------------------------------ From: COTTP Subject: Re: Small PBX For Home/Small Business Use; Where to Find? Organization: Children of the Tea Party Date: Fri, 19 Sep 2003 17:29:37 -0500 In article , Kyler@news.Lairds.org says: >>> I need 3 incoming and outgoing lines to the phone company. >>> I also need around 15 telephone sets in and around the house. >> How about Asterisk? http://www.asteriskpbx.com > That was my first reaction. Then I read about people spending $550 on > proprietary solutions. Well, in the case of the Partner systems the phones are cheap, and you can even hook a 2500 set up to the system and through programming set it's default behavior. ------------------------------ From: Carl Navarro Subject: Re: Small PBX For Home/Small Business Use; Where to Find? Reply-To: cnavarro@wcnet.org Date: Fri, 19 Sep 2003 22:02:30 GMT Organization: Road Runner High Speed Online -- Northeast Ohio On Fri, 19 Sep 2003 03:53:24 GMT, SayNoToCrossposters wrote: > Kyler Laird wrote in message > news:telecom22.655.5@telecom-digest.org: >>>> I need 3 incoming and outgoing lines to the phone company. >>>> I also need around 15 telephone sets in and around the house. >>> How about Asterisk? http://www.asteriskpbx.com >> That was my first reaction. Then I read about people spending $550 on >> proprietary solutions. >> For an Asterisk system, if you want all phones to be independent, >> you're talking about something like four of the 4-port FXS >> interfaces ($305 each) >> http://store.yahoo.com/asteriskpbx/witd4pofxsbu.html >> and then three of the single-port FXOs ($100 each). >> http://store.yahoo.com/asteriskpbx/wildcardx100p.html >> (Is there a cheaper way to do it? T-1 interface?) >> That's $1520 just in telephony hardware. Then there's the host >> (~$500), telephone instruments (which might already be available), and >> whatever level of support that's required (could be $0). >> I'd certainly prefer to spend ~$2K on a system that I control than >> $500 on a proprietary box (especially at home where I might want to do >> *really* weird stuff), but I can see how it would be hard for some >> people to justify paying the higher purchase price. >> --kyler > Not including the time to get it to work properly ... not to mention > the 5 nines and the lower cost. Remember, a Panasonic KXT in a 3x8 > is actually a 3x16 ... 8 digital 8 analog. No, a TD 308 is 3x8x4 out of the box. You need additional cards to get 4 more analog ports. I had a customer very glad today that they bought a Panasonic. The customer wanted a price on headsets, telling me that they didn't want to pay a fortune for them. I told her she would laugh when she heard the price; between $15 and $25. She was expecting $50 to 150. Carl Navarro ------------------------------ From: JB Subject: Liability Recording Date: Fri, 19 Sep 2003 13:51:57 -0400 Organization: Posted via Supernews, http://www.supernews.com I wanted to get some ideas for companies that provide liability recording -- cheap. Dictaphone is rectum-busting expensive. I would prefer a system that taps extensions than the trunks -- as in D-channel monitoring. My system is a Nortel MICS 6.0. Thanks! ------------------------------ From: Fritz Whittington Subject: Re: Kansas City Teacher Caught up in Child Porn Case Date: Fri, 19 Sep 2003 17:45:24 GMT Organization: AT&T Worldnet On or about 2003-09-17 11:45, Strom Carlson whipped out a trusty #2 pencil and scribbled: >> Someone can also steal your phone when you are out. It's easy to get >> at the little box where the phone line comes in, unplug your wire and >> plug in a phone there. They can then use your line for whatever they >> want. If they threaten people, it will be YOUR number on the caller >> ID. >> We can't very well lock that box because whenever the phone company >> repair people need access to the box, they would need a key. >> Obviously, it would totally impractical to carry thousands of keys >> around in the trucks to access the boxes. > Actually, the NID has a space for a padlock, which makes it > inaccessible to anyone who doesn't have the special telephone company > screwdriver. When you open the NID with the phone company > screwdriver, the padlock swings off with the rest of the cover. Sure, > if someone _really_ wants to steal your phone service, they can go to > the trouble of finding such a screwdriver, but 99% of the time, > they'll just move on to another box. > -Strom I'm sorry to be so contrary, but on all the NID boxes I've ever seen, the "special telephone company screwdriver" is simply a garden-variety hexnut driver, common as fleas, and available anywhere you could buy a screwdriver. Fritz Whittington I believe that if it were left to artists to choose their own labels, most would choose none. (Ben Shahn) ------------------------------ From: laurent.dinard@zultys.com (PBX Maniac) Subject: E911 Requirements Date: 19 Sep 2003 14:47:36 -0700 Organization: http://groups.google.com/ Hello, I became responsible for managing several small PBX in different areas in the US and I trying to get information about E911 compliance. I am confused on the detailed requirements imposed by E911. I know that only 7 states require some level of E911 requirement, but the laws are difficult to interpret and vary from state to state. My really problem is to understand when the PBX/Customer is supposed to send the EXACT physical location where originates the emergency call. The current law in Illinois seems to only require to provide 1 ANI (automatic Network Identification) per 40,000 square feet of workspace. Is there any state or situation that requires to give 1 ANI per emergency caller? Thanks a lot, Philip ------------------------------ From: marsgal42@hotmail.com (Laura Halliday) Subject: Re: SMS Standard Date: 19 Sep 2003 17:10:57 -0700 Organization: http://groups.google.com/ rounner@yahoo.com (rounner) wrote in message news:: > I am a programmer and wish to send SMS to a mobile using a pc with a > modem. I have no idea about the SMS protocol. Could anyone point me in > the right direction? > Thanks. May one ask what for? This question comes up repeatedly. Some colleagues and I recently made our own SMSC for some testing -- we used the perl SMPP implementation, duct-taped it to kannel, and sent the messages using a serial link to a cellphone. It worked fine, but was very hard on the phonebill. Laura Halliday VE7LDH "Que les nuages soient notre Grid: CN89mg pied a terre..." ICBM: 49 16.05 N 122 56.92 W - Hospital/Shafte ------------------------------ From: krichmond@usa.net (Mr. Richmond) Subject: Re: What Else Does VeriSign's Site Finder do? Date: 19 Sep 2003 18:28:19 -0700 Organization: http://groups.google.com/ This ticks me off for a few reasons: As a user, all those typos stay in your address bar as a previously visited site. With a 404 error, they didn't. This makes going to your list of previously viewed sites less useful, if there are typos in it. There is no configuration on my cable/dsl router to block this. What really irks me the most, are people are sued for registering domain names that are close to a trademarked name, or name of a famous person (like Britney Spears). But with one quick move, Verisign gets all of these misspelled names of unregistered domain names, for every copyrighted name out there, and are able to direct that traffic to them! They should be sued. ------------------------------ From: ptownson Subject: Virus Poses as Microsoft Update Date: Fri, 19 Sep 2003 18:42:40 +0000 News from BBC on Friday: A Windows virus masquerading as a security update from Microsoft is spreading via e-mail, warn experts. < http://news.bbc.co.uk/go/em/fr/-/1/hi/technology/3123726.stm > ------------------------------ From: lurkeroo@yahoo.com (Jeff Sutter) Subject: Re: What Happened to 951 Area Code? Date: 20 Sep 2003 03:06:28 -0700 Organization: http://groups.google.com/ Linc Madison wrote in message news:: > In article , Jeff Sutter > wrote: > It's not rubbish. It's a fact. Seven-digit dialing in an overlay is > ILLEGAL under U.S. federal law. Period. GET USED TO IT. Nice try. Just because there is a bad law, and just because there are arrogant industry pundits who promote abuse of that law, doesn't mean that the good people of this state will "get used to it.". The law can be ignored, changed, or undone, just as the rush to split/overlay was squelched. I still don't understand why this upsets you so. You seem to live and die for 1+10D. Some of us just don't believe the hype. There are sensible answers to prefix utilization that don't require Linc Mandates. >> Neither splits nor overlays are competitively neutral to the people > Now *THIS* is rubbish! You betray your abysmal lack of knowledge and [...insults and dictionary lecture omitted] I understand very well how the term is used by industry apologists and propagandists who apparently have no concern for the people who are affected by their decisions. "Get used to it", I believe, was the operative phrase. > There is NO SUCH THING as a "tech overlay." All overlays in the United > States -- by law -- are "all services" overlays. The FCC has said that Gee, what was that they implemented in New York City, about ten years ago? Seems to me, everyone called it a "tech overlay". But what do I know? > What is nonsense is the astonishingly ignorant claim that you can put > fax machines in a separate area code. Never mind the legal issues, it Hmm. I believe I offered to move my fax, it is you who assumed it is a machine, as opposed to a service accomodated by new technology, which, like batches of cellphone prefixes, could be easily reassigned to a new area code. > Likewise, you can't separate cellphones out, because in the very near > future, there will be local number portability between wireless and > landline prefixes. Right now, if I see a phone number 310-213-xxxx, I > know that it's a Sprint PCS cellphone. By the end of the year, though, > it could be T-Mobile or Cingular or any other wireless carrier, and > the plan is to extend that to any other carrier that serves the > Gardena area, including SBC. Irrelevant, as if it was even going to happen. Cellular and Landline companies have been thwarting number portability for years, and they will continue to do so. Even if we have portability, so what? All the cell prefixes in Gardena can be moved to the new area code. I'm sure you'll retort, "ITS ILLEGAL", but number portability won't guarantee you can keep the same area code for life, no matter what you protest. > You decry the sorry state of competition, and yet in the same breath > you want to hamstring the new entrants. That's called "talking out of > both sides of your mouth." Predictable response. Requiring both ILECs and new entrants to behave, and not abuse the number pools or the customer base, hamstrings no one. > As you make so pointedly clear, there are a lot of people who don't > like dialing 1+10D and will resist it far beyond reason. We have yet to be shown any reason that it is necessary, other than ranting by you and a host of tall tales from industry lobbyists. > that if a new telco only has numbers in the new overlay code, and > their customers have to dial 1+10D to call everyone else (or > vice-versa), that new telco will have a much more difficult time > selling its service. That makes it more difficult for a new telco to > compete, which is supposed to be the goal. After incumbent technology prefixes are migrated to the tech overlay, the same prefixes will be available in the non-tech area code. > Sooner or later, and I'd count on it within the next ten years, some > area code in greater Los Angeles will have split to the point that it > just can't split any more. For example, where would you propose to > split area code 714 when it runs out of prefixes again -- probably > within 3 to 5 years? At that point, there will be an all-services > overlay, complete with mandatory 1+10D dialing, no matter what you and > the rest of your ignorant ilk say about it, because there will be no > other viable option. Telcos will continue to fib about number usage. Guys like you will repeat the lies ad nauseum and get bent over it. The rest of us will persist, pursuing legislation to stop the nonsense. We won the last round, maybe we'll lose the next, but not without a fight. [insults and duplicate questions removed] > * How do you propose for new carriers to get customers if their > subscribers are at an inherent disadvantage on an issue that you claim > as tremendously important? New carriers are not at an inherent disadvantage. They will have equal access to recycled number blocks in the incumbent area code, should they desire to provide voice services with dialtone in that area. Otherwise, they will have plenty of number blocks in the tech overlay, for new service offerings. And besides, the vast majority of local "competitors" are just reselling ILEC dialtone. The last mile is a natural monopoly. > * In an area code like 310, where over 97% of prefixes have been > assigned, how do you propose to recover the random pockets of unused > numbers without forcing large numbers of end-users to change their 7D > phone numbers? This is the same dribble that you guys used three years ago, when you told us we have three months before self-destructing. The fact then, and now, is that prefixes have been assigned, but they are not fully utilized. Industry can work number block allocation out amongst themselves, or suffer without. They didn't do their homework the first time, figuring they could just force another split without consideration of the public. Earnestine is still alive, 30 years hence - "We're the phone company. We don't care. We don't have to." I'm surprised that Linc, who is clearly well versed in all things telecom, can not see beyond the party line, that there are ways to address the "problem" that industry has artificially created, without resorting to 1+10D. Creative engineers know there is rarely "one and only" solution to architectural issues. This will be my last post on the subject. Cheers, Jeff. ------------------------------ From: ken@nac.net (Ken Alper) Subject: Intel Comm Summit: Anyone Going? Date: 20 Sep 2003 06:32:52 -0700 Organization: http://groups.google.com/ Wondering if anyone out there is going to Intel's Communications Summit in Scottsdale at the end of the month. We spend most of our time these days wrestling with R4 on the Dialogic DM3 platform, and we're interested in getting together and exchanging notes and war stories with any other developers of a similiar ilk that might be attending the conference. Drop me a line if you're interested. We're running a application that drives over 1500 lines, using 12 DM/V 960 boards, so we have lots of stories to share! --Ken ------------------------------ Date: Fri, 19 Sep 2003 23:02:00 -0400 From: Monty Solomon Subject: EPIC Alert 10.19 ======================================================================= E P I C A l e r t ======================================================================= Volume 10.19 September 18, 2003 ----------------------------------------------------------------------- Published by the Electronic Privacy Information Center (EPIC) Washington, D.C. http://www.epic.org/alert/EPIC_Alert_10.19.html ====================================================================== Table of Contents ====================================================================== [1] EPIC Lawsuit Compels Release of Passenger Profiling Info [2] U.S. and EU Debate Handling of Passenger Data [3] EPIC Files FTC Complaint over Experian's Deceptive Ads [4] White House Pushes to Expand Patriot Act [5] EPIC Joins Coalition to Urge Protection of Health Info [6] News in Brief [7] EPIC Bookstore: Pole Star - Human Rights in the Information Society [8] Upcoming Conferences and Events http://www.epic.org/alert/EPIC_Alert_10.19.html ------------------------------ Date: Sat, 20 Sep 2003 00:01:13 -0400 From: Monty Solomon Subject: New Virus Preys on Old IE Flaw / Alert! W32.Swen.A@mm Category 3 New virus preys on old IE flaw http://news.com.com/2100-7349-5078696.html Alert! W32.Swen.A@mm Category 3 http://www.symantec.com/avcenter/venc/data/w32.swen.a@mm.html http://support.centralcommand.com/cgi-bin/command.cfg/php/enduser/std_adp.php?p_faqid=534 http://www3.ca.com/virusinfo/virus.aspx?ID=36939 http://www.europe.f-secure.com/v-descs/swen.shtml http://vil.nai.com/vil/content/v_100662.htm http://www.norman.com/virus_info/w32_swen_a_mm.shtml http://www.sophos.com/virusinfo/analyses/w32gibef.html http://www.trendmicro.com/vinfo/virusencyclo/default5.asp?VName=WORM_SWEN.A ------------------------------ Date: Sat, 20 Sep 2003 00:46:53 -0400 From: Monty Solomon Subject: Trillian Plugs Back Into Yahoo, MSN By Jim Hu Staff Writer, CNET News.com Cerulean Studios has released new software patches that will allow its popular Trillian client to support MSN and Yahoo's instant messaging services, according to its co-founder. The patches were posted Wednesday afternoon ET on Cerulean's Web site. They allow the free 0.74 and the older for-pay Pro 1.0 versions of Trillian to continue to work with Yahoo and MSN's instant messaging clients, according to company co-founder, Scott Werndorfer. Trillian Pro 2.0, the most recent version of the for-pay service, has already been upgraded, Werndorfer said. http://news.com.com/2100-1012-5078708.html ------------------------------ TELECOM Digest is an electronic journal devoted mostly but not exclusively to telecommunications topics. It is circulated anywhere there is email, in addition to various telecom forums on a variety of networks such as Compuserve and America On Line, and other forums. It is also gatewayed to Usenet where it appears as the moderated newsgroup 'comp.dcom.telecom'. TELECOM Digest is a not-for-profit, mostly non-commercial educational service offered to the Internet by Patrick Townson. All the contents of the Digest are compilation-copyrighted. You may reprint articles in some other media on an occasional basis, but please attribute my work and that of the original author. Contact information: Patrick Townson/TELECOM Digest Post Office Box 50 Independence, KS 67301 Phone: 620-330-6774 Fax 1: 775-255-9970 Fax 2: 775-306-8390 Fax 3: 775-642-0603 Fax 4: 530-309-7234 Email: editor@telecom-digest.org Subscribe: telecom-subscribe@telecom-digest.org Unsubscribe:telecom-unsubscribe@telecom-digest.org This Digest is the oldest continuing e-journal about telecomm- unications on the Internet, having been founded in August, 1981 and published continuously since then. Our archives are available for your review/research. We believe we are the second oldest e-zine/ mailing list on the internet in any category! URL information: http://telecom-digest.org Anonymous FTP: mirror.lcs.mit.edu/telecom-archives/archives/ (or use our mirror site: ftp.epix.net/pub/telecom-archives) Email <==> FTP: telecom-archives@telecom-digest.org Send a simple, one line note to that automated address for a help file on how to use the automatic retrieval system for archives files. You can get desired files in email. ************************************************************************* * TELECOM Digest is partially funded by a grant from * * Judith Oppenheimer, President of ICB Inc. and purveyor of accurate * * 800 & Dot Com News, Intelligence, Analysis, and Consulting. * * http://ICBTollFree.com, http://1800TheExpert.com * * Views expressed herein should not be construed as representing * * views of Judith Oppenheimer or ICB Inc. * ************************************************************************* ICB Toll Free News. Contact information is not sold, rented or leased. 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 --------------------------------------------------------------- A new sponsor for the Digest is Teledeal. They offer Directory Assistance (411) Savings. TeleDeal Inc. specializes in helping businesses and organizations save over 80% on live operator directory assistance calls. Rates are as low as $.27/411 call. TeleDeal also offers a premium real-time 411 Internet database service. Visit http://www.1800teledeal.com or call 1-800-TELEDEAL The Directory Assistance Experts * We Know 411 TeleDeal Inc. George Jones, President ---------------------------------------------------------------- Finally, the Digest is funded by gifts from generous readers such as yourself who provide funding in amounts deemed appropriate. Your help is important and appreciated. A suggested donation of twenty dollars per year per reader is considered appropriate. See our address above. Please make at least a single donation to cover the cost of processing your name to the mailing list. All opinions expressed herein are deemed to be those of the author. Any organizations listed are for identification purposes only and messages should not be considered any official expression by the organization. End of TELECOM Digest V22 #657 ****************************** From editor@telecom-digest.org Sun Sep 21 02:22:19 2003 Received: (from ptownson@localhost) by massis.lcs.mit.edu (8.11.6p2/8.11.3) id h8L6MJm19056; Sun, 21 Sep 2003 02:22:19 -0400 (EDT) Date: Sun, 21 Sep 2003 02:22:19 -0400 (EDT) From: editor@telecom-digest.org Message-Id: <200309210622.h8L6MJm19056@massis.lcs.mit.edu> X-Authentication-Warning: massis.lcs.mit.edu: ptownson set sender to editor@telecom-digest.org using -f To: ptownson Approved: patsnewlist Subject: TELECOM Digest V22 #658 TELECOM Digest Sun, 21 Sep 2003 02:21:00 EDT Volume 22 : Issue 658 Inside This Issue: Editor: Patrick A. Townson and: Lisa Minter Re: Isabel and East Coast Conditions (Dale Neiburg) Time Warner Sues Apartment complex Over Wi-Fi (Ron Chapman) Re: DID (Direct Inward Dial) Questions (cboone@earthlink.net) Re: Liability Recording (Robert Bonomi) Vonage Lowers Residential Rates Again (Patrick Townson) Consultant Needed (Martin) Do Police Need A Warrant In Order To Use Global Positioning (M Solomon) Re: Virus Poses as Microsoft Update (Gail M. Hall) Re: What Happened to 951 Area Code? (Group Special Mobile) All contents here are copyrighted by Patrick Townson and the individual writers/correspondents. Articles may be used in other journals or newsgroups, provided the writer's name and the Digest are included in the fair use quote. By using -any name or email address- included herein for -any- reason other than responding to an article herein, you agree to pay a hundred dollars to the recipients of the email. WE DO NOT PERMIT NAME/EMAIL ADDRESS HARVESTING FROM THIS JOURNAL. 'SALTED' EMAIL ADDRESSES APPEAR HEREIN TO VERIFY THIS. YOU GET SUED IN SMALL CLAIMS COURT IF YOU GET CAUGHT SPAMMING OR SENDING VIRUSES. DON'T DO IT. See the bottom of this issue for subscription and archive details and the name of our lawyer; other stuff of interest. ---------------------------------------------------------------------- From: Dale Neiburg Subject: Re: Isabel and East Coast Conditions Date: Sat, 20 Sep 2003 14:11:10 -0400 In TELECOM Digest V22, #655, Lisa Minter asked: > I was wondering how the telephone service is holding up over there? > What about cell phones as substitutes? [snip!] Any reports from readers > of the Digest in the area of the storm? I was in downtown Washington for the duration of the hurricane (when the going gets tough the tough don't leave town). We never had any power or telephone problems in this area (near the Convention Center), although there were already some downed trees before the main part of the storm hit (about 7pm EDT on Thursday). Meanwhile my wife was holding the fort at home, in Laurel, MD, about 20 miles NE of Washington, halfway to Baltimore. Power was lost there at about 6:15 pm on Thursday. Wired telephone service stayed up throughout. (Power was restored at home at 3 pm on Friday, putting us in the earliest tier of power restoral. Most people in the area still don't have electricity back.) --Dale Neiburg Dale Neiburg ** NPR Satellite Operations ** 202-513-2640 "When you come to a fork in the road, take it." --Yogi Berra ------------------------------ Date: Sat, 20 Sep 2003 14:22:09 -0400 From: Ron Chapman Subject: Time Warner Sues Apartment Complex Over Wi-Fi By Matt Hines Staff Writer, CNET News.com Time Warner Cable filed a lawsuit charging a New York apartment complex and its wireless Internet provider with illegally reselling its high-speed Road Runner service over a wireless network. The suit, filed Monday in the Southern district of New York, claims that Internet service provider iNYC Wireless and London Terrace Towers, a residential apartment complex, have been illegally pirating and marketing Road Runner through a Wi-Fi network. http://news.com.com/2100-7351_3-5077922.html ------------------------------ From: cboone@earthlink.net Subject: Re: DID (Direct Inward Dial) Questions Date: Sat, 20 Sep 2003 20:33:55 GMT Organization: EarthLink Inc. -- http://www.EarthLink.net Two way DID trunks usually require ISDN PRI for connection..Not all PBXs can support ISDN PRI (modern ones do but older switches made in the early 80s, etc cannot) ... analog DID trunks usually are only one way ... and require the PBX to have outbound CO trunks for calling out ... PRI because of its digital nature and permanent signaling in the D Channel allows two way service on the same trunk. Chris lifeson@earthlink.net wrote: > DID is confusing me. I know it can be configured on either 2-way or > 1-way (incoming). But the majority is in-bound only. > Why not buy 2-way DID trunks exclusively? If they want DID, then why > buy one way, in-bound only DID? I do not understand -- is it cheaper? > I mean, if the incoming calls are via the DID, then they are not > handled by the 2-way trunks, and it seems they are wasting 50% of > those lines (the incoming call capability). > Can someone explain why you might want to buy in-bound only DID trunks > instead of 2-way? TIA ------------------------------ Subject: Re: Liability Recording Organization: Not Much From: bonomi@c-ns (Robert Bonomi) Date: Sat, 20 Sep 2003 20:47:32 GMT In article , JB wrote: > I wanted to get some ideas for companies that provide liability > recording -- cheap. Doesn't exist. It's a specialty -- aka 'niche' -- market, which means that the development, tooling, etc., costs, are spread over a relatively _small_ number of sales. > Dictaphone is rectum-busting expensive. The 'big three' players are DictaPhone, Rhetorix, and Octel. As I recall, Rhetorix was less outrageously priced than the others. But that isn't saying a lot. > I would prefer a system that taps extensions than the trunks -- as > in D-channel monitoring. The 'D' channel only has the control and signalling information. If you want the 'audio', that's on the 'B' channels. > My system is a Nortel MICS 6.0. Note: the Nortel MICS extensions are "similar to ISDN", in that it's 2B1Q signalling, but it is *not* _real_ ISDN. Proprietary. ------------------------------ From: Patrick Townson Subject: Fw: Vonage Lowers Residential Rates Again Date: Sat, 20 Sep 2003 16:37:45 -0500 Dear Patrick, I am pleased to announce reductions in our two Residential rate plans, which take effect September 20, 2003. Our Premium Unlimited Plan, which was $39.99, is now reduced to a monthly rate of $34.99. Our Unlimited Local Plan is reduced from $25.99 to $24.99. Your new lower rates will appear on your next bill automatically. There is nothing required on your part to take advantage of this cost reduction. The new lower rates will take effect when your next billing cycle begins after September 20th, and will remain at those lower rates in subsequent billing periods. In your next billing cycle, Vonage will begin to charge a Regulatory Recovery Fee of $1.50 per phone number. This is a fee that Vonage charges its customers to recover required costs of Federal and State Universal Service Funds as well as other related fees and surcharges. State and Federal agencies collect these fees from communications providers to fund public projects such as rural and library communications programs. Your total Regulatory Recovery Fee will reflect a $1.50 surcharge for every phone number in your account including primary voice lines, second lines, fax lines, Toll Free Plus(SM) numbers and Virtual Phone Numbers(SM). Discounts for additional lines will still be $5.00 per month. This means that when you add more Premium Unlimited lines to your Vonage account, the rate for these lines will be just $29.99 per month. Discounts for added Unlimited Local lines will be just $19.99 per month. Our one goal at Vonage is nothing less than your total satisfaction. Over the last several months we've made large strides in developing new calling features for you. We've also dramatically increased our geographic presence throughout the United States. What I find most exciting is that this is just a preview of what's to come. We are extremely gratified that our customers continue to be our biggest enthusiasts and our best source of new ideas as we continue to innovate and redefine global communications. On behalf of all of us here at Vonage, thank you for your business. Sincerely, Jeffrey Citron CEO [TELECOM Digest Editor's Note: So Vonage is reducing monthly bills by between $1 and $5 per month, but adding a new tax called a 'Regulatory Recovery Fee' (whatever that is) which is $1.50 per month per number. Who knows about this 'regulatory recovery fee'? Meanwhile, anyone who wants to try out Vonage for a free month can contact me to get an e-coupon good for the *second* month of service at no charge. Send a note marked 'not for pub' to me and ask for the Vonage e-coupon. PAT] ------------------------------ From: martoasa@yahoo.com (Martin) Subject: Consultant Needed Date: 20 Sep 2003 18:19:13 -0700 Organization: http://groups.google.com/ I am looking for a consultant who has experience running a PBX service company (sales, installation, and service) to help me understand the buisness. I am doing feasibility study to get started in this business and I need lots of guidance. I will be happy to pay for services. If interested, please let me know. Thanks, Martin ------------------------------ Date: Sat, 20 Sep 2003 23:59:31 -0400 From: Monty Solomon Subject: Do Police Need A Warrant In Order To Use Global Positioning? A Recent Washington Court Said Yes, But It's Wrong By BARTON ARONSON Last week, the Supreme Court of Washington became one of the first states to address whether, when the police use Global Positioning System (GPS) technology to track a suspect's movements, they need a warrant to do so. The Court held the answer was yes. Like many search and seizure cases, State v. Jackson is an awkward attempt to fit new law enforcement techniques into old jurisprudential boxes. This time, the Court would have been better off paying more attention to the boxes: in finding that the police did need a warrant, the court seem transfixed by the novelty of the technological to the exclusion of the rights it was supposed to be protecting. http://writ.news.findlaw.com/aronson/20030917.html ------------------------------ From: Gail M. Hall Subject: Re: Virus Poses as Microsoft Update Date: Sun, 21 Sep 2003 00:54:48 -0400 Reply-To: gmhall@apk.net On Fri, 19 Sep 2003 18:42:40 +0000, in comp.dcom.telecom message , ptownson wrote: > News from BBC on Friday: > A Windows virus masquerading as a security update from Microsoft is > spreading via e-mail, warn experts. > < http://news.bbc.co.uk/go/em/fr/-/1/hi/technology/3123726.stm > Some also masquerade as returned mail or virus alerts. Our virus scanner still isn't catching all of them, so I made a filter to put any message with "MS" or "microsoft" in a header AND my address not on the To: line. They use spam techniques by hiding the actual address list and using a group name in the To: line. Another trick is they sometimes show the attachment as a wave file but give it a name with an .exe extension. Windows goes by the file name more often than not. I also think the virus creators have it look for old addresses somewhere. ONE time I posted in this group with a plus sign and some characters after my name. I had been told I could signal where spammers picked up addresses if I did that. But I had some problems using that technique. So I used it that one night and stopped. This worm has drug that address out of the cobwebs and sent lots of worms my way using that address. I wonder if they used Google. Or did they search your TELECOM Digest web site and harvest all the addresses out of there. And speaking of bothersome stuff: We are still getting lots and lots of calls from robots or something where no one is on the line when we answer. We are too "cheap" to get caller ID. When we do get a voice talking, about half the time it's someone trying to sell us MCI service. :-( Gail in Ohio USA ------------------------------ From: Group Special Mobile Subject: Re: What Happened to 951 Area Code? Date: Sat, 20 Sep 2003 22:11:59 -0700 Organization: Posted via Supernews, http://www.supernews.com Reply-To: look@signature_for_reply_instructions On 20 Sep 2003 03:06:28 -0700, lurkeroo@yahoo.com (Jeff Sutter) wrote: > Nice try. Just because there is a bad law, and just because there are > arrogant industry pundits who promote abuse of that law, doesn't mean > that the good people of this state will "get used to it.". The law > can be ignored, changed, or undone, just as the rush to split/overlay > was squelched. I see. You're saying that the FCC has no power at all and that the states have the ultimate power to regulate communications, eh? > I still don't understand why this upsets you so. You seem to live and > die for 1+10D. Some of us just don't believe the hype. There are > sensible answers to prefix utilization that don't require Linc > Mandates. You seem to think that area splits can happen forever without the arbitrary carving up of an area with no logical boundaries. And does this mean that everyone has to count on the fact that their area code will change every two years? What happens when the area code is changed and 9 months down the road someone who you haven't heard from in ages tries to call you at "your" number only to find that it's *not* your number any longer as that number in that old area code has been re-assigned to someone else and they don't have a clue what your new number is. > Gee, what was that they implemented in New York City, about ten years > ago? Seems to me, everyone called it a "tech overlay". But what do I > know? At *one* time there was a technology specific area code in New York City. That does not exist any longer and you probably knew this, but for dramatic purposes decided to throw that straw man out. > Hmm. I believe I offered to move my fax, it is you who assumed it is > a machine, as opposed to a service accomodated by new technology, > which, like batches of cellphone prefixes, could be easily reassigned > to a new area code. Why is it that you think constantly inconveniencing people is a noble thing. Making millions of people change their number who knows how many times with continuing split after split after split. > Irrelevant, as if it was even going to happen. Cellular and Landline > companies have been thwarting number portability for years, and they > will continue to do so. Even if we have portability, so what? All the > cell prefixes in Gardena can be moved to the new area code. I'm sure > you'll retort, "ITS ILLEGAL", but number portability won't guarantee > you can keep the same area code for life, no matter what you protest. That's a pretty irrational statement. Number portability *is* going to happen. It's been delayed several times already, but it *is* going through in November. > We have yet to be shown any reason that it is necessary, other than > ranting by you and a host of tall tales from industry lobbyists. You evidently think the smarter way is to continue to split and split areas til there's no areas left to split. Since there are so many different area codes in the Los Angeles area I fail to see what's the major inconvenience of dialing 1+area code on all calls as it's necessary to dial a good number of calls that way already. > After incumbent technology prefixes are migrated to the tech overlay, > the same prefixes will be available in the non-tech area code. And you'll of course force more people to change their number for probably the third or fourth time in as many years. > Telcos will continue to fib about number usage. Guys like you will > repeat the lies ad nauseum and get bent over it. The rest of us will > persist, pursuing legislation to stop the nonsense. We won the last > round, maybe we'll lose the next, but not without a fight. What will continue to happen evidently is that the people who should bite the bullet and make the change that lots of others have made will instead put their heads in the sand and claim that it will all work itself out and that there's really no numbering space shortage and that it's all a plot of "industry" to force poor Californians from the repetitive stress injury that they no doubt would suffer from dialing the extra four digits. > New carriers are not at an inherent disadvantage. They will have > equal access to recycled number blocks in the incumbent area code, > should they desire to provide voice services with dialtone in that > area. Otherwise, they will have plenty of number blocks in the tech > overlay, for new service offerings. Of course they will be available (temporarily) by all the millions of people you have displaced (again) to save yourself from the dreaded four extra digits. >> * In an area code like 310, where over 97% of prefixes have been >> assigned, how do you propose to recover the random pockets of unused >> numbers without forcing large numbers of end-users to change their 7D >> phone numbers? > This is the same dribble that you guys used three years ago, when you > told us we have three months before self-destructing. The fact then, > and now, is that prefixes have been assigned, but they are not fully > utilized. Industry can work number block allocation out amongst > themselves, or suffer without. They didn't do their homework the first > time, figuring they could just force another split without > consideration of the public. Earnestine is still alive, 30 years > hence -- "We're the phone company. We don't care. We don't have to." Instead of parroting the line that you are not running out of numbers maybe you should go to nanpa.com and download the utilized prefix list for California to see what the *reality* is about available numbering space in California. You can then come back and claim that California's not in danger of number exhaust. > This will be my last post on the subject. Somehow I'll bet not. To send an email reply send to GSMthemobilestandard (@) yahoo.com ------------------------------ TELECOM Digest is an electronic journal devoted mostly but not exclusively to telecommunications topics. It is circulated anywhere there is email, in addition to various telecom forums on a variety of networks such as Compuserve and America On Line, and other forums. It is also gatewayed to Usenet where it appears as the moderated newsgroup 'comp.dcom.telecom'. TELECOM Digest is a not-for-profit, mostly non-commercial educational service offered to the Internet by Patrick Townson. All the contents of the Digest are compilation-copyrighted. You may reprint articles in some other media on an occasional basis, but please attribute my work and that of the original author. Contact information: Patrick Townson/TELECOM Digest Post Office Box 50 Independence, KS 67301 Phone: 620-330-6774 Fax 1: 775-255-9970 Fax 2: 775-306-8390 Fax 3: 775-642-0603 Fax 4: 530-309-7234 Email: editor@telecom-digest.org Subscribe: telecom-subscribe@telecom-digest.org Unsubscribe:telecom-unsubscribe@telecom-digest.org This Digest is the oldest continuing e-journal about telecomm- unications on the Internet, having been founded in August, 1981 and published continuously since then. Our archives are available for your review/research. We believe we are the second oldest e-zine/ mailing list on the internet in any category! URL information: http://telecom-digest.org Anonymous FTP: mirror.lcs.mit.edu/telecom-archives/archives/ (or use our mirror site: ftp.epix.net/pub/telecom-archives) Email <==> FTP: telecom-archives@telecom-digest.org Send a simple, one line note to that automated address for a help file on how to use the automatic retrieval system for archives files. You can get desired files in email. ************************************************************************* * TELECOM Digest is partially funded by a grant from * * Judith Oppenheimer, President of ICB Inc. and purveyor of accurate * * 800 & Dot Com News, Intelligence, Analysis, and Consulting. * * http://ICBTollFree.com, http://1800TheExpert.com * * Views expressed herein should not be construed as representing * * views of Judith Oppenheimer or ICB Inc. * ************************************************************************* ICB Toll Free News. Contact information is not sold, rented or leased. One click a day feeds a person a meal. Go to http://www.thehungersite.com Copyright 2003 ICB, Inc. and TELECOM Digest. All rights reserved. Our attorney is Bill Levant, of Blue Bell, PA. In addition, gifts from Mike Sandman, Chicago's Telecom Expert have enabled me to replace some obsolete computer equipment and enter the 21st century sort of on schedule. His mail order telephone parts/supplies service based in the Chicago area has been widely recognized by Digest readers as a reliable and very inexpensive source of telecom-related equipment. Please request a free catalog today at http://www.sandman.com --------------------------------------------------------------- A new sponsor for the Digest is Teledeal. They offer Directory Assistance (411) Savings. TeleDeal Inc. specializes in helping businesses and organizations save over 80% on live operator directory assistance calls. Rates are as low as $.27/411 call. TeleDeal also offers a premium real-time 411 Internet database service. Visit http://www.1800teledeal.com or call 1-800-TELEDEAL The Directory Assistance Experts * We Know 411 TeleDeal Inc. George Jones, President ---------------------------------------------------------------- Finally, the Digest is funded by gifts from generous readers such as yourself who provide funding in amounts deemed appropriate. Your help is important and appreciated. A suggested donation of twenty dollars per year per reader is considered appropriate. See our address above. Please make at least a single donation to cover the cost of processing your name to the mailing list. All opinions expressed herein are deemed to be those of the author. Any organizations listed are for identification purposes only and messages should not be considered any official expression by the organization. End of TELECOM Digest V22 #658 ****************************** From editor@telecom-digest.org Sun Sep 21 22:15:25 2003 Received: (from ptownson@localhost) by massis.lcs.mit.edu (8.11.6p2/8.11.3) id h8M2FPj26645; Sun, 21 Sep 2003 22:15:25 -0400 (EDT) Date: Sun, 21 Sep 2003 22:15:25 -0400 (EDT) From: editor@telecom-digest.org Message-Id: <200309220215.h8M2FPj26645@massis.lcs.mit.edu> X-Authentication-Warning: massis.lcs.mit.edu: ptownson set sender to editor@telecom-digest.org using -f To: ptownson Approved: patsnewlist Subject: TELECOM Digest V22 #659 TELECOM Digest Sun, 21 Sep 2003 21:29:00 EDT Volume 22 : Issue 659 Inside This Issue: Editor: Patrick A. Townson and: Lisa Minter Swen/Gibe Mail Headers (Rob Slade) Re: Isabel and East Coast Conditions (Mike P) Re: Isabel and East Coast Conditions (AES/newspost) Re: What Else Does VeriSign's Site Finder do? (John Hinsdale) Re: What Else Does VeriSign's Site Finder do? (Dave Phelps) Re: Liability Recording (Dave Phelps) Re: Time Warner Sues Apartment Complex Over Wi-Fi (Tony Pelliccio) Re: What Happened to 951 Area Code? (Linc Madison) Re: What Happened to 951 Area Code? (John R. Levine) Re: What Happened to 951 Area Code? (Paul Robinson) Re: E-Voting Audit Ready for Public (Wes Leatherock) All contents here are copyrighted by Patrick Townson and the individual writers/correspondents. Articles may be used in other journals or newsgroups, provided the writer's name and the Digest are included in the fair use quote. By using -any name or email address- included herein for -any- reason other than responding to an article herein, you agree to pay a hundred dollars to the recipients of the email. WE DO NOT PERMIT NAME/EMAIL ADDRESS HARVESTING FROM THIS JOURNAL. 'SALTED' EMAIL ADDRESSES APPEAR HEREIN TO VERIFY THIS. YOU GET SUED IN SMALL CLAIMS COURT IF YOU GET CAUGHT SPAMMING OR SENDING VIRUSES. DON'T DO IT. See the bottom of this issue for subscription and archive details and the name of our lawyer; other stuff of interest. ---------------------------------------------------------------------- From: Rob Slade Organization: Vancouver Institute for Research into User Date: Sat, 20 Sep 2003 22:59:36 -0800 Subject: Swen/Gibe Mail Headers I've been tracing back IP addresses for the copies of Swen/Gibe I've been receiving. In every case the "earliest" Received line IP address corresponds to the domain name of the email address in the "Return-Path" line. Although Swen carries its own SMTP engine, and could easily spoof this header, it appears that the "Return- Path" header may be legitimate. (I have not heard back from any of the abuse and postmaster accounts at the various domains to confirm this. Some outfit called charter.net seems to be particularly densely infected.) It also appears that the virus always sends two copies of the message from the infected machine: one using the "latest patch" type subject and body and the "ms- download" exploit, and the other using the "bounced email" type subject and body, and the iframe exploit. Each pair of messages comes with the same "Return- Path" header line. ====================== (quote inserted randomly by Pegasus Mailer) rslade@vcn.bc.ca slade@victoria.tc.ca rslade@sun.soci.niu.edu Acknowledge and take to heart this day that the Lord is God in heaven above and on the earth below. There is no other. Deut. 4:39 http://victoria.tc.ca/techrev or http://sun.soci.niu.edu/~rslade ------------------------------ From: mpotter@crosswinds.net (Mike P) Subject: Re: Isabel and East Coast Conditions Date: 21 Sep 2003 05:49:45 -0700 Organization: http://groups.google.com/ I live just north of Baltimore and there is still power where I live, According to the news as of 8am Sunday out of the 1.1 homes with BGE (Baltimore Gas and Electric) service there is still about 400,000 without power, and they don't expect everything to be back up until friday. My landline phone is working normally. My Sprint cell phone seems to work alright though I have gotten a few more dropped calls then usual. My blackberry e-mail pager on the cingular network, doesn't seem to be getting a signal around my place when I usually can. My guess is that once the power returns, it will be back to normal. Lisa Minter wrote in message news:: > We have been watching the news and weather stations on cable TV all > afternoon seeing Isabel start to hit the east coast of the USA, and > it has been interesting to me to see the widespread geographical > territory involved in this storm; from the Carolinas clear up through > Delaware, Washington, DC and New Jersey. Power is out in a few areas, > and Washington, DC was evacuated as nearly as possible a few hours ago. > A picture of a very frightened President Bush on television said he and > other non-essential government employees had been ordered to leave for > their safety for the duration of the storm, which is supposed to reach > its peak between 9 PM tonight and 4 or 5 AM Friday morning. > I was wondering how the telephone service is holding up over there? > What about cell phones as substitutes? Perhaps Carl Moore or other > readers in the mid-Atlantic area can write some reports on it for > the Digest. A fellow I chat with on Yahoo Messenger who is in the > Marines at that large base in North Carolina said yesterday in chart > to me he and his buddies were being assigned to help with sandbagging > and other duties for the next few days. Any reports from readers > of the Digest in the area of the storm? > Lisa Minter ------------------------------ From: AES/newspost Subject: Re: Isabel and East Coast Conditions Date: Sun, 21 Sep 2003 11:05:50 -0700 In article , Dale Neiburg wrote: > Wired telephone service stayed up throughout. Just picking up on this sentence to speak out once again on what a massive contribution just maintaining some level of elementary telephone communications can make in any kind of disaster or emergency -- to individuals, to families, to businesses, to medical emergencies, to emergency services, to disaster recovery, to every aspect of society. And, a major problem is that those supposedly marvelous "free market forces" so beloved of some ideologues will *never* give this to us. If these services (cell phone service in particular) are to stay in operation to the maximum extent reasonably possible in a massive power outage, major weather event, or other disaster, they have to be designed, built, and operated with that as a major design consideration -- and that will only happen if society, acting through government, *mandates* that this has to happen. The above may come across as a rant -- but I personally don't think it is. I think it's worth saying over and over that these services -- cell phone service in particular -- *should* keep working in all but atom bomb level disasters, and we should demand that they be built and operated with that in mind (even more so since our electrical power system is clearly not going to be operated to adequate levels of reliability). [TELECOM Digest Editor's Note: We are now twenty years into divestiture and I still have the mixed feelings I had about it when it first came up. *Certainly* there were many things wrong with the old 'Bell System'; it is almost certain we would not have had the techno- logical advances in telephony we have had in the past twenty years if Bell had gone unchallenged -- but! -- they were very good and very reliable in many ways, and for the most part, less expensive. How time flies! This Digest began in 1981, two years *before* divestiture, when the Bell System was the boss. Maybe I should research the archives and pull a couple of the twenty year old messages during the days immediatly following the divestiture. PAT] ------------------------------ From: hin@alma.com (John Hinsdale) Subject: Re: What Else Does VeriSign's Site Finder do? Date: 21 Sep 2003 08:34:21 -0700 Organization: http://groups.google.com/ krichmond@usa.net (Mr. Richmond) wrote in message news:: > What really irks me the most, are people are sued for registering > domain names that are close to a trademarked name, or name of a famous > person (like Britney Spears). A criminal action was brought successfully against John Zuccarini, who was routing misspellings of children's domains to porno sites. N.B.: I am not saying the Verisign action is in the same league. > But with one quick move, Verisign gets all of these misspelled names > of unregistered domain names, for every copyrighted name out there, > and are able to direct that traffic to them! They should be sued. I thought of writing a script to generate hundreds of misspellings of my domain name (alma.com) and presenting it as evidence of systematic re-routing by Verisign, as evidence of intent to confuse customers into an impression of affiliation. E.g., alllma.com now points to Verisign. However there might be issues of the proper complainant being the owner of "llama.com" ... so: Where it gets unmistakable is w/ the subdomains. The site at "john.kelley.hinsdale.net" is mine. However if you make the typo "john.kelley.hisndale.net" you get to Verisign. There is just no excuse for that. And nobody else affected on Earth: I'm the only John Kelley Hinsdale out there. I better get those filings ready :) John Kelley Hinsdale Tarrytown, NY USA ------------------------------ From: Dave Phelps Subject: Re: What Else Does VeriSign's Site Finder do? Date: Sun, 21 Sep 2003 16:11:06 -0500 Organization: www.tippenring.com In article , krichmond@usa.net says: > There is no configuration on my cable/dsl router to block this. There isn't a way to block the DNS reply, but you can prevent access to sitefinder by null routing 64.94.110.11. It won't prevent the bad DNS response that verisign provides, but at least it will prevent verisign from benefiting from another "hit". Dave Phelps DD Networks www.ddnets.com deadspam=tippenring ------------------------------ From: Dave Phelps Subject: Re: Liability Recording Date: Sun, 21 Sep 2003 16:14:54 -0500 Organization: www.tippenring.com In article , nospam@doineed.com says: > I wanted to get some ideas for companies that provide liability > recording -- cheap. Dictaphone is rectum-busting expensive. I would > prefer a system that taps extensions than the trunks -- as in > D-channel monitoring. > My system is a Nortel MICS 6.0. > Thanks! I know that Dictaphone makes a Nortel compatible card for recording the station side. It's quite slick -- the card taps into the station cables without corrupting the data and decodes the audio. I used something like an RJ21X block (you know, the blocks with amphenols on the sides) to connect the premade amphenol cable from the Dictaphone unit. Then I ran crossconnect from the station port to the RJ21X-type block, then ran a cross-connect from the 2nd pins to the station cable. It works perfect. Dave Phelps DD Networks www.ddnets.com deadspam=tippenring ------------------------------ From: Tony Pelliccio Subject: Re: Time Warner Sues Apartment Complex Over Wi-Fi Organization: The Ace Tomato and Cemenet Company Date: Sun, 21 Sep 2003 13:35:01 -0500 In article , ronchapman@wideopenwest.com says: > By Matt Hines > Staff Writer, CNET News.com > Time Warner Cable filed a lawsuit charging a New York apartment > complex and its wireless Internet provider with illegally reselling > its high-speed Road Runner service over a wireless network. > The suit, filed Monday in the Southern district of New York, claims > that Internet service provider iNYC Wireless and London Terrace > Towers, a residential apartment complex, have been illegally pirating > and marketing Road Runner through a Wi-Fi network. > http://news.com.com/2100-7351_3-5077922.html I do hope Time Warner loses this lawsuit. Should they win it sets bad precedent for those using NAT routers, and those who've opened up their WiFi service unknowingly or out of the goodness of their hearts. I think the incumbent cable carriers are seeing a decline in subscribers. All you have to do is walk down a street and look to your northeast (If you happen to be in the northeast, other areas probably just look north/northwest) and count the number of DirectTV or Dish Network dishes on the street. Around here it's about 60/40 cable to satellite but it's getting to be the point where cable rates keep going up, service keeps going down. Another nail in the cable companies collective coffin is the recent FCC decision that the RBOC's can lay fiber to the curb and they don't have to share it. That has the cable companies running scared because now it is only a matter of time before they have to compete in a monopoly. Competition in a duopoly isn't always the best solution. But open the field wide and watch the fun. ------------------------------ Subject: Re: What Happened to 951 Area Code? From: Linc Madison Date: Sun, 21 Sep 2003 21:34:41 GMT Organization: EarthLink Inc. -- http://www.EarthLink.net In article , Jeff Sutter wrote: > This will be my last post on the subject. That's the only sensible thing you've said in this entire thread. The simple truth -- not insult, just a fact -- is that you don't know what you're talking about, Jeff. ------------------------------ From: johnl@iecc.com (John R. Levine) Subject: Re: What Happened to 951 Area Code? Date: 21 Sep 2003 17:49:08 -0400 Organization: I.E.C.C., Trumansburg NY USA > Gee, what was that they implemented in New York City, about ten > years ago? Seems to me, everyone called it a "tech overlay". But > what do I know? Not much, evidently. Although 917 was originally cell phones and faxes, it's now a mix of voice, cell, fax, data, and everything else, just like the four other NYC area codes. Tech overlays don't work, because there's no reasonable way to define what's tech and what isn't. I also don't see any reason to believe that even if you did come up with an arbitrary definition of "tech", that the growth in tech numbers relative to voice numbers would be large enough to make general purpose overlays unnecessary. Note that NYC has needed two more area codes since 917 was opened. Had there been better planning in the past, it might have been possible to do what we might call asymmetric overlays. The dialing plan for all overlaid area codes would be 7D for the original code and 10D for everything else. It'd cost each subscriber an extra $1/month for each number in the original area code (waived for the first per subscriber), thereby encouraging people to leave their main voice number in the original area code, and putting DID, fax, and other bulk ranges elsewhere. This would work a lot better with full LNP so you don't waste large ranges of numbers so a CLEC can have three numbers per rate center. But I suspect it's too late for that now. > Irrelevant, as if it was even going to happen. Cellular and > Landline companies have been thwarting number portability for years, > and they will continue to do so. The portability date is now in November, and I see no evidence that they'll thwart it this time. At least one cell carrier (Verizon?) surprised everyone by coming out in favor of it. > We have yet to be shown any reason that it is necessary, other than > ranting by you and a host of tall tales from industry lobbyists. Well, if you're going to claim that everyone who disagrees with you is lying, there's not much point in arguing, is there? Sheesh. Regards, John Levine johnl@iecc.com Primary Perpetrator: "The Internet for Dummies", Information Superhighwayman wanna-be http://iecc.com/johnl Sewer Commissioner "I dropped the toothpaste", said Tom, crestfallenly. ------------------------------ From: Paul Robinson Organization: Elusive-Butterfly.net Subject: Re: What Happened to 951 Area Code? Date: Sun, 21 Sep 2003 22:24:49 GMT Linc Madison wrote: > In article , Jeff Sutter > wrote: >>> No, you can't implement an overlay in California without 1+10D. >>> Dialing 7D in an overlay area is not allowed because it's not >>> competitively neutral. You can't have 7D in an overlay area >>> anywhere in the USA. >> This is the same rubbish that industry blathered years ago when they >> said the sky was falling, and we would run out of prefixes within >> months. > It's not rubbish. It's a fact. Seven-digit dialing in an overlay is > ILLEGAL under U.S. federal law. Period. GET USED TO IT. And based on recent rulings of the Supreme Court, it is likely that this forced attempt to impose an interstate process upon what is clearly an intrastate transaction might very well be ruled unconstitutional if it were challenged. A dialed call in the same area code is an intrastate call and a state could conceivably require 7d dialing for intra-area code calls even if there were an overlay. Where there is a competent state authority able to regulate intrastate transactions a federal agency cannot override their rulings unless there is a significant detrimental effect on interstate commerce, an argument that cannot seriously be made with respect to a purely intrastate transaction of what is basically a minor nature. The Supreme Court has already ruled that "effect on interstate commerce" does not give the federal government jurisdiction over possession of firearms near schools, and in my opinion the dialing of local intrastate calls clearly doesn't even have as faint a nexus to federal jurisdiction as the overturned gun ban did. Paul Robinson "Above all else... We shall go on..." "...And continue!" "If the lessons of history teach us anything it is that nobody learns the lessons that history teaches us." ------------------------------ Date: Sun, 21 Sep 2003 17:35:29 -0700 (PDT) From: Wes Leatherock Subject: Re: E-Voting Audit Ready for Public On 2003-09-19 09:49:34 PST Thomas A. Horsley (tom.horsley@att.net) wrote: > Forget security for a minute. There is a pair of simple facts that > seem to constantly go completely unnoticed about touch-screen > voting: > In order for a citizen to cast a vote on a touch screen machine, he > or she has to have access to a limited number of working, powered > up, pieces of complicated electronic equipment (probably stored in a > 100 degree dusty warehouse between elections). > In order for a citizen to cast a vote on an optical scanner, he or > she has to have access to a working #2 pencil. > The difference between those two requirements seems to me so > gigantic that no sane person would ever consider touch screen > systems, but crazed gadget mania is apparently not limited to guys > with new credit cards let loose at Circuit City :-). Indeed. I remember the old mechanical voting machines, and the long lines waiting to use the inadequate number of voting machines available in elections which drew a big turnout. The touch screen machines seem to be merely an electronic version of the old mechanical machines. Now (in Oklahoma) we have been using optical scanners for a decade or more, and I remember in the last election with a big turnout there were perhaps 20 people marking their ballots at various places in the room. One scanner was sufficient, since the marking is done away from the machine, and it takes only a moment for the machine to suck it in. No need for 30-minute or one-hour even longer lines to access the voting machines. Wes Leatherock wleathus@yahoo.com wesrock@aol.com ------------------------------ TELECOM Digest is an electronic journal devoted mostly but not exclusively to telecommunications topics. It is circulated anywhere there is email, in addition to various telecom forums on a variety of networks such as Compuserve and America On Line, and other forums. It is also gatewayed to Usenet where it appears as the moderated newsgroup 'comp.dcom.telecom'. TELECOM Digest is a not-for-profit, mostly non-commercial educational service offered to the Internet by Patrick Townson. All the contents of the Digest are compilation-copyrighted. You may reprint articles in some other media on an occasional basis, but please attribute my work and that of the original author. Contact information: Patrick Townson/TELECOM Digest Post Office Box 50 Independence, KS 67301 Phone: 620-330-6774 Fax 1: 775-255-9970 Fax 2: 775-306-8390 Fax 3: 775-642-0603 Fax 4: 530-309-7234 Email: editor@telecom-digest.org Subscribe: telecom-subscribe@telecom-digest.org Unsubscribe:telecom-unsubscribe@telecom-digest.org This Digest is the oldest continuing e-journal about telecomm- unications on the Internet, having been founded in August, 1981 and published continuously since then. Our archives are available for your review/research. We believe we are the second oldest e-zine/ mailing list on the internet in any category! URL information: http://telecom-digest.org Anonymous FTP: mirror.lcs.mit.edu/telecom-archives/archives/ (or use our mirror site: ftp.epix.net/pub/telecom-archives) Email <==> FTP: telecom-archives@telecom-digest.org Send a simple, one line note to that automated address for a help file on how to use the automatic retrieval system for archives files. You can get desired files in email. ************************************************************************* * TELECOM Digest is partially funded by a grant from * * Judith Oppenheimer, President of ICB Inc. and purveyor of accurate * * 800 & Dot Com News, Intelligence, Analysis, and Consulting. * * http://ICBTollFree.com, http://1800TheExpert.com * * Views expressed herein should not be construed as representing * * views of Judith Oppenheimer or ICB Inc. * ************************************************************************* ICB Toll Free News. Contact information is not sold, rented or leased. 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 --------------------------------------------------------------- A new sponsor for the Digest is Teledeal. They offer Directory Assistance (411) Savings. TeleDeal Inc. specializes in helping businesses and organizations save over 80% on live operator directory assistance calls. Rates are as low as $.27/411 call. TeleDeal also offers a premium real-time 411 Internet database service. Visit http://www.1800teledeal.com or call 1-800-TELEDEAL The Directory Assistance Experts * We Know 411 TeleDeal Inc. George Jones, President ---------------------------------------------------------------- Finally, the Digest is funded by gifts from generous readers such as yourself who provide funding in amounts deemed appropriate. Your help is important and appreciated. A suggested donation of twenty dollars per year per reader is considered appropriate. See our address above. Please make at least a single donation to cover the cost of processing your name to the mailing list. All opinions expressed herein are deemed to be those of the author. Any organizations listed are for identification purposes only and messages should not be considered any official expression by the organization. End of TELECOM Digest V22 #659 ****************************** From editor@telecom-digest.org Mon Sep 22 14:37:10 2003 Received: (from ptownson@localhost) by massis.lcs.mit.edu (8.11.6p2/8.11.3) id h8MIb9a04358; Mon, 22 Sep 2003 14:37:10 -0400 (EDT) Date: Mon, 22 Sep 2003 14:37:10 -0400 (EDT) From: editor@telecom-digest.org Message-Id: <200309221837.h8MIb9a04358@massis.lcs.mit.edu> X-Authentication-Warning: massis.lcs.mit.edu: ptownson set sender to editor@telecom-digest.org using -f To: ptownson Approved: patsnewlist Subject: TELECOM Digest V22 #660 TELECOM Digest Mon, 22 Sep 2003 14:37:00 EDT Volume 22 : Issue 660 Inside This Issue: Editor: Patrick A. Townson and: Lisa Minter Telecom Update (Canada) #400, September 22, 2003 (Angus TeleManagement) Re: Time Warner Sues Apartment Complex Over Wi-Fi (Chip G) Re: Time Warner Sues Apartment Complex Over Wi-Fi (Ross McMicken) Re: What Else Does VeriSign's Site Finder do? (Danny Burstein) Re: Isabel and East Coast Conditions (Tony Pelliccio) Re: Fw: Vonage Lowers Residential Rates Again (John R. Levine) Re: New Password for NY Times Readers (Henry) New Enhanced Services Environments (microcodeus) Re: Consultant Needed (Justin Time) Hands Free, Wirelessly, Without Bluetooth (Eric Friedebach) Re: Swen/Gibe Mail Headers (Paul) Re: What Happened to 951 Area Code? (Jay R. Ashworth) All contents here are copyrighted by Patrick Townson and the individual writers/correspondents. Articles may be used in other journals or newsgroups, provided the writer's name and the Digest are included in the fair use quote. By using -any name or email address- included herein for -any- reason other than responding to an article herein, you agree to pay a hundred dollars to the recipients of the email. WE DO NOT PERMIT NAME/EMAIL ADDRESS HARVESTING FROM THIS JOURNAL. 'SALTED' EMAIL ADDRESSES APPEAR HEREIN TO VERIFY THIS. YOU GET SUED IN SMALL CLAIMS COURT IF YOU GET CAUGHT SPAMMING OR SENDING VIRUSES. DON'T DO IT. See the bottom of this issue for subscription and archive details and the name of our lawyer; other stuff of interest. ---------------------------------------------------------------------- Date: Mon, 22 Sep 2003 11:52:16 -0400 From: Angus TeleManagement Subject: Telecom Update (Canada) #400, September 22, 2003 ************************************************************ TELECOM UPDATE ************************************************************ published weekly by Angus TeleManagement Group http://www.angustel.ca Number 400: September 22, 2003 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: ** New Internet Worm Arrives ** Cabinet to Respond on Foreign Ownership ** Eight Years of Telecom Update ** Sprint to Announce IP Solution ** Aliant Finds Buyer for Stratos Global ** UBS Reduces Staff by 28% ** UK Bans Some Spam ** Comments Sought on Antenna Policy ** Time Warner Drops AOL Name ** RIM to Support IBM Mobile Software ** Reports Summarize State of Telecom Industry ** BCE Files Defence in Teleglobe Dispute ** Avaya to Distribute Voice Mobility Systems ** Persona Gets Purchase Offer ** IWAY Awards Announced ** Will Telecom Competition Survive in Canada? NEW INTERNET WORM ARRIVES: By mid-morning on Friday, Angus TeleManagement had received hundreds of copies of the W32/Swen@MM worm, attached to e-mails purporting to announce Microsoft Windows updates. If you haven't already upgraded your virus protection, do it now. CABINET TO RESPOND ON FOREIGN OWNERSHIP: Last spring, the House of Commons Committee on Industry recommended removal of all limits on foreign ownership of Canadian telecom carriers. By law, the Federal Cabinet must respond to that report by September 25, but the issue is complicated by the fact that the Heritage Committee has made opposing recommendations. ** Published reports speculate that Cabinet will approve ending the restrictions in principle, but take no action until next year. EIGHT YEARS OF TELECOM UPDATE: This is the four hundredth issue of Telecom Update, completing eight full years of continuous publication. It started in September 1995 as an experiment in electronic publishing -- and it has grown into the most widely-read telecommunications newsletter in Canada. Angus TeleManagement Group extends sincere thanks to all subscribers, and to all of the sponsoring companies that have made publication and distribution of Telecom Update possible. SPRINT TO ANNOUNCE IP SOLUTION: Sprint Canada has called a news conference tomorrow to announce a service that it says will "transform how Canadian businesses transition from existing networks to Internet Protocol-based services." ALIANT FINDS BUYER FOR STRATOS GLOBAL: Aliant has agreed to sell its 53% share in Stratos Global, a Maryland-based satellite services company, to a syndicate of underwriters headed by RBC for $340 million. (See Telecom Update #367) UBS REDUCES STAFF BY 28%: Unique Broadband Systems has laid off 22 of its 78 employees in order to "focus the resources of the company on its investment in Look Communications." UBS owns 30% of Look, with an option to take majority control. (See Telecom Update #395) UK BANS SOME SPAM: The UK government has introduced a new law setting fines of up to 35,000 for sending unsolicited e-mail to personal e-mail accounts. The law will take effect on December 11. COMMENTS SOUGHT ON ANTENNA POLICY: Industry Canada invites public comments on improving the existing policy and procedures for selecting sites for wireless antenna towers. Submit comments by October 17 to the National Antenna Tower Policy Review headed by University of New Brunswick professor David Townsend. www.antennareview.ca/ TIME WARNER DROPS AOL NAME: The Board of AOL Time Warner has voted to drop AOL from the corporate name, explaining that the new name "better reflects the portfolio of our valuable businesses." (See Telecom Update #368) ** For Telemanagement's assessment of the AOL/Time Warner merger when it took place ("The whole idea is so twentieth century") go to www.angustel.ca/teleman/tm00e-02.html RIM TO SUPPORT IBM MOBILE SOFTWARE: Research In Motion and IBM have agreed to integrate BlackBerry handhelds with IBM's WebSphere Everyplace Access software, which enables mobile workers to access corporate and personal data. REPORTS SUMMARIZE STATE OF TELECOM INDUSTRY: Industry Canada has posted two new summary reports on Canada's telecom services industry, using data from Statistics Canada: ** An updated Section 1 of Telecommunications Service in Canada describes the telecommunications service industry's contribution to the overall economy, providing a picture of the industry's economic performance to the end of 2002. strategis.ic.gc.ca/epic/internet/insmt-gst.nsf/vwGeneratedInterE/sf05637e.ht ml ** Quarterly Monitor of Telecommunications Services presents quarterly statistics on revenues, margins, capital expenditures, and employment, from Q1 1999 through Q4 2002. strategis.ic.gc.ca/epic/internet/insmt-gst.nsf/vwGeneratedInterE/sf05968e.ht ml BCE FILES DEFENCE IN TELEGLOBE DISPUTE: BCE has filed its defence against a US$1.9-billion suit by a syndicate of Teleglobe's creditors, who say BCE failed to honour an agreement to financially support Teleglobe if it defaulted. BCE says there was no such agreement. AVAYA TO DISTRIBUTE VOICE MOBILITY SYSTEMS: Avaya has agreed to become a global distributor of Vancouver-based Voice Mobility's messaging systems. PERSONA GETS PURCHASE OFFER: Persona, a Newfoundland-based cableco that operates cable systems in rural areas across Canada and in the Bahamas, says it has received offers to purchase some or all of its assets. IWAY AWARDS ANNOUNCED: CANARIE's Eighth Annual IWAY Awards will be presented at a gala celebration emceed by Ian Angus in Toronto tonight. This year's winners are: ** Adaptive Technology: Canadian Hearing Society. ** Application of Technology: Edward Brown, North Network; Robert Gamble, Service New Brunswick. ** Community Service: Michael Furdyk, TakingITGlobal.org. ** New Technology Development: Corrie Kost, TRIUMF; Wade Hong, Carleton University. ** Public Leadership: Michael Geist, University of Ottawa. WILL TELECOM COMPETITION SURVIVE IN CANADA? How will telecom change in the coming year? How can business customers reap maximum advantage from the new environment? Don't miss these exclusive briefings by Angus Dortmans Associates and Angus TeleManagement Group: ** Leveraging the New Competitive Market: A Report Card and Forecast for Canadian Telecom ** Telecom Cost Control 2003: Reducing Your Bills Without Sacrificing Service These hard-hitting half-day programs will be offered once only, in Toronto, on October 15. To guarantee that a seat is reserved for you, download and return your registration application today. www.angustel.ca/Angus-Briefing-2003.pdf HOW TO SUBMIT ITEMS FOR TELECOM UPDATE E-MAIL: editors@angustel.ca FAX: 905-686-2655 MAIL: TELECOM UPDATE Angus TeleManagement Group 8 Old Kingston Road Ajax, Ontario Canada L1T 2Z7 HOW TO SUBSCRIBE (OR UNSUBSCRIBE) TELECOM UPDATE is provided in electronic form only. There are two formats available: 1. The fully-formatted edition is posted on the World Wide Web on the first business day of the week at 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 2003 Angus TeleManagement Group Inc. All rights reserved. For further information, including permission to reprint or reproduce, please e-mail rosita@angustel.ca or phone 905-686-5050 ext 500. The information and data included has been obtained from sources which we believe to be reliable, but Angus TeleManagement makes no warranties or representations whatsoever regarding accuracy, completeness, or adequacy. Opinions expressed are based on interpretation of available information, and are subject to change. If expert advice on the subject matter is required, the services of a competent professional should be obtained. ------------------------------ From: Chip G Subject: Re: Time Warner Sues Apartment Complex Over Wi-Fi Organization: Comcast Online Date: Mon, 22 Sep 2003 02:35:50 GMT Tony Pelliccio wrote in message news:telecom22.659.7@telecom-digest.org: > In article , > ronchapman@wideopenwest.com says: >> By Matt Hines >> Staff Writer, CNET News.com >> Time Warner Cable filed a lawsuit charging a New York apartment >> complex and its wireless Internet provider with illegally reselling >> its high-speed Road Runner service over a wireless network. >> The suit, filed Monday in the Southern district of New York, claims >> that Internet service provider iNYC Wireless and London Terrace >> Towers, a residential apartment complex, have been illegally pirating >> and marketing Road Runner through a Wi-Fi network. >> http://news.com.com/2100-7351_3-5077922.html > I do hope Time Warner loses this lawsuit. Should they win it sets bad > precedent for those using NAT routers, and those who've opened up > their WiFi service unknowingly or out of the goodness of their hearts. > I think the incumbent cable carriers are seeing a decline in > subscribers. All you have to do is walk down a street and look to your > northeast (If you happen to be in the northeast, other areas probably > just look north/northwest) and count the number of DirectTV or Dish > Network dishes on the street. Around here it's about 60/40 cable to > satellite but it's getting to be the point where cable rates keep > going up, service keeps going down. > Another nail in the cable companies collective coffin is the recent > FCC decision that the RBOC's can lay fiber to the curb and they don't > have to share it. > That has the cable companies running scared because now it is only a > matter of time before they have to compete in a monopoly. Competition > in a duopoly isn't always the best solution. But open the field wide > and watch the fun. As much as I hate to say this ... I have to agree with the cable companies on this one. It is very different thing to sell the service via WiFi than it is to give it away "out-of-the-goodness-of-their-heart". By reselling, they are clearly violating their terms-of-use. ------------------------------ Date: Sun, 21 Sep 2003 22:37:22 -0500 From: Ross McMicken Subject: Re: Time Warner Sues Apartment Complex Over Wi-Fi On Sun, 21 Sep 2003 13:35:01 -0500, Tony Pelliccio wrote: > In article , > ronchapman@wideopenwest.com says: >> By Matt Hines >> Staff Writer, CNET News.com >> Time Warner Cable filed a lawsuit charging a New York apartment >> complex and its wireless Internet provider with illegally reselling >> its high-speed Road Runner service over a wireless network. >> The suit, filed Monday in the Southern district of New York, claims >> that Internet service provider iNYC Wireless and London Terrace >> Towers, a residential apartment complex, have been illegally pirating >> and marketing Road Runner through a Wi-Fi network. >> http://news.com.com/2100-7351_3-5077922.html > I do hope Time Warner loses this lawsuit. Should they win it sets bad > precedent for those using NAT routers, and those who've opened up > their WiFi service unknowingly or out of the goodness of their hearts. I hope they win, preserving the sanctity of contracts. If the apartment building wants to provide service to all the tenants, they need to negotiate a building wide arrangement with TWC. Reselling a service meant for a single user is fraud or theft, take your pick. Don't like TWC's terms? Find another provider. It's TWC's service to sell, not the apartment's. > I think the incumbent cable carriers are seeing a decline in > subscribers. All you have to do is walk down a street and look to your > northeast (If you happen to be in the northeast, other areas probably > just look north/northwest) and count the number of DirectTV or Dish > Network dishes on the street. Around here it's about 60/40 cable to > satellite but it's getting to be the point where cable rates keep > going up, service keeps going down. In my neighborhood it's more like 80/20 cable to dish. Regards, Ross McMicken ------------------------------ From: Danny Burstein Subject: Re: What Else Does VeriSign's Site Finder do? Date: Mon, 22 Sep 2003 02:07:47 UTC Organization: PANIX Public Access Internet and UNIX, NYC In hin@alma.com (John Hinsdale) writes: [ lots of good stuff snipped for space ] > Where it gets unmistakable is w/ the subdomains. The site at > "john.kelley.hinsdale.net" is mine. However if you make the typo > "john.kelley.hisndale.net" you get to Verisign. There is just no > excuse for that. And nobody else affected on Earth: I'm the only John > Kelley Hinsdale out there. Similarly, I was just going through misc-newspaper.com's site (name changed to protect, etc.) and looking at page twenty-two which had a url similar to www.22.misc-newspaper.com. I hit the "next page" button, which provided the next url. However, instead of www.23.misc-newspaper.com it had some glitch (I couldn't see the actual typo). Anyway, instead of getting an internal error from their server or a similar "not found" from the greater internet, I got bumped to, yes, the fine folk at Verisign. So they're getting lots and lots and lots of people. And breaking lots and lots and lots of things. Knowledge may be power, but communications is the key dannyb@panix.com [to foil spammers, my address has been double rot-13 encoded] ------------------------------ From: Tony Pelliccio Subject: Re: Isabel and East Coast Conditions Organization: The Ace Tomato and Cement Company Date: Sun, 21 Sep 2003 22:41:46 -0500 In article , siegman@stanford.edu says: > [TELECOM Digest Editor's Note: We are now twenty years into > divestiture and I still have the mixed feelings I had about it when it > first came up. *Certainly* there were many things wrong with the old > 'Bell System'; it is almost certain we would not have had the techno- > logical advances in telephony we have had in the past twenty years if > Bell had gone unchallenged -- but! -- they were very good and very > reliable in many ways, and for the most part, less expensive. How time > flies! This Digest began in 1981, two years *before* divestiture, > when the Bell System was the boss. Maybe I should research the > archives and pull a couple of the twenty year old messages during the > days immediatly following the divestiture. PAT] Oh sure -- they at least set standards and such. But one of the biggies that was wrong with the Bell System was the use of business and long distance to subsidize residential service. And part of that was high prices for data circuits. Had Ma Bell not been broken up the Internet as we know it would have remained the exclusive province of universities and research organizations. Oh -- and how expensive was IMTS? Remember that? Sure, Ma Bell might have dreamed up cellular in the first place, but they priced it out of reach for most. Whether this is a good thing or bad thing, I'm not sure. But many things would NOT have happened were Bell left alone. We'd have picture phones but no high speed data or wireless. How good could that have been? ------------------------------ Date: 22 Sep 2003 04:00:09 -0000 From: johnl@iecc.com (John R. Levine) Subject: Re: Fw: Vonage Lowers Residential Rates Again Organization: I.E.C.C., Trumansburg NY USA > Who knows about this 'regulatory recovery fee'? It's telco bogospeak for "we like to pretend that we're not responsible for paying our own taxes, so we add items to the bill with misleading names that look sort of like they're tax passthroughs." Vonage has never paid USF or E911 fees, but they clearly should. If they're doing so, that sort of excuses the price increase. 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: henry999@eircom.net (Henry) Subject: Re: New Password for NT Times Readers Date: Mon, 22 Sep 2003 14:11:21 +0300 Organization: Elisa Internet customer TELECOM Digest Editor wrote: > Some bozo went and changed the password for our group account when > reading the NY Times without telling anyone *what* the 'new' password > was. So I had to create a new account and password so it would work > again. > New York Times on line group user name is now telecomdigest9 and > password is telecomdigest9. Note the only difference is the addition > of '9' to the user name and password. The old user name is still > active; the computer would not give it back to me. It looks less like this was an accident, and more like 'enemy action'. Because, I just now tried the 'revised' form suggested above and that one doesn't work either. Cheers, Henry [TELECOM Digest Editor's Note: It didn't work for me, either, and since I had set up 'telecomdigest9' from an email account under my own control, I immediatly claimed to have forgotten my password and asked to have it emailed to me. Gee, guess what? My chosen email address was not on their records either. Okay, we will try it a different way this time. I have signed up yet a third time, this time as 'telecomdigest1', and same thing for password. I used Lisa's email account as the controlling email box this time. If the password disappears again, then it must be an inside job by some joker at NYT who works on their web edition, especially if the web site later claims it never heard of lisa_minter2001@yahoo.com, the same way it claimed it had never heard of my email address for emergency lookup purposes. Here is the auto-ack letter I just now got back from NYT thanking Lisa for signing up: To: lisa_minter2001@yahoo.com From: NYTimes.com Reply-To: announce@inbox.nytimes.com Subject: Welcome to The New York Times on the Web! Date: Mon, 22 Sep 2003 13:00:41 -0400 (EDT) Content-Length: 1862 MIME-Version: 1.0 Dear NYTimes.com Member, Congratulations! You now have FREE access to the most trusted and authoritative news source on the Internet. For your records, here's your account information: Member ID: telecomdigest1 E-mail address: lisa_minter2001@yahoo.com NYTimes.com publishes the same world-class journalism that appears in The New York Times, updated continuously around the clock. Many of our members make NYTimes.com their homepage, so that they feel informed and tuned in all day. Follow instructions below to make NYTimes.com your homepage: Craig Calder VP, Marketing =============================== Rationale: The next time I have to tell them I 'forgot' my password and want it sent through email, no one except Lisa theoretically can access her email box and fetch the 'forgotten password'. On the other hand, if 'forgot my password' results in no such user as lisa_minter2001@yahoo.com then I guess I should send a letter to Mr. Calder, mentioned above. They claim they never heard of editor@telecom- digest.org even though I have a letter here from them identical to the one sent to Lisa earlier today. PAT] ------------------------------ From: microcodeus@yahoo.com (microcodeus) Subject: New Enhanced Services Environments Date: 22 Sep 2003 06:03:09 -0700 Organization: http://groups.google.com/ What are the latest technologies in enhanced services/programmable network interface systems? Many current products seem to be based on older technology and are less than complete solutions. A product that provided: - Telco signaling protocols (SS7, ISDN, R1/2, etc.) - media processing (announcements, tones, recording, etc.) - VoIP capability - H/A platform - embedded H/A infrastructure (e.g. built-in redundant LANs, etc.) - processor scalability - low cost - APIs/support for billing, database, performance monitoring... - easy system mgmt. Does anyone make a 'complete' programmable platform like this? Would anyone else be interested in such a product? ------------------------------ From: a_user2000@yahoo.com (Justin Time) Subject: Re: Consultant Needed Date: 22 Sep 2003 06:53:10 -0700 Organization: http://groups.google.com/ martoasa@yahoo.com (Martin) wrote in message news:: > I am looking for a consultant who has experience running a PBX service > company (sales, installation, and service) to help me understand the > buisness. I am doing feasibility study to get started in this > business and I need lots of guidance. I will be happy to pay for > services. > If interested, please let me know. > Thanks, > > Martin If you tell people the geographical area in which you are planning on starting your business, it would help filter some of the responses you get. As far as the business planning part, check out the Small Business Administration in the US. They offer classes on just about everything you need on the business side, but not the technical. Rodgers Platt ------------------------------ From: Eric Friedebach Subject: Hands Free, Wirelessly, Without Bluetooth Date: Mon, 22 Sep 2003 11:10:43 -0500 Organization: Standard Operational Bull Arik Hesseldahl, 09.22.03, Forbes.com NEW YORK - Wireless headsets for mobile phones can be wonderfully convenient. They give you the freedom of using the phone hands-free without the tangle of wires that goes with other more conventional hands-free kits. But to use a wireless headset in most cases, you first need a phone that supports Bluetooth -- and many phones don't. Or you need to buy a new phone that does, which means going to the trouble of moving all your contacts and any other information you've stored on your current phone to a new one. Then, when you finally get around to using the Bluetooth kit, there's usually the tricky process of "pairing" a phone with a headset, which isn't always clear -- especially for first-time users. Two companies have recently been demonstrating a new type of mobile-phone headset they hope will challenge Bluetooth by supporting existing mobile phones and cordless home telephones. They are Aura Communications of Wilmington, Mass., and foneGEAR of Troy, Mich. Aura is a fabless semiconductor manufacturer backed in part by Motorola, which specializes in using magnetic technology as opposed to radio signals for near-field communications. http://www.forbes.com/2003/09/22/cx_ah_0922tentech.html Eric Friedebach ------------------------------ From: Paul Subject: Re: Swen/Gibe Mail Headers Date: Mon, 22 Sep 2003 12:20:17 -0400 Organization: Posted via Supernews, http://www.supernews.com My Earthlink (Mindspring) account has been getting hit hard by this thing for the last 3 days, I would say in excess of 300 messages a day coming in. If I don't stay on top of deleting the messages hourly, my 10MB limit is exceeded and the mailbox shuts down. Very irritating. Earthlink support is useless, I have been in dialogue with them for the past couple days. They appear powerless to stop it, even with their "Spaminator" filter turned on. The "iHateSpam" software on the laptop is useless too, even though I have registered about 100 messages with it as spam, it is too stupid to learn and I have to manually delete these things from the inbox. This seems like a big deal, but I have heard nothing in the computer press about it. -- Paul Rob Slade wrote in message news:telecom22.659.1@telecom-digest.org: > I've been tracing back IP addresses for the copies of Swen/Gibe I've > been receiving. In every case the "earliest" Received line IP > address corresponds to the domain name of the email address in the > "Return-Path" line. Although Swen carries its own SMTP engine, and > could easily spoof this header, it appears that the "Return- Path" > header may be legitimate. (I have not heard back from any of the > abuse and postmaster accounts at the various domains to confirm this. > Some outfit called charter.net seems to be particularly densely > infected.) > It also appears that the virus always sends two copies of the message > from the infected machine: one using the "latest patch" type subject > and body and the "ms- download" exploit, and the other using the > "bounced email" type subject and body, and the iframe exploit. Each > pair of messages comes with the same "Return- Path" header line. > ====================== (quote inserted randomly by Pegasus Mailer) > rslade@vcn.bc.ca slade@victoria.tc.ca rslade@sun.soci.niu.edu > Acknowledge and take to heart this day that the Lord is God in > heaven above and on the earth below. There is no other. Deut. 4:39 > http://victoria.tc.ca/techrev or http://sun.soci.niu.edu/~rslade [TELECOM Digest Editor's Note: *Only* three hundred per day? We have been getting 500-600 per day in editor@telecom-digest.org mailbox. Lisa complained to me just now that Yahoo cut off her email temporarily because she exceeded the limit allowed for a 'basic' free user account and they want her to subscribe (and pay for, of course) an 'enhanced' account with more storage area. She has been bashing out a couple hundred viruses per day from the 'Microsoft Company' imposters, but had neglected to empty her trash bin there which is required also since Yahoo won't do it for you. You know what really slays me; all the new guys and girls who have just gotten 'into' computers in the past few months; let's say their moms or dads got them new computers for last Christmas or their birthdays, etc and they do not know any better than to click on and do .exe on everything that comes along which purports to be from Microsoft. Think of all the computers out there in a horrible mess right now. I run AVG 6.0 (free virus scanner from Grisoft) every day on all my machines here and still get viruses in the machines now and then. Who are these idiots who have nothing better to do with their time than create/distribute this crap? Maybe the same people who keep on defacing/destroying our group NYT account. PAT] ------------------------------ From: Jay R. Ashworth Subject: Re: What Happened to 951 Area Code? Reply-To: jra@baylink.com Date: Mon, 22 Sep 2003 17:20:02 GMT Organization: RoadRunner - Central Florida Stanley settled back into the couch, and Fritz Whittington said to him: > I'll even go so far to say that for *less confusing*, you should be > able to dial *either* 1+10D or just 10D and have the call go through. You bet! Not being able to just dial 11D for *everything* makes my life miserable here in Florida -- specifically for configuring fax servers ... and the carriers tell me that it's the PSC that *forces* them to do it that way. Makes their life hell, too, they tell me; a new 40,000 line translation table for each switch. :-} Cheers, Jay R. Ashworth jra@baylink.com Member of the Technical Staff Baylink The Suncoast Freenet The Things I Think Tampa Bay, Florida http://baylink.pitas.com +1 727 647 1274 God, unlike Anya, is fond of bunnies. -- Chelsea Christenson ------------------------------ TELECOM Digest is an electronic journal devoted mostly but not exclusively to telecommunications topics. It is circulated anywhere there is email, in addition to various telecom forums on a variety of networks such as Compuserve and America On Line, and other forums. It is also gatewayed to Usenet where it appears as the moderated newsgroup 'comp.dcom.telecom'. TELECOM Digest is a not-for-profit, mostly non-commercial educational service offered to the Internet by Patrick Townson. All the contents of the Digest are compilation-copyrighted. You may reprint articles in some other media on an occasional basis, but please attribute my work and that of the original author. Contact information: Patrick Townson/TELECOM Digest Post Office Box 50 Independence, KS 67301 Phone: 620-330-6774 Fax 1: 775-255-9970 Fax 2: 775-306-8390 Fax 3: 775-642-0603 Fax 4: 530-309-7234 Email: editor@telecom-digest.org Subscribe: telecom-subscribe@telecom-digest.org Unsubscribe:telecom-unsubscribe@telecom-digest.org This Digest is the oldest continuing e-journal about telecomm- unications on the Internet, having been founded in August, 1981 and published continuously since then. Our archives are available for your review/research. We believe we are the second oldest e-zine/ mailing list on the internet in any category! URL information: http://telecom-digest.org Anonymous FTP: mirror.lcs.mit.edu/telecom-archives/archives/ (or use our mirror site: ftp.epix.net/pub/telecom-archives) Email <==> FTP: telecom-archives@telecom-digest.org Send a simple, one line note to that automated address for a help file on how to use the automatic retrieval system for archives files. You can get desired files in email. ************************************************************************* * TELECOM Digest is partially funded by a grant from * * Judith Oppenheimer, President of ICB Inc. and purveyor of accurate * * 800 & Dot Com News, Intelligence, Analysis, and Consulting. * * http://ICBTollFree.com, http://1800TheExpert.com * * Views expressed herein should not be construed as representing * * views of Judith Oppenheimer or ICB Inc. * ************************************************************************* ICB Toll Free News. Contact information is not sold, rented or leased. One click a day feeds a person a meal. Go to http://www.thehungersite.com Copyright 2003 ICB, Inc. and TELECOM Digest. All rights reserved. Our attorney is Bill Levant, of Blue Bell, PA. In addition, gifts from Mike Sandman, Chicago's Telecom Expert have enabled me to replace some obsolete computer equipment and enter the 21st century sort of on schedule. His mail order telephone parts/supplies service based in the Chicago area has been widely recognized by Digest readers as a reliable and very inexpensive source of telecom-related equipment. Please request a free catalog today at http://www.sandman.com --------------------------------------------------------------- A new sponsor for the Digest is Teledeal. They offer Directory Assistance (411) Savings. TeleDeal Inc. specializes in helping businesses and organizations save over 80% on live operator directory assistance calls. Rates are as low as $.27/411 call. TeleDeal also offers a premium real-time 411 Internet database service. Visit http://www.1800teledeal.com or call 1-800-TELEDEAL The Directory Assistance Experts * We Know 411 TeleDeal Inc. George Jones, President ---------------------------------------------------------------- Finally, the Digest is funded by gifts from generous readers such as yourself who provide funding in amounts deemed appropriate. Your help is important and appreciated. A suggested donation of twenty dollars per year per reader is considered appropriate. See our address above. Please make at least a single donation to cover the cost of processing your name to the mailing list. All opinions expressed herein are deemed to be those of the author. Any organizations listed are for identification purposes only and messages should not be considered any official expression by the organization. End of TELECOM Digest V22 #660 ****************************** From editor@telecom-digest.org Mon Sep 22 16:03:01 2003 Received: (from ptownson@localhost) by massis.lcs.mit.edu (8.11.6p2/8.11.3) id h8MK30A05525; Mon, 22 Sep 2003 16:03:01 -0400 (EDT) Date: Mon, 22 Sep 2003 16:03:01 -0400 (EDT) From: editor@telecom-digest.org Message-Id: <200309222003.h8MK30A05525@massis.lcs.mit.edu> X-Authentication-Warning: massis.lcs.mit.edu: ptownson set sender to editor@telecom-digest.org using -f To: ptownson Approved: patsnewlist Subject: TELECOM Digest V22 #661 TELECOM Digest Mon, 22 Sep 2003 16:03:00 EDT Volume 22 : Issue 661 Inside This Issue: Editor: Patrick A. Townson and: Lisa Minter Big Brother is Watching You - and Documenting (Monty Solomon) Number Plate Recognition Poised for National UK Rollout (Monty Solomon) Call Centers Struggle in Face of Do-Not-Call Rules (Monty Solomon) F.C.C. Chief Talks of Frustration and Surprise (Monty Solomon) Re: What Happened to 951 Area Code? (Jay R. Ashworth) Re: Small PBX For Home/Small Business Use; Where to Find? (shido) Re: Email Spam and Habeas Warranty Mark? (Jay R. Ashworth) Re: New Password for NY Times Readers (Arthur Kamlet) Re: New Password for NY Times Readers (Andrew Bell) Re: Private Video Transmission (Jay R. Ashworth) Gadgets That Work With Caller-ID and Telemarketers (M. Tetnanger) Re: Time Warner Sues Apartment Complex Over Wi-Fi (Tony Pelliccio) Re: Local Number Portability Question (Jay R. Ashworth) Re: SMS Standard (Jay R. Ashworth) All contents here are copyrighted by Patrick Townson and the individual writers/correspondents. Articles may be used in other journals or newsgroups, provided the writer's name and the Digest are included in the fair use quote. By using -any name or email address- included herein for -any- reason other than responding to an article herein, you agree to pay a hundred dollars to the recipients of the email. WE DO NOT PERMIT NAME/EMAIL ADDRESS HARVESTING FROM THIS JOURNAL. 'SALTED' EMAIL ADDRESSES APPEAR HEREIN TO VERIFY THIS. YOU GET SUED IN SMALL CLAIMS COURT IF YOU GET CAUGHT SPAMMING OR SENDING VIRUSES. DON'T DO IT. See the bottom of this issue for subscription and archive details and the name of our lawyer; other stuff of interest. ---------------------------------------------------------------------- Date: Mon, 22 Sep 2003 00:16:39 -0400 From: Monty Solomon Subject: Big Brother is Watching You - and Documenting By Yuval Dror eBay, ever anxious to up profits, bends over backward to provide data to law enforcement officials "I don't know another Web site that has a privacy policy as flexible as eBay's," says Joseph Sullivan. A little bit later, Sullivan explains what he means by the term "flexible." Sullivan is director of the "law enforcement and compliance" department at eBay.com, the largest retailer in the world. Sullivan was speaking to senior representatives of numerous law-enforcement agencies in the United States on the occasion of "Cyber Crime 2003," a conference that was held last week in Connecticut. His lecture was closed to reporters, and for good reason. Haaretz has obtained a recording of the lecture, in which Sullivan tells the audience that eBay is willing to hand over everything it knows about visitors to its Web site that might be of interest to an investigator. All they have to do is ask. "There's no need for a court order," Sullivan said, and related how the company has half a dozen investigators under contract, who scrutinize "suspicious users" and "suspicious behavior." The spirit of cooperation is a function of the patriotism that has surged in the wake of September 11. http://www.haaretz.com/hasen/pages/ShArt.jhtml?itemNo=264863 ------------------------------ Date: Mon, 22 Sep 2003 00:19:18 -0400 From: Monty Solomon Subject: Number Plate Recognition Poised for National UK Rollout By John Lettice Automatic Number Plate Recognition systems are set to be deployed by police forces throughout the UK as a major plank of a campaign of "denying criminals the use of the roads." The system will link up to the DVLA, Police National Computer and a National Insurance Database, with these links alone giving it the capability of identifying untaxed, unroadworthy and uninsured vehicles, but they'll also facilitate police surveillance operations, the swapping of data on "prolific offenders" between forces and, well, other stuff... Take this, for instance: "Eventually the database will link to most CCTV systems in town centres, meaning that all vehicles filmed on one of the many cameras protecting Bedford High Street, for instance, can be checked against the database and the movements of wanted cars traced to help with serious crime investigations." http://www.theregister.co.uk/content/6/32939.html ------------------------------ Date: Mon, 22 Sep 2003 00:30:49 -0400 From: Monty Solomon Subject: Call Centers Struggle in Face of Do-Not-Call Rules By MATT RICHTEL PHOENIX, Sept. 16 - The largest telemarketers are desperately searching for a Plan B, now that Plan A -- stopping the federal government from establishing a national do-not-call registry -- has failed. As they gathered here for their annual convention, those who sell mortgage services, credit cards and corrugated roofing over the phone say that if they do not change the way they do business immediately, they may follow door-to-door salesmen into commercial extinction. Unless the courts intervene, their crisis begins on Oct. 1, the day the do-not-call registry takes effect. From that day forward, telephone solicitors who call the 48 million phone numbers that Americans have voluntarily placed on the list so far will risk fines of up to $11,000 a violation. http://www.nytimes.com/2003/09/22/business/22TELE.html [Lisa Minter note: Remember, our latest, newest group name for reading NY Times articles is 'telecomdigest1' and the password is 'telecomdigest1' which we hope will remain available for at least a couple days. Lisa M.] ------------------------------ Date: Mon, 22 Sep 2003 00:33:43 -0400 From: Monty Solomon Subject: F.C.C. Chief Talks of Frustration and Surprise By STEPHEN LABATON WASHINGTON, Sept. 21 - With a hurricane bearing down on the nation's capital late last week, Michael K. Powell, the embattled chairman of the Federal Communications Commission, was in an expansive mood about the political storm that has engulfed him in recent months. In a wide-ranging telephone interview Thursday from his home in Northern Virginia, Mr. Powell mused inconclusively about how much longer he would be at the agency. Alternately frustrated, assertive and resigned, he acknowledged the sharp political skills of opponents who have waged a campaign to derail the new media ownership rules, which have become the most important regulations of Mr. Powell's tenure. But he also sounded surprised that he had become a focal point of the debate. http://www.nytimes.com/2003/09/22/business/media/22MIKE.html [Lisa Minter note: Remember, 'telecomdigest1' for name and password unless it gets bashed before some of you even get around to reading this issue. 'telecomdigest' and 'telecomdigest9' no longer work. Lisa M.] ------------------------------ From: Jay R. Ashworth Subject: Re: What Happened to 951 Area Code? Reply-To: jra@baylink.com Date: Mon, 22 Sep 2003 17:22:10 GMT Organization: RoadRunner - Central Florida Stanley settled back into the couch, and Linc Madison said to him: > on one of my pet peeves. The FCC has recommended that all states and > all telcos *permit* *optional* 1+10D on any call within the NANP, Citation, *please*? > ever to block 1+10D. Why does anyone need to be protected from > accidentally making a free local call?? The answer *I* got was that old switches weren't smart enough to notice it, and would route and rate as a toll call. > Once upon a time, in some places, dialing the 1+ would automatically > seize a toll trunk and generate a toll billing record, so you did > actually need to block 1+ on local calls to protect the consumer from > being charged for a call that should be free. However, in the 21st > century, the switches can figure out whether a call is local or toll > and both route and bill it accordingly. Apparently, not all of them. I'd blame the G-5, if I thought I could get away with it ... > In any case, if the INC has its way, no one will ever dial 1+ at all. Well, that's bad, too. > In California, though, you can't have 7D and 10D coexisting in the > same area, due to numbering conflicts. For example, there is a > 408-925-xxxx prefix not far from NPA 925. In fact, 408-925 is even a > local call to and from one or two rate centers in 925. Los Angeles is > a far bigger mess, with prefixes like 562-310 and 310-323 dotted all > over the place. Yeah. And some moron provisioned 813-727 and 727-813. Idiot. Stanley settled back into the couch, and Jeff Sutter said to him: > Linc Madison wrote in message > news:: >> In article , Jeff Sutter >> wrote: >> It's not rubbish. It's a fact. Seven-digit dialing in an overlay is >> ILLEGAL under U.S. federal law. Period. GET USED TO IT. > Nice try. Just because there is a bad law, and just because there are > arrogant industry pundits who promote abuse of that law, doesn't mean > that the good people of this state will "get used to it.". The law > can be ignored, changed, or undone, just as the rush to split/overlay > was squelched. And, Jeff, just because an engineering neccessity is uncomfortable for end users doesn't mean you can ignore it. Necessity means *necessity*. Cheers, Jay R. Ashworth jra@baylink.com Member of the Technical Staff Baylink The Suncoast Freenet The Things I Think Tampa Bay, Florida http://baylink.pitas.com +1 727 647 1274 God, unlike Anya, is fond of bunnies. -- Chelsea Christenson ------------------------------ From: shido Subject: Re: Small PBX For Home/Small Business Use; Where to Find? Date: Mon, 22 Sep 2003 13:33:50 -0400 Organization: Cogeco Cable We can definitely set you up with 3 lines out/in via rj-11 to the PSTN and yes, you can use softphones for your 15 extensions or you can use IP Phones such as the 7960, ata, budgetone, etc. The system comes complete with voicemail, conferencing, and we'll include $100 of free long distance at 2.9 cents/minute to US and Canada. $1375 Let me know what you're looking to do. Greg Merriweather The NuFone Network G.Merriweather@nufone.net 519-251-8225 x 3000 IM: shido6@msn.com Pete Harris wrote in message news:telecom22.657.2@telecom-digest.org: >> I need 3 incoming and outgoing lines to the phone company. >> I also need around 15 telephone sets in and around the house. > 15-room house? All ri-i-ight !!! > Or is this a frat house? > We've got a VOIP system with 6 lines and 16 exetnsions for $1450 > including handsets and gateway, but you need to contribute one PC per > phone -- OK for the frat house, maybe not so good for the 15-room > mansion. > - Pete > bg.com/qphone.html ------------------------------ From: Jay R. Ashworth Subject: Re: Email Spam and Habeas Warranty Mark? Reply-To: jra@baylink.com Date: Mon, 22 Sep 2003 18:16:44 GMT Organization: RoadRunner - Central Florida Stanley settled back into the couch, and Phil Earnhardt said to him: > habeas -spamnews group:news.admin.net-abuse.email > Spam is a very complicated issue; this newsgroup has many volunteers > and professionals who understand these better than anyone that I know > on the planet. If you hang out there (I don't ... yet), could you give a one sentence precis on the received wisdom concerning TarProxy? It seems a good solution to the problem, albeit that it would have to be capable of deployment on, oh, say the top 20 ISP's, and it's not yet ... Cheers, Jay R. Ashworth jra@baylink.com Member of the Technical Staff Baylink The Suncoast Freenet The Things I Think Tampa Bay, Florida http://baylink.pitas.com +1 727 647 1274 God, unlike Anya, is fond of bunnies. -- Chelsea Christenson ------------------------------ From: kamlet@panix.com (Arthur Kamlet) Subject: Re: New Password for NY Times Readers Date: 22 Sep 2003 14:38:51 -0400 Organization: PANIX -- Public Access Networks Corp. Reply-To: ArtKamlet@aol.REMOVE.com In article , TELECOM Digest Editor noted in response to Henry : > TELECOM Digest Editor wrote: > purposes. Here is the auto-ack letter I just now got back from NYT > thanking Lisa for signing up: > To: lisa_minter2001@yahoo.com > From: NYTimes.com > Reply-To: announce@inbox.nytimes.com > Subject: Welcome to The New York Times on the Web! > Date: Mon, 22 Sep 2003 13:00:41 -0400 (EDT) > Content-Length: 1862 > MIME-Version: 1.0 > Dear NYTimes.com Member, > Congratulations! You now have FREE access to the most trusted and > authoritative news source on the Internet. For your records, here's > your account information: > Member ID: telecomdigest1 > E-mail address: lisa_minter2001@yahoo.com > NYTimes.com publishes the same world-class journalism that appears in > The New York Times, updated continuously around the clock. Many of our > members make NYTimes.com their homepage, so that they feel informed > and tuned in all day. Follow instructions below to make NYTimes.com > your homepage: > Craig Calder > VP, Marketing > =============================== > Rationale: The next time I have to tell them I 'forgot' my password > and want it sent through email, no one except Lisa theoretically can > access her email box and fetch the 'forgotten password'. On the other > hand, if 'forgot my password' results in no such user as > lisa_minter2001@yahoo.com then I guess I should send a letter to Mr. > Calder, mentioned above. They claim they never heard of editor@telecom- > digest.org even though I have a letter here from them identical to the > one sent to Lisa earlier today. PAT] I have been getting dozens and dozens of junk emails from Postmasters who think I sent them email. These recent viruses forge your email address and let the recipient think the email is from the forged email address. Sigh ... Art Kamlet ArtKamlet @ AOL.com Columbus OH K2PZH ------------------------------ From: Andrew Bell Subject: Re: New Password for NY Times Readers Date: Mon, 22 Sep 2003 15:06:15 -0400 PAT, please withhold my email address if you publish this. I'm posting from work so I can't munge it myself. > TELECOM Digest Editor wrote: >> Some bozo went and changed the password for our group account when >> reading the NY Times without telling anyone *what* the >> 'new' password was. So I had to create a new account and password >> so it would work again. >> New York Times on line group user name is now telecomdigest9 and >> password is telecomdigest9. Note the only difference is the addition >> of '9' to the user name and password. The old user name is still >> active; the computer would not give it back to me. > It looks less like this was an accident, and more like 'enemy action'. > Because, I just now tried the 'revised' form suggested above and that > one doesn't work either. Or maybe the NYT noticed that the account was being used to bypass their registration process and disabled it to prevent such abuse from continuing. [TELECOM Digest Editor's Note: For shame, Andrew! Are you saying your home computer is like that, that you can screw up email addresses on letters you send out? Damn, that's the first time I ever heard of someone writing email and no one being able to figure out for sure who sent/said it. What will you guys think up next? All netters should be accomplished ventriloquists in their email. More to the point of "bypassing the NYT registration/spam process and prevent such 'abuse' from continuing." My heart really bleeds for my competitor, NYT, and Salzberger's other cronies in the profession. Some days he has such nonsense in his newspaper I suppose as a public service I should discourage any reading there at all. He is almost as bad as my other major competitor, Kay Graham and her *Newsweak* Magazine. Let's face it, the established print media all hate the Internet anyway, since it has long since demonstrated that they (print media) are no longer in charge of things as they were for god-knows how many years. I know, not only content as in the old days to buy *one* copy of the paper each day and give it to a *dozen* others to read when finished with it; now I do the same with the free version as well. PAT] ------------------------------ From: Jay R. Ashworth Subject: Re: Private Video Transmission Reply-To: jra@baylink.com Date: Mon, 22 Sep 2003 19:06:56 GMT Stanley settled back into the couch, and Dan McKeon said to him: > It's great to get a perspective from someone who understands > networking AND has law enforcement experience. In movies, they always > call on their "all knowing" computer pro in times like this. You have the mistaken impression that *anything* involving computers in a Follywood script is *ever* correct? > that most departments have a vague if any understanding of computers > is enlightening. Where does this computer guru police image come > from? Is that total Hollywood fabrication? Yeah, mostly. I concur with those who've suggested an 802.11b camera with encryption -- D-Link (I think it is) manufacture one with the wireless built in. Your protagonist could pick up the camera's signal with a Wireless Access Point with a directional antenna, and hook it (possibly surreptitiously) to someone's wired network -- or if s/he could find an open WLAN in some nearby business or home, use *that* (after sniffing the network with something like Kismet to determine the ESSID, and AirSnort to get a WEP key) and piggyback out to the Internet ... and then pick up the pix from there. If you want to get into that kind of detail, ask back; we'll diagram. Cheers, Jay R. Ashworth jra@baylink.com Member of the Technical Staff Baylink The Suncoast Freenet The Things I Think Tampa Bay, Florida http://baylink.pitas.com +1 727 647 1274 God, unlike Anya, is fond of bunnies. -- Chelsea Christenson ------------------------------ From: marktettnanger@hotmail.com (M. Tettnanger) Subject: Gadgets That Work With Caller ID and Telemarketers? Date: 22 Sep 2003 12:13:00 -0700 Organization: http://groups.google.com/ Are there any gadgets on the market that do a good job dealing with "Out Of Area" or "Not Available" calls? Obviously I am interested in screening telemarketers, and even though I've opted out on the national do-not-call list, I have doubts it will work (doesn't really apply to calls coming in on T1's from Bangalore). Ideally I'd like all calls to initially NOT ring, so as not to disturb us. "Out of Area" callers to get a recording stating that because their number is not available, we are unable to take a call. Then I'd like the call either hung up on or sent to voicemail. Other callers get passed through to our regular phones. I have a SNI Bouncer, a device which is no longer in production, however it appears that it was not playtested very well. About 3 rings pass before it does anything with the call (even if it gets the CID data right away), and it only allows 2 more rings before it discards to the answering machine (which sucks if you're in a large house). Since it was designed around 1996 it's obvious they couldn't take advantage of the voice technology that exists nowadays. How about something that works with PC voicemodems? I've got a few of those to play around with. Mark ------------------------------ From: Tony Pelliccio Subject: Re: Time Warner Sues Apartment Complex Over Wi-Fi Organization: The Ace Tomato Company Date: Mon, 22 Sep 2003 14:49:35 -0500 In article , NOSPAMchipg_98 @ATyahoo.TODELETE.com says: > As much as I hate to say this ... I have to agree with the cable > companies on this one. It is very different thing to sell the > service via WiFi than it is to give it away > "out-of-the-goodness-of-their-heart". By reselling, they are > clearly violating their terms-of-use. But the cable companies have an out -- it's a violation of their TOS -- disconnect the customer. Or start billing the customer for business services. But to file suit is ominous. In article , mcmicken@ix.netcom.com says: > On Sun, 21 Sep 2003 13:35:01 -0500, Tony Pelliccio > wrote: In my neighborhood it's more like 80/20 cable to dish. I suppose it varies from carrier to carrier. Cox is doing it's damnedest to alienate every customer in Rhode Island. Between the constant ads, the constant increases and the lousy service in some areas they take lots of flak. It's a pity AB Cable lost their funding -- would have been nice to have a wired competitor. But give it a couple years -- Verizon has been putting off copper plant upgrades until the FCC ruled on the fiber-optic issue. Now that they know they don't have to share it watch them start installing miles of it. ------------------------------ From: Jay R. Ashworth Subject: Re: Local Number Portability question Reply-To: jra@baylink.com Date: Mon, 22 Sep 2003 18:51:04 GMT Organization: RoadRunner - Central Florida Stanley settled back into the couch, and Michael A Desmon said to him: > I've been working on LNP for a couple years now and I can help with > some of this. > The LNP databases are maintained by Neustar. Most of the larger > service providers maintain their own databases that receive regular > updates from Neustar. Smaller companies, like the one I work for > contract with service providers like SBC or Illuminet for LNP database > dips. We also have dial-up access to Neustar's Midwest Region NPAC > for our porting orders, when we're porting numbers from a different > service provider. We also have to send a Local Service Request (LSR) > directly to the service provider, so that due dates, etc. can be > agreed upon. I also had to load all of our exchanges into the NPAC. [ ... ] > Hopefully that made sense. There is a little more to it than that and > if anyone is interested, I would be happy to add to it. I've been prospecting some of my Telecom-Guys on this recently, but this seems like a good opening. There are occasionally those times when those of us who are telecom geeks but otherwise mostly civilians (we don't work, that is, for Neustar or an LEC/IXC) find it useful to be able to tell who serves a destination DN -- when we're trying to report trouble for someone, for instance. 800 portability made that difficult for toll-free numbers, and LNP/WLNP is about to make it equally difficult for the much larger universe of *everyone's* numbers. Since our ability to figure it out in the past was sort of a side-effect (of the publishing of NANPA's databases, for example), I'm sure there isn't going to be any *official* solution to this; any suggestions on semi-official ways to do it? Or are we back to bribe-someone's-employee, and other pretext approaches better utilized by PI's who know their local cops personally. :-) Cheers, Jay R. Ashworth jra@baylink.com Member of the Technical Staff Baylink The Suncoast Freenet The Things I Think Tampa Bay, Florida http://baylink.pitas.com +1 727 647 1274 God, unlike Anya, is fond of bunnies. -- Chelsea Christenson ------------------------------ From: Jay R. Ashworth Subject: Re: SMS Standard Reply-To: jra@baylink.com Date: Mon, 22 Sep 2003 18:52:45 GMT Organization: RoadRunner - Central Florida Stanley settled back into the couch, and John R. Levine said to him: > Unless you plan to use a wireless modem that plugs into a cell phone > and somehow persuade your cell phone to send SMS commanded by the > modem, I'd use my modem to call my ISP and send e-mail to the e-mail > gateways that every wireless carrier has for its SMS users. You do > need to figure out which carrier a number belongs to in order to know > which gateway you want, e.g. 3115552368@mobile.mycingular.com for > Cingular, but you can probably collect the carrier name when you > collect the phone number. Does anyone have a comprehensive list of the domain names for the carriers? Cheers, Jay R. Ashworth jra@baylink.com Member of the Technical Staff Baylink The Suncoast Freenet The Things I Think Tampa Bay, Florida http://baylink.pitas.com +1 727 647 1274 God, unlike Anya, is fond of bunnies. -- Chelsea Christenson ------------------------------ TELECOM Digest is an electronic journal devoted mostly but not exclusively to telecommunications topics. It is circulated anywhere there is email, in addition to various telecom forums on a variety of networks such as Compuserve and America On Line, and other forums. It is also gatewayed to Usenet where it appears as the moderated newsgroup 'comp.dcom.telecom'. TELECOM Digest is a not-for-profit, mostly non-commercial educational service offered to the Internet by Patrick Townson. All the contents of the Digest are compilation-copyrighted. You may reprint articles in some other media on an occasional basis, but please attribute my work and that of the original author. Contact information: Patrick Townson/TELECOM Digest Post Office Box 50 Independence, KS 67301 Phone: 620-330-6774 Fax 1: 775-255-9970 Fax 2: 775-306-8390 Fax 3: 775-642-0603 Fax 4: 530-309-7234 Email: editor@telecom-digest.org Subscribe: telecom-subscribe@telecom-digest.org Unsubscribe:telecom-unsubscribe@telecom-digest.org This Digest is the oldest continuing e-journal about telecomm- unications on the Internet, having been founded in August, 1981 and published continuously since then. Our archives are available for your review/research. We believe we are the second oldest e-zine/ mailing list on the internet in any category! URL information: http://telecom-digest.org Anonymous FTP: mirror.lcs.mit.edu/telecom-archives/archives/ (or use our mirror site: ftp.epix.net/pub/telecom-archives) Email <==> FTP: telecom-archives@telecom-digest.org Send a simple, one line note to that automated address for a help file on how to use the automatic retrieval system for archives files. You can get desired files in email. ************************************************************************* * TELECOM Digest is partially funded by a grant from * * Judith Oppenheimer, President of ICB Inc. and purveyor of accurate * * 800 & Dot Com News, Intelligence, Analysis, and Consulting. * * http://ICBTollFree.com, http://1800TheExpert.com * * Views expressed herein should not be construed as representing * * views of Judith Oppenheimer or ICB Inc. * ************************************************************************* ICB Toll Free News. Contact information is not sold, rented or leased. One click a day feeds a person a meal. Go to http://www.thehungersite.com Copyright 2003 ICB, Inc. and TELECOM Digest. All rights reserved. Our attorney is Bill Levant, of Blue Bell, PA. In addition, gifts from Mike Sandman, Chicago's Telecom Expert have enabled me to replace some obsolete computer equipment and enter the 21st century sort of on schedule. His mail order telephone parts/supplies service based in the Chicago area has been widely recognized by Digest readers as a reliable and very inexpensive source of telecom-related equipment. Please request a free catalog today at http://www.sandman.com --------------------------------------------------------------- A new sponsor for the Digest is Teledeal. They offer Directory Assistance (411) Savings. TeleDeal Inc. specializes in helping businesses and organizations save over 80% on live operator directory assistance calls. Rates are as low as $.27/411 call. TeleDeal also offers a premium real-time 411 Internet database service. Visit http://www.1800teledeal.com or call 1-800-TELEDEAL The Directory Assistance Experts * We Know 411 TeleDeal Inc. George Jones, President ---------------------------------------------------------------- Finally, the Digest is funded by gifts from generous readers such as yourself who provide funding in amounts deemed appropriate. Your help is important and appreciated. A suggested donation of twenty dollars per year per reader is considered appropriate. See our address above. Please make at least a single donation to cover the cost of processing your name to the mailing list. All opinions expressed herein are deemed to be those of the author. Any organizations listed are for identification purposes only and messages should not be considered any official expression by the organization. End of TELECOM Digest V22 #661 ****************************** From editor@telecom-digest.org Mon Sep 22 16:04:10 2003 Received: (from ptownson@localhost) by massis.lcs.mit.edu (8.11.6p2/8.11.3) id h8MK49205611; Mon, 22 Sep 2003 16:04:10 -0400 (EDT) Date: Mon, 22 Sep 2003 16:04:10 -0400 (EDT) From: editor@telecom-digest.org Message-Id: <200309222004.h8MK49205611@massis.lcs.mit.edu> X-Authentication-Warning: massis.lcs.mit.edu: ptownson set sender to editor@telecom-digest.org using -f To: ptownson Approved: patsnewlist Subject: TELECOM Digest V22 #661 TELECOM Digest Mon, 22 Sep 2003 16:03:00 EDT Volume 22 : Issue 661 Inside This Issue: Editor: Patrick A. Townson and: Lisa Minter Big Brother is Watching You - and Documenting (Monty Solomon) Number Plate Recognition Poised for National UK Rollout (Monty Solomon) Call Centers Struggle in Face of Do-Not-Call Rules (Monty Solomon) F.C.C. Chief Talks of Frustration and Surprise (Monty Solomon) Re: What Happened to 951 Area Code? (Jay R. Ashworth) Re: Small PBX For Home/Small Business Use; Where to Find? (shido) Re: Email Spam and Habeas Warranty Mark? (Jay R. Ashworth) Re: New Password for NY Times Readers (Arthur Kamlet) Re: New Password for NY Times Readers (Andrew Bell) Re: Private Video Transmission (Jay R. Ashworth) Gadgets That Work With Caller-ID and Telemarketers (M. Tetnanger) Re: Time Warner Sues Apartment Complex Over Wi-Fi (Tony Pelliccio) Re: Local Number Portability Question (Jay R. Ashworth) Re: SMS Standard (Jay R. Ashworth) All contents here are copyrighted by Patrick Townson and the individual writers/correspondents. Articles may be used in other journals or newsgroups, provided the writer's name and the Digest are included in the fair use quote. By using -any name or email address- included herein for -any- reason other than responding to an article herein, you agree to pay a hundred dollars to the recipients of the email. WE DO NOT PERMIT NAME/EMAIL ADDRESS HARVESTING FROM THIS JOURNAL. 'SALTED' EMAIL ADDRESSES APPEAR HEREIN TO VERIFY THIS. YOU GET SUED IN SMALL CLAIMS COURT IF YOU GET CAUGHT SPAMMING OR SENDING VIRUSES. DON'T DO IT. See the bottom of this issue for subscription and archive details and the name of our lawyer; other stuff of interest. ---------------------------------------------------------------------- Date: Mon, 22 Sep 2003 00:16:39 -0400 From: Monty Solomon Subject: Big Brother is Watching You - and Documenting By Yuval Dror eBay, ever anxious to up profits, bends over backward to provide data to law enforcement officials "I don't know another Web site that has a privacy policy as flexible as eBay's," says Joseph Sullivan. A little bit later, Sullivan explains what he means by the term "flexible." Sullivan is director of the "law enforcement and compliance" department at eBay.com, the largest retailer in the world. Sullivan was speaking to senior representatives of numerous law-enforcement agencies in the United States on the occasion of "Cyber Crime 2003," a conference that was held last week in Connecticut. His lecture was closed to reporters, and for good reason. Haaretz has obtained a recording of the lecture, in which Sullivan tells the audience that eBay is willing to hand over everything it knows about visitors to its Web site that might be of interest to an investigator. All they have to do is ask. "There's no need for a court order," Sullivan said, and related how the company has half a dozen investigators under contract, who scrutinize "suspicious users" and "suspicious behavior." The spirit of cooperation is a function of the patriotism that has surged in the wake of September 11. http://www.haaretz.com/hasen/pages/ShArt.jhtml?itemNo=264863 ------------------------------ Date: Mon, 22 Sep 2003 00:19:18 -0400 From: Monty Solomon Subject: Number Plate Recognition Poised for National UK Rollout By John Lettice Automatic Number Plate Recognition systems are set to be deployed by police forces throughout the UK as a major plank of a campaign of "denying criminals the use of the roads." The system will link up to the DVLA, Police National Computer and a National Insurance Database, with these links alone giving it the capability of identifying untaxed, unroadworthy and uninsured vehicles, but they'll also facilitate police surveillance operations, the swapping of data on "prolific offenders" between forces and, well, other stuff... Take this, for instance: "Eventually the database will link to most CCTV systems in town centres, meaning that all vehicles filmed on one of the many cameras protecting Bedford High Street, for instance, can be checked against the database and the movements of wanted cars traced to help with serious crime investigations." http://www.theregister.co.uk/content/6/32939.html ------------------------------ Date: Mon, 22 Sep 2003 00:30:49 -0400 From: Monty Solomon Subject: Call Centers Struggle in Face of Do-Not-Call Rules By MATT RICHTEL PHOENIX, Sept. 16 - The largest telemarketers are desperately searching for a Plan B, now that Plan A -- stopping the federal government from establishing a national do-not-call registry -- has failed. As they gathered here for their annual convention, those who sell mortgage services, credit cards and corrugated roofing over the phone say that if they do not change the way they do business immediately, they may follow door-to-door salesmen into commercial extinction. Unless the courts intervene, their crisis begins on Oct. 1, the day the do-not-call registry takes effect. From that day forward, telephone solicitors who call the 48 million phone numbers that Americans have voluntarily placed on the list so far will risk fines of up to $11,000 a violation. http://www.nytimes.com/2003/09/22/business/22TELE.html [Lisa Minter note: Remember, our latest, newest group name for reading NY Times articles is 'telecomdigest1' and the password is 'telecomdigest1' which we hope will remain available for at least a couple days. Lisa M.] ------------------------------ Date: Mon, 22 Sep 2003 00:33:43 -0400 From: Monty Solomon Subject: F.C.C. Chief Talks of Frustration and Surprise By STEPHEN LABATON WASHINGTON, Sept. 21 - With a hurricane bearing down on the nation's capital late last week, Michael K. Powell, the embattled chairman of the Federal Communications Commission, was in an expansive mood about the political storm that has engulfed him in recent months. In a wide-ranging telephone interview Thursday from his home in Northern Virginia, Mr. Powell mused inconclusively about how much longer he would be at the agency. Alternately frustrated, assertive and resigned, he acknowledged the sharp political skills of opponents who have waged a campaign to derail the new media ownership rules, which have become the most important regulations of Mr. Powell's tenure. But he also sounded surprised that he had become a focal point of the debate. http://www.nytimes.com/2003/09/22/business/media/22MIKE.html [Lisa Minter note: Remember, 'telecomdigest1' for name and password unless it gets bashed before some of you even get around to reading this issue. 'telecomdigest' and 'telecomdigest9' no longer work. Lisa M.] ------------------------------ From: Jay R. Ashworth Subject: Re: What Happened to 951 Area Code? Reply-To: jra@baylink.com Date: Mon, 22 Sep 2003 17:22:10 GMT Organization: RoadRunner - Central Florida Stanley settled back into the couch, and Linc Madison said to him: > on one of my pet peeves. The FCC has recommended that all states and > all telcos *permit* *optional* 1+10D on any call within the NANP, Citation, *please*? > ever to block 1+10D. Why does anyone need to be protected from > accidentally making a free local call?? The answer *I* got was that old switches weren't smart enough to notice it, and would route and rate as a toll call. > Once upon a time, in some places, dialing the 1+ would automatically > seize a toll trunk and generate a toll billing record, so you did > actually need to block 1+ on local calls to protect the consumer from > being charged for a call that should be free. However, in the 21st > century, the switches can figure out whether a call is local or toll > and both route and bill it accordingly. Apparently, not all of them. I'd blame the G-5, if I thought I could get away with it ... > In any case, if the INC has its way, no one will ever dial 1+ at all. Well, that's bad, too. > In California, though, you can't have 7D and 10D coexisting in the > same area, due to numbering conflicts. For example, there is a > 408-925-xxxx prefix not far from NPA 925. In fact, 408-925 is even a > local call to and from one or two rate centers in 925. Los Angeles is > a far bigger mess, with prefixes like 562-310 and 310-323 dotted all > over the place. Yeah. And some moron provisioned 813-727 and 727-813. Idiot. Stanley settled back into the couch, and Jeff Sutter said to him: > Linc Madison wrote in message > news:: >> In article , Jeff Sutter >> wrote: >> It's not rubbish. It's a fact. Seven-digit dialing in an overlay is >> ILLEGAL under U.S. federal law. Period. GET USED TO IT. > Nice try. Just because there is a bad law, and just because there are > arrogant industry pundits who promote abuse of that law, doesn't mean > that the good people of this state will "get used to it.". The law > can be ignored, changed, or undone, just as the rush to split/overlay > was squelched. And, Jeff, just because an engineering neccessity is uncomfortable for end users doesn't mean you can ignore it. Necessity means *necessity*. Cheers, Jay R. Ashworth jra@baylink.com Member of the Technical Staff Baylink The Suncoast Freenet The Things I Think Tampa Bay, Florida http://baylink.pitas.com +1 727 647 1274 God, unlike Anya, is fond of bunnies. -- Chelsea Christenson ------------------------------ From: shido Subject: Re: Small PBX For Home/Small Business Use; Where to Find? Date: Mon, 22 Sep 2003 13:33:50 -0400 Organization: Cogeco Cable We can definitely set you up with 3 lines out/in via rj-11 to the PSTN and yes, you can use softphones for your 15 extensions or you can use IP Phones such as the 7960, ata, budgetone, etc. The system comes complete with voicemail, conferencing, and we'll include $100 of free long distance at 2.9 cents/minute to US and Canada. $1375 Let me know what you're looking to do. Greg Merriweather The NuFone Network G.Merriweather@nufone.net 519-251-8225 x 3000 IM: shido6@msn.com Pete Harris wrote in message news:telecom22.657.2@telecom-digest.org: >> I need 3 incoming and outgoing lines to the phone company. >> I also need around 15 telephone sets in and around the house. > 15-room house? All ri-i-ight !!! > Or is this a frat house? > We've got a VOIP system with 6 lines and 16 exetnsions for $1450 > including handsets and gateway, but you need to contribute one PC per > phone -- OK for the frat house, maybe not so good for the 15-room > mansion. > - Pete > bg.com/qphone.html ------------------------------ From: Jay R. Ashworth Subject: Re: Email Spam and Habeas Warranty Mark? Reply-To: jra@baylink.com Date: Mon, 22 Sep 2003 18:16:44 GMT Organization: RoadRunner - Central Florida Stanley settled back into the couch, and Phil Earnhardt said to him: > habeas -spamnews group:news.admin.net-abuse.email > Spam is a very complicated issue; this newsgroup has many volunteers > and professionals who understand these better than anyone that I know > on the planet. If you hang out there (I don't ... yet), could you give a one sentence precis on the received wisdom concerning TarProxy? It seems a good solution to the problem, albeit that it would have to be capable of deployment on, oh, say the top 20 ISP's, and it's not yet ... Cheers, Jay R. Ashworth jra@baylink.com Member of the Technical Staff Baylink The Suncoast Freenet The Things I Think Tampa Bay, Florida http://baylink.pitas.com +1 727 647 1274 God, unlike Anya, is fond of bunnies. -- Chelsea Christenson ------------------------------ From: kamlet@panix.com (Arthur Kamlet) Subject: Re: New Password for NY Times Readers Date: 22 Sep 2003 14:38:51 -0400 Organization: PANIX -- Public Access Networks Corp. Reply-To: ArtKamlet@aol.REMOVE.com In article , TELECOM Digest Editor noted in response to Henry : > TELECOM Digest Editor wrote: > purposes. Here is the auto-ack letter I just now got back from NYT > thanking Lisa for signing up: > To: lisa_minter2001@yahoo.com > From: NYTimes.com > Reply-To: announce@inbox.nytimes.com > Subject: Welcome to The New York Times on the Web! > Date: Mon, 22 Sep 2003 13:00:41 -0400 (EDT) > Content-Length: 1862 > MIME-Version: 1.0 > Dear NYTimes.com Member, > Congratulations! You now have FREE access to the most trusted and > authoritative news source on the Internet. For your records, here's > your account information: > Member ID: telecomdigest1 > E-mail address: lisa_minter2001@yahoo.com > NYTimes.com publishes the same world-class journalism that appears in > The New York Times, updated continuously around the clock. Many of our > members make NYTimes.com their homepage, so that they feel informed > and tuned in all day. Follow instructions below to make NYTimes.com > your homepage: > Craig Calder > VP, Marketing > =============================== > Rationale: The next time I have to tell them I 'forgot' my password > and want it sent through email, no one except Lisa theoretically can > access her email box and fetch the 'forgotten password'. On the other > hand, if 'forgot my password' results in no such user as > lisa_minter2001@yahoo.com then I guess I should send a letter to Mr. > Calder, mentioned above. They claim they never heard of editor@telecom- > digest.org even though I have a letter here from them identical to the > one sent to Lisa earlier today. PAT] I have been getting dozens and dozens of junk emails from Postmasters who think I sent them email. These recent viruses forge your email address and let the recipient think the email is from the forged email address. Sigh ... Art Kamlet ArtKamlet @ AOL.com Columbus OH K2PZH ------------------------------ From: Andrew Bell Subject: Re: New Password for NY Times Readers Date: Mon, 22 Sep 2003 15:06:15 -0400 PAT, please withhold my email address if you publish this. I'm posting from work so I can't munge it myself. > TELECOM Digest Editor wrote: >> Some bozo went and changed the password for our group account when >> reading the NY Times without telling anyone *what* the >> 'new' password was. So I had to create a new account and password >> so it would work again. >> New York Times on line group user name is now telecomdigest9 and >> password is telecomdigest9. Note the only difference is the addition >> of '9' to the user name and password. The old user name is still >> active; the computer would not give it back to me. > It looks less like this was an accident, and more like 'enemy action'. > Because, I just now tried the 'revised' form suggested above and that > one doesn't work either. Or maybe the NYT noticed that the account was being used to bypass their registration process and disabled it to prevent such abuse from continuing. [TELECOM Digest Editor's Note: For shame, Andrew! Are you saying your home computer is like that, that you can screw up email addresses on letters you send out? Damn, that's the first time I ever heard of someone writing email and no one being able to figure out for sure who sent/said it. What will you guys think up next? All netters should be accomplished ventriloquists in their email. More to the point of "bypassing the NYT registration/spam process and prevent such 'abuse' from continuing." My heart really bleeds for my competitor, NYT, and Salzberger's other cronies in the profession. Some days he has such nonsense in his newspaper I suppose as a public service I should discourage any reading there at all. He is almost as bad as my other major competitor, Kay Graham and her *Newsweak* Magazine. Let's face it, the established print media all hate the Internet anyway, since it has long since demonstrated that they (print media) are no longer in charge of things as they were for god-knows how many years. I know, not only content as in the old days to buy *one* copy of the paper each day and give it to a *dozen* others to read when finished with it; now I do the same with the free version as well. PAT] ------------------------------ From: Jay R. Ashworth Subject: Re: Private Video Transmission Reply-To: jra@baylink.com Date: Mon, 22 Sep 2003 19:06:56 GMT Stanley settled back into the couch, and Dan McKeon said to him: > It's great to get a perspective from someone who understands > networking AND has law enforcement experience. In movies, they always > call on their "all knowing" computer pro in times like this. You have the mistaken impression that *anything* involving computers in a Follywood script is *ever* correct? > that most departments have a vague if any understanding of computers > is enlightening. Where does this computer guru police image come > from? Is that total Hollywood fabrication? Yeah, mostly. I concur with those who've suggested an 802.11b camera with encryption -- D-Link (I think it is) manufacture one with the wireless built in. Your protagonist could pick up the camera's signal with a Wireless Access Point with a directional antenna, and hook it (possibly surreptitiously) to someone's wired network -- or if s/he could find an open WLAN in some nearby business or home, use *that* (after sniffing the network with something like Kismet to determine the ESSID, and AirSnort to get a WEP key) and piggyback out to the Internet ... and then pick up the pix from there. If you want to get into that kind of detail, ask back; we'll diagram. Cheers, Jay R. Ashworth jra@baylink.com Member of the Technical Staff Baylink The Suncoast Freenet The Things I Think Tampa Bay, Florida http://baylink.pitas.com +1 727 647 1274 God, unlike Anya, is fond of bunnies. -- Chelsea Christenson ------------------------------ From: marktettnanger@hotmail.com (M. Tettnanger) Subject: Gadgets That Work With Caller ID and Telemarketers? Date: 22 Sep 2003 12:13:00 -0700 Organization: http://groups.google.com/ Are there any gadgets on the market that do a good job dealing with "Out Of Area" or "Not Available" calls? Obviously I am interested in screening telemarketers, and even though I've opted out on the national do-not-call list, I have doubts it will work (doesn't really apply to calls coming in on T1's from Bangalore). Ideally I'd like all calls to initially NOT ring, so as not to disturb us. "Out of Area" callers to get a recording stating that because their number is not available, we are unable to take a call. Then I'd like the call either hung up on or sent to voicemail. Other callers get passed through to our regular phones. I have a SNI Bouncer, a device which is no longer in production, however it appears that it was not playtested very well. About 3 rings pass before it does anything with the call (even if it gets the CID data right away), and it only allows 2 more rings before it discards to the answering machine (which sucks if you're in a large house). Since it was designed around 1996 it's obvious they couldn't take advantage of the voice technology that exists nowadays. How about something that works with PC voicemodems? I've got a few of those to play around with. Mark ------------------------------ From: Tony Pelliccio Subject: Re: Time Warner Sues Apartment Complex Over Wi-Fi Organization: The Ace Tomato Company Date: Mon, 22 Sep 2003 14:49:35 -0500 In article , NOSPAMchipg_98 @ATyahoo.TODELETE.com says: > As much as I hate to say this ... I have to agree with the cable > companies on this one. It is very different thing to sell the > service via WiFi than it is to give it away > "out-of-the-goodness-of-their-heart". By reselling, they are > clearly violating their terms-of-use. But the cable companies have an out -- it's a violation of their TOS -- disconnect the customer. Or start billing the customer for business services. But to file suit is ominous. In article , mcmicken@ix.netcom.com says: > On Sun, 21 Sep 2003 13:35:01 -0500, Tony Pelliccio > wrote: In my neighborhood it's more like 80/20 cable to dish. I suppose it varies from carrier to carrier. Cox is doing it's damnedest to alienate every customer in Rhode Island. Between the constant ads, the constant increases and the lousy service in some areas they take lots of flak. It's a pity AB Cable lost their funding -- would have been nice to have a wired competitor. But give it a couple years -- Verizon has been putting off copper plant upgrades until the FCC ruled on the fiber-optic issue. Now that they know they don't have to share it watch them start installing miles of it. ------------------------------ From: Jay R. Ashworth Subject: Re: Local Number Portability question Reply-To: jra@baylink.com Date: Mon, 22 Sep 2003 18:51:04 GMT Organization: RoadRunner - Central Florida Stanley settled back into the couch, and Michael A Desmon said to him: > I've been working on LNP for a couple years now and I can help with > some of this. > The LNP databases are maintained by Neustar. Most of the larger > service providers maintain their own databases that receive regular > updates from Neustar. Smaller companies, like the one I work for > contract with service providers like SBC or Illuminet for LNP database > dips. We also have dial-up access to Neustar's Midwest Region NPAC > for our porting orders, when we're porting numbers from a different > service provider. We also have to send a Local Service Request (LSR) > directly to the service provider, so that due dates, etc. can be > agreed upon. I also had to load all of our exchanges into the NPAC. [ ... ] > Hopefully that made sense. There is a little more to it than that and > if anyone is interested, I would be happy to add to it. I've been prospecting some of my Telecom-Guys on this recently, but this seems like a good opening. There are occasionally those times when those of us who are telecom geeks but otherwise mostly civilians (we don't work, that is, for Neustar or an LEC/IXC) find it useful to be able to tell who serves a destination DN -- when we're trying to report trouble for someone, for instance. 800 portability made that difficult for toll-free numbers, and LNP/WLNP is about to make it equally difficult for the much larger universe of *everyone's* numbers. Since our ability to figure it out in the past was sort of a side-effect (of the publishing of NANPA's databases, for example), I'm sure there isn't going to be any *official* solution to this; any suggestions on semi-official ways to do it? Or are we back to bribe-someone's-employee, and other pretext approaches better utilized by PI's who know their local cops personally. :-) Cheers, Jay R. Ashworth jra@baylink.com Member of the Technical Staff Baylink The Suncoast Freenet The Things I Think Tampa Bay, Florida http://baylink.pitas.com +1 727 647 1274 God, unlike Anya, is fond of bunnies. -- Chelsea Christenson ------------------------------ From: Jay R. Ashworth Subject: Re: SMS Standard Reply-To: jra@baylink.com Date: Mon, 22 Sep 2003 18:52:45 GMT Organization: RoadRunner - Central Florida Stanley settled back into the couch, and John R. Levine said to him: > Unless you plan to use a wireless modem that plugs into a cell phone > and somehow persuade your cell phone to send SMS commanded by the > modem, I'd use my modem to call my ISP and send e-mail to the e-mail > gateways that every wireless carrier has for its SMS users. You do > need to figure out which carrier a number belongs to in order to know > which gateway you want, e.g. 3115552368@mobile.mycingular.com for > Cingular, but you can probably collect the carrier name when you > collect the phone number. Does anyone have a comprehensive list of the domain names for the carriers? Cheers, Jay R. Ashworth jra@baylink.com Member of the Technical Staff Baylink The Suncoast Freenet The Things I Think Tampa Bay, Florida http://baylink.pitas.com +1 727 647 1274 God, unlike Anya, is fond of bunnies. -- Chelsea Christenson ------------------------------ TELECOM Digest is an electronic journal devoted mostly but not exclusively to telecommunications topics. It is circulated anywhere there is email, in addition to various telecom forums on a variety of networks such as Compuserve and America On Line, and other forums. It is also gatewayed to Usenet where it appears as the moderated newsgroup 'comp.dcom.telecom'. TELECOM Digest is a not-for-profit, mostly non-commercial educational service offered to the Internet by Patrick Townson. All the contents of the Digest are compilation-copyrighted. You may reprint articles in some other media on an occasional basis, but please attribute my work and that of the original author. Contact information: Patrick Townson/TELECOM Digest Post Office Box 50 Independence, KS 67301 Phone: 620-330-6774 Fax 1: 775-255-9970 Fax 2: 775-306-8390 Fax 3: 775-642-0603 Fax 4: 530-309-7234 Email: editor@telecom-digest.org Subscribe: telecom-subscribe@telecom-digest.org Unsubscribe:telecom-unsubscribe@telecom-digest.org This Digest is the oldest continuing e-journal about telecomm- unications on the Internet, having been founded in August, 1981 and published continuously since then. Our archives are available for your review/research. We believe we are the second oldest e-zine/ mailing list on the internet in any category! URL information: http://telecom-digest.org Anonymous FTP: mirror.lcs.mit.edu/telecom-archives/archives/ (or use our mirror site: ftp.epix.net/pub/telecom-archives) Email <==> FTP: telecom-archives@telecom-digest.org Send a simple, one line note to that automated address for a help file on how to use the automatic retrieval system for archives files. You can get desired files in email. ************************************************************************* * TELECOM Digest is partially funded by a grant from * * Judith Oppenheimer, President of ICB Inc. and purveyor of accurate * * 800 & Dot Com News, Intelligence, Analysis, and Consulting. * * http://ICBTollFree.com, http://1800TheExpert.com * * Views expressed herein should not be construed as representing * * views of Judith Oppenheimer or ICB Inc. * ************************************************************************* ICB Toll Free News. Contact information is not sold, rented or leased. One click a day feeds a person a meal. Go to http://www.thehungersite.com Copyright 2003 ICB, Inc. and TELECOM Digest. All rights reserved. Our attorney is Bill Levant, of Blue Bell, PA. In addition, gifts from Mike Sandman, Chicago's Telecom Expert have enabled me to replace some obsolete computer equipment and enter the 21st century sort of on schedule. His mail order telephone parts/supplies service based in the Chicago area has been widely recognized by Digest readers as a reliable and very inexpensive source of telecom-related equipment. Please request a free catalog today at http://www.sandman.com --------------------------------------------------------------- A new sponsor for the Digest is Teledeal. They offer Directory Assistance (411) Savings. TeleDeal Inc. specializes in helping businesses and organizations save over 80% on live operator directory assistance calls. Rates are as low as $.27/411 call. TeleDeal also offers a premium real-time 411 Internet database service. Visit http://www.1800teledeal.com or call 1-800-TELEDEAL The Directory Assistance Experts * We Know 411 TeleDeal Inc. George Jones, President ---------------------------------------------------------------- Finally, the Digest is funded by gifts from generous readers such as yourself who provide funding in amounts deemed appropriate. Your help is important and appreciated. A suggested donation of twenty dollars per year per reader is considered appropriate. See our address above. Please make at least a single donation to cover the cost of processing your name to the mailing list. All opinions expressed herein are deemed to be those of the author. Any organizations listed are for identification purposes only and messages should not be considered any official expression by the organization. End of TELECOM Digest V22 #661 ****************************** From editor@telecom-digest.org Tue Sep 23 01:56:58 2003 Received: (from ptownson@localhost) by massis.lcs.mit.edu (8.11.6p2/8.11.3) id h8N5uv410108; Tue, 23 Sep 2003 01:56:58 -0400 (EDT) Date: Tue, 23 Sep 2003 01:56:58 -0400 (EDT) From: editor@telecom-digest.org Message-Id: <200309230556.h8N5uv410108@massis.lcs.mit.edu> X-Authentication-Warning: massis.lcs.mit.edu: ptownson set sender to editor@telecom-digest.org using -f To: ptownson Approved: patsnewlist Subject: TELECOM Digest V22 #662 TELECOM Digest Tue, 23 Sep 2003 01:57:00 EDT Volume 22 : Issue 662 Inside This Issue: Editor: Patrick A. Townson and: Lisa Minter Re: Time Warner Sues Apartment Complex Over Wi-Fi (Dana) Re: Time Warner Sues Apartment Complex Over Wi-Fi (Dave Phelps) Re: Private Video Transmission (Tony Pelliccio) Re: Hands Free, Wirelessly, Without Bluetooth (SELLCOM Tech support) Re: Gadgets That Work With Caller ID and Telemarketers? (SELLCOM Tech) Re: Gadgets That Work With Caller ID and Telemarketers? (Group Special) Re: What Happened to 951 Area Code? (Michael D. Sullivan) Re: Small PBX For Home/Small Business Use; Where to Find? (Hank Karl) Re: SMS Standard (Group Special Mobile) Re: Verizon Has "811-xxxx"-Like Problem? (John David Galt) Re: Email Spam and Habeas Warranty Mark? (Phil Earnhardt) NYT Account (Claude Ortega) Re: Call Centers Struggle in Face of Do-Not-Call Rules (Dana) Re: Isabel and East Coast Conditions (Michael D. Sullivan) All contents here are copyrighted by Patrick Townson and the individual writers/correspondents. Articles may be used in other journals or newsgroups, provided the writer's name and the Digest are included in the fair use quote. By using -any name or email address- included herein for -any- reason other than responding to an article herein, you agree to pay a hundred dollars to the recipients of the email. WE DO NOT PERMIT NAME/EMAIL ADDRESS HARVESTING FROM THIS JOURNAL. 'SALTED' EMAIL ADDRESSES APPEAR HEREIN TO VERIFY THIS. YOU GET SUED IN SMALL CLAIMS COURT IF YOU GET CAUGHT SPAMMING OR SENDING VIRUSES. DON'T DO IT. See the bottom of this issue for subscription and archive details and the name of our lawyer; other stuff of interest. ---------------------------------------------------------------------- From: Dana Subject: Re: Time Warner Sues Apartment Complex Over Wi-Fi Date: Mon, 22 Sep 2003 16:33:10 -0800 Organization: Posted via Supernews, http://www.supernews.com Tony Pelliccio wrote in message news:telecom22.659.7@telecom-digest.org: > In article , > ronchapman@wideopenwest.com says: >> By Matt Hines >> Staff Writer, CNET News.com >> Time Warner Cable filed a lawsuit charging a New York apartment >> complex and its wireless Internet provider with illegally reselling >> its high-speed Road Runner service over a wireless network. >> The suit, filed Monday in the Southern district of New York, claims >> that Internet service provider iNYC Wireless and London Terrace >> Towers, a residential apartment complex, have been illegally pirating >> and marketing Road Runner through a Wi-Fi network. >> http://news.com.com/2100-7351_3-5077922.html > I do hope Time Warner loses this lawsuit. Should they win it sets bad > precedent for those using NAT routers, and those who've opened up > their WiFi service unknowingly or out of the goodness of their hearts. Why do you support stealing service? ------------------------------ From: Dave Phelps Subject: Re: Time Warner Sues Apartment Complex Over Wi-Fi Date: Tue, 23 Sep 2003 00:05:39 -0500 Organization: www.tippenring.com In article , NOSPAMchipg_98@ATyahoo.TODELETE.com says: > As much as I hate to say this ... I have to agree with the cable > companies on this one. It is very different thing to sell the service > via WiFi than it is to give it away "out-of-the-goodness-of-their-heart". > By reselling, they are clearly violating their terms-of-use. Here's a different perspective. Let's say I buy a 768kbps connection to the cable company. The cable company is guaranteeing that they will provide me with 768kbps consistently. I would assume that I am allowed to use that 768kbps all of the time. It's no different than if I had a T1. Now, why exactly can't I use that 768kbps by reselling my unused portion and recoup some costs? Given, I understand the cable company (as does every ISP) operates based on known oversubscription ratios, and if a lot of people started reselling their bandwidth, then they would have to start raising prices to cover the cost of expanded pipes to handle the load. So in that case, it's in my best interest not to resell my unused bandwidth, but it is not my right to prevent someone else from doing so. Ultimately what will happen, to prevent the non-resellers from having to foot the bill for the resellers, is that the cable companies will start charging based on usage, rather than flat-rate. I certainly don't want that, because although I don't resell, I'm probably on the high end of the bandwidth usage scale (not nearly as high as p2p users though). Dave Phelps DD Networks www.ddnets.com deadspam=tippenring ------------------------------ From: Tony Pelliccio Subject: Re: Private Video Transmission Organization: The Ace Tomato and Cement Company Date: Mon, 22 Sep 2003 17:33:41 -0500 In article , jra@dorothy.baylink.com says: > Stanley settled back into the couch, and Dan McKeon > said to him: >> It's great to get a perspective from someone who understands >> networking AND has law enforcement experience. In movies, they always >> call on their "all knowing" computer pro in times like this. > You have the mistaken impression that *anything* involving computers > in a Follywood script is *ever* correct? > Yes, I found it a bit humorous myself. Hollywood is run by committee, that means that you'll never get one person who has a clue making the decisions. >> that most departments have a vague if any understanding of computers >> is enlightening. Where does this computer guru police image come >> from? Is that total Hollywood fabrication? > Yeah, mostly. Well -- it does work out into the field somewhat. But it's often poorly implemented. I'll give you a perfect example: The Providence Police Department in Rhode Island started off going in the direction of a custom solution, got wined and dined into buying a $4 million system called HTE that doesn't work for them (Takes on average, 45 minutes to enter incident data.) and now they're searching for a new I.T. director. Word is that the city CIO thinks IMC is the bomb -- problem is that IMC won't scale to a department the size of Providence, the states largest. And the software prices for IMC aren't modest in the least, and maintenance fees are a significant expense for IMC. So once again they'll end up with a system that doesn't work, and an I.T. director who is simply a puppet for the city CIO. Bad, bad, bad. I'll give you another example. Having worked at the AG's office it was interesting when the state started requiring background checks on anyone who worked in a primary or secondary school. My unit had to craft a tracking database rather quickly - and roll it out to each department. Problem was, most departments didn't have the first idea whether they had MS Access or not, nor did they even have an email address for the AFIS results to be transmitted back to. But while I was there we did get everyone up and running on AFIS (Automated Fingerprint Identification System) for both ten-print and latent prints. But all in all, law enforcement I.T. is not where it should be. The guy handling forensic investigations of computer gear was a nice enough guy, but didn't understand computers. I often ended up helping him out as much as I could. > Jay R. Ashworth jra@baylink.com > Member of the Technical Staff Baylink > The Suncoast Freenet The Things I Think > Tampa Bay, Florida http://baylink.pitas.com +1 727 647 1274 Suncoast Freenet? I'm loosely affiliated with the tech crew on the Ocean State Free Net. ------------------------------ From: SELLCOM Tech support Subject: Re: Hands Free, Wirelessly, Without Bluetooth Date: Mon, 22 Sep 2003 20:20:08 -0400 Organization: www.sellcom.com Reply-To: support@sellcom.com Eric Friedebach posted on that vast internet thingie: > But to use a wireless headset in most cases, you first need a phone > that supports Bluetooth -- and many phones don't. Or you need to buy a > new phone that does, which means going to the trouble of moving all > your contacts and any other information you've stored on your current > phone to a new one. I thought the Plantronics M1500 already worked genericly? Did I miss something? It uses Bluetooth technology but I don't remember seeing any compatibility questions? Steve at SELLCOM http://www.sellcom.com Discount multihandset cordless phones by Siemens, AT&T, Panasonic Vtech 5.8Ghz EnGenius NEW EP490 4line (the longest range), Panasonic cordless, TMC ET4000 OnHoldPlus, WatchGuard firewall, Okidata, Polycom! Brick wall "non MOV" surge protection. Minuteman UPS If you sit at a desk www.ergochair.biz you owe it to yourself. ------------------------------ From: SELLCOM Tech support Subject: Re: Gadgets That Work With Caller ID and Telemarketers? Date: Mon, 22 Sep 2003 20:27:21 -0400 Organization: www.sellcom.com Reply-To: support@sellcom.com marktettnanger@hotmail.com (M. Tettnanger) posted on that vast internet thingie: > Ideally I'd like all calls to initially NOT ring, so as not to disturb > us. "Out of Area" callers to get a recording stating that because > their number is not available, we are unable to take a call. Then I'd > like the call either hung up on or sent to voicemail. Other callers > get passed through to our regular phones. That is one that really might bite you if a friend or relative had an emergency situation etc. (another STRONG inditement against telemarketers when you think about it) I believe there are devices that have the caller announce themselves and then you have the option of picking up or not (we don't sell anything like that here at SELLCOM, but I have called places like that). Many just use the answer machine to screen calls but by then you have been "disturbed". Believe it or not I have had telemarketers call here and from talking with them one would think that no one had yet cared enough about them as individuals to take the time to explain to them that telemarketers are the scum of the Earth. Don't people care about others anymore? Steve at SELLCOM http://www.sellcom.com Discount multihandset cordless phones by Siemens, AT&T, Panasonic Vtech 5.8Ghz EnGenius NEW EP490 4line (the longest range), Panasonic cordless, TMC ET4000 OnHoldPlus, WatchGuard firewall, Okidata, Polycom! Brick wall "non MOV" surge protection. Minuteman UPS If you sit at a desk www.ergochair.biz you owe it to yourself. ------------------------------ From: Group Special Mobile Subject: Re: Gadgets That Work With Caller ID and Telemarketers? Date: Mon, 22 Sep 2003 21:30:30 -0700 Organization: Posted via Supernews, http://www.supernews.com Reply-To: look@signature_for_reply_instructions On 22 Sep 2003 12:13:00 -0700, marktettnanger@hotmail.com (M. Tettnanger) wrote: > Are there any gadgets on the market that do a good job dealing with > "Out Of Area" or "Not Available" calls? Obviously I am interested in > screening telemarketers, and even though I've opted out on the > national do-not-call list, I have doubts it will work (doesn't really > apply to calls coming in on T1's from Bangalore). > Ideally I'd like all calls to initially NOT ring, so as not to disturb > us. "Out of Area" callers to get a recording stating that because > their number is not available, we are unable to take a call. Then I'd > like the call either hung up on or sent to voicemail. Other callers > get passed through to our regular phones. The call screening service from the telco would do that. The service makes an announcement that if you are a solicitor please hang up. If you are a genuine caller it will ask you to press 1 to be connected. To send an email reply send to GSMthemobilestandard (@) yahoo.com ------------------------------ From: Michael D. Sullivan Subject: Re: What Happened to 951 Area Code? Date: Tue, 23 Sep 2003 03:58:30 GMT On Sun, 21 Sep 2003 22:24:49 GMT, Paul Robinson posted the following to comp.dcom.telecom: > And based on recent rulings of the Supreme Court, it is likely that > this forced attempt to impose an interstate process upon what is > clearly an intrastate transaction might very well be ruled > unconstitutional if it were challenged. A dialed call in the same > area code is an intrastate call and a state could conceivably require > 7d dialing for intra-area code calls even if there were an overlay. > Where there is a competent state authority able to regulate intrastate > transactions a federal agency cannot override their rulings unless > there is a significant detrimental effect on interstate commerce, an > argument that cannot seriously be made with respect to a purely > intrastate transaction of what is basically a minor nature. The assignment of area codes is not an intrastate process at all. It is a national and international process. Area codes are part of the North American Numbering Plan, which provides a system for assignment of unique telephone numbers to destinations in the United States (and its territories, commonwealths, and possessions, such as the USVI, Puerto Rico, Guam, American Samoa, and the Northern Marianas), Canada, Mexico, and numerous Caribbean nations and quasi-nations. California can't unilaterally make numbering decisions, because California is part of the international institution of the NANP. In the 1996 Telecom Act, Congress added section 251(e) to the Communications Act, which granted the FCC exclusive jurisdiction over administration of the U.S. part of the NANP, but allowed the FCC to delegate authority to the states. When California engages in a decision whether to order an area code split or overlay, and when and how to do so, it is acting under delegated federal authority, and is *not* acting pursuant to its sovereign authority over intrastate matters. California's delegation of power from the FCC comes with very specific rules and limits. One of those rules is that states must require 10-digit dialing when implementing area code overlays. California has no say in the matter, unless it asks for, and receives, an FCC waiver of the rule. It has never received such a waiver. > The Supreme Court has already ruled that "effect on interstate > commerce" does not give the federal government jurisdiction over > possession of firearms near schools, and in my opinion the dialing of > local intrastate calls clearly doesn't even have as faint a nexus to > federal jurisdiction as the overturned gun ban did. The law containing firearms-near-schools ban didn't provide any nexus to interstate commerce, nor did its legislative history. The Supreme Court declined to dream one up (although it wouldn't have been hard). Congress simply didn't enact the ban as part of a program of regulating interstate firearms shipments, sales, ownership eligibility, etc. It was purely intrastate regulation of firearms without any asserted nexus to interstate commerce and was therefore not supportable as an exercise of the interstate commerce clause of the Constitution. The regulation of how telephone numbers are assigned and dialed throughout the country, on the other hand, is clearly interstate in nature, as part of the regulation of the NANP. The numbers at issue would be dialable from other states and countries, and the numbers at issue would have access to interstate interexchange carriers for making interstate and international calls. The LECs, CLECs, and wireless carriers who would be assigning numbers from new area codes in California to their customers are not purely intrastate carriers but also providers of interstate access and, in some cases, interstate service. A state-imposed rule that benefits some of these entities (by letting their customers dial most local calls with 7 digits) and penalizes others (by making their customers dial most local calls with 10 (or, 1+10) digits skews competition among such carriers, with economic effects that go well beyond California's borders -- and thus interferes with the national policy of competition that is one of the very few things that is a *clear* and *unambiguous* intention of Congress in the 1996 Telecom Act. Michael D. Sullivan Bethesda, MD, USA (delete NOSPAM from address to mail me) ------------------------------ From: Hank Karl Subject: Re: Small PBX For Home/Small Business Use; Where to Find? Date: Mon, 22 Sep 2003 23:59:10 -0400 Organization: NETPLEX Internet Services - http://www.ntplx.net/ If you want to spend that much, check out Talkswitch http://www.talkswitch.com/ It can use your existing analog phones and wiring. On Mon, 22 Sep 2003 13:33:50 -0400, shido wrote: > We can definitely set you up with 3 lines out/in via rj-11 to the PSTN > and yes, you can use softphones for your 15 extensions or you can use > IP Phones such as the 7960, ata, budgetone, etc. The system comes > complete with voicemail, conferencing, and we'll include $100 of free > long distance at 2.9 cents/minute to US and Canada. > $1375 > Let me know what you're looking to do. > Greg Merriweather > The NuFone Network > G.Merriweather@nufone.net > 519-251-8225 x 3000 > IM: shido6@msn.com > Pete Harris wrote in message > news:telecom22.657.2@telecom-digest.org: >>> I need 3 incoming and outgoing lines to the phone company. >>> I also need around 15 telephone sets in and around the house. >> 15-room house? All ri-i-ight !!! >> Or is this a frat house? >> We've got a VOIP system with 6 lines and 16 exetnsions for $1450 >> including handsets and gateway, but you need to contribute one PC per >> phone -- OK for the frat house, maybe not so good for the 15-room >> mansion. >> - Pete >> bg.com/qphone.html ------------------------------ From: Group Special Mobile Subject: Re: SMS Standard Date: Mon, 22 Sep 2003 21:27:42 -0700 Organization: Posted via Supernews, http://www.supernews.com Reply-To: look@signature_for_reply_instructions On Mon, 22 Sep 2003 18:52:45 GMT, Jay R. Ashworth wrote: > Stanley settled back into the couch, and John R. Levine > said to him: >> Unless you plan to use a wireless modem that plugs into a cell phone >> and somehow persuade your cell phone to send SMS commanded by the >> modem, I'd use my modem to call my ISP and send e-mail to the e-mail >> gateways that every wireless carrier has for its SMS users. You do >> need to figure out which carrier a number belongs to in order to know >> which gateway you want, e.g. 3115552368@mobile.mycingular.com for >> Cingular, but you can probably collect the carrier name when you >> collect the phone number. > Does anyone have a comprehensive list of the domain names for the > carriers? Not comprehensive: T-Mobile: 10digits@tmomail.net Verizon: 10digits@vtext.com ATTWS: 10digits@mobile.att.net Sprint PCS: 10digits@messaging.sprintpcs.com Nextel: 10digits@page.nextel.com Fido: 10digits@fido.ca Cingular: 10digits@mobile.mycingular.com Of course this may be all messed up when number portability starts for mobile numbers in November. To send an email reply send to GSMthemobilestandard (@) yahoo.com ------------------------------ From: John David Galt Subject: Re: Verizon Has "811-xxxx"-Like Problem? Date: Mon, 22 Sep 2003 21:40:37 -0700 Organization: Diogenes the Cynic Hot-Tubbing Society John C. Fowler wrote: > Generally the best way to deal with brain-dead 800 number systems is > not to play their game. Don't punch in your telephone number. > Pretend like you're one of those holdouts still using a rotary-dial > phone. Hopefully, after a timeout (and maybe a little extra begging > to please, please, please punch in your phone number), you will > eventually get a human, who can either help you or give you a better > phone number to dial. > If that doesn't work, you can also check out the company's website. > Some companies have a way to submit customer service requests > electronically. Of course, then you have to give them your E-mail > address, so go create a junk E-mail account if you have any concerns > about that. Then there's SBC, where both methods fail. The menu system can't be bypassed, and their web site refuses connections from standard browsers (Netscape 4.7). I've written them snail mail about it, but expect to be ignored just like the last time. ------------------------------ From: Phil Earnhardt Subject: Re: Email Spam and Habeas Warranty Mark? Date: Mon, 22 Sep 2003 23:12:31 -0600 On 17 Sep 2003 22:21:08 -0400, johnl@iecc.com (John R. Levine) wrote: >> Do you think that Habeas should be entitled to have exclusivity to >> the entire "watermark" concept for this use in e-mail? > I dunno. Have you stopped beating your wife? John: That's a singularly poor analogy. While wife-beating is definitely illegal, lawyers doing lawyering is certainly a legal (if not always ethical) activity. Habeas is persuing a patent on the idea of copyrighting the publication of a poem in the e-mail header. Their FAQ says they're doing this to keep someone else from patenting the idea. What the FAQ doesn't say is if they would open that patent up to other vendors of such services (and, if they will, how much they would charge such vendors for the privilege). Whether you think so or not, it's perfectly appropriately to ask the question. And I, for one, am wondering why they don't clearly spell out their intents in their FAQ. Why you think that the question is a tautology is a bit beyond me. Please explain yourself. > Regards, > John Levine --phil ------------------------------ Date: Mon, 22 Sep 2003 14:25:59 -0600 From: Claude Ortega Subject: NYT Account Hello Pat, I just went thru the process of setting up an account on the NYT site, and then went into the 'member services' page. I see that it is possible to change the password AND the email address for the account. So the party that might be playing games is probabily doing just that. I don't know if the NYT people keep any kind of logs, but you might ask them. Best regards from Bolingbrook, Il. Claude Ortega ( Uchi retired ) cjortega10@onebox.com 2003-09-22 ------------------------------ From: Dana Subject: Re: Call Centers Struggle in Face of Do-Not-Call Rules Date: Mon, 22 Sep 2003 16:30:55 -0800 Organization: Posted via Supernews, http://www.supernews.com Monty Solomon wrote in message news:telecom22.661.3@telecom-digest.org: > By MATT RICHTEL > PHOENIX, Sept. 16 - The largest telemarketers are desperately > searching for a Plan B, now that Plan A -- stopping the federal > government from establishing a national do-not-call registry -- has > failed. > As they gathered here for their annual convention, those who sell > mortgage services, credit cards and corrugated roofing over the phone > say that if they do not change the way they do business immediately, > they may follow door-to-door salesmen into commercial extinction. Good. We do not need the telemarketers anyway. Besides they already have a plan b, and that is all the spam we now have. > Unless the courts intervene, their crisis begins on Oct. 1, the day > the do-not-call registry takes effect. From that day forward, > telephone solicitors who call the 48 million phone numbers that > Americans have voluntarily placed on the list so far will risk fines > of up to $11,000 a violation. > http://www.nytimes.com/2003/09/22/business/22TELE.html > [Lisa Minter note: Remember, our latest, newest group name for reading > NY Times articles is 'telecomdigest1' and the password is 'telecomdigest1' > which we hope will remain available for at least a couple days. > Lisa M.] ------------------------------ From: Michael D. Sullivan Subject: Re: Isabel and East Coast Conditions Date: Tue, 23 Sep 2003 03:21:38 GMT On Sun, 21 Sep 2003 22:41:46 -0500, Tony Pelliccio posted the following to comp.dcom.telecom: > Oh -- and how expensive was IMTS? Remember that? Sure, Ma Bell might > have dreamed up cellular in the first place, but they priced it out of > reach for most. Whether this is a good thing or bad thing, I'm not > sure. I think IMTS (pre-cellular trunked mobile (i.e., vehicular) telephone service) was about $50-100/month, plus airtime -- after you've paid a few thou for the unsubsidized phone, transmitter box in the trunk, and antenna drilled into your car. Cellular service started out at about $100/month plus airtime and unsubsidized $2K phone. When the second carriers (the "nonwirelines") started coming on line, quickly adopting the national name "Cellular One," handsets soon got subsidized and rates plummeted. > But many things would NOT have happened were Bell left alone. We'd > have picture phones but no high speed data or wireless. How good could > that have been? If you really wanted high speed data, you could always upgrade from a 300 bps rented modem to a 1200 bps rented modem. Oh, you were talking about really high-speed data, like 1.544 Mbps (T-1), known back then as a supergroup? Only the defense department and IBM needed those, you didn't. If you needed lots of supergroups, you got a special deal called Telpak, which let you pay a small fraction of what the ordinary leaser of a single supergroup paid -- which was thousands of dollars per month plus mileage charges. Ma knew you didn't really need one of those. After all, there wasn't really much demand for them, given that the nation only needed a few thousand computers. Michael D. Sullivan Bethesda, MD, USA (delete NOSPAM from address to mail me) ------------------------------ TELECOM Digest is an electronic journal devoted mostly but not exclusively to telecommunications topics. It is circulated anywhere there is email, in addition to various telecom forums on a variety of networks such as Compuserve and America On Line, and other forums. It is also gatewayed to Usenet where it appears as the moderated newsgroup 'comp.dcom.telecom'. TELECOM Digest is a not-for-profit, mostly non-commercial educational service offered to the Internet by Patrick Townson. All the contents of the Digest are compilation-copyrighted. You may reprint articles in some other media on an occasional basis, but please attribute my work and that of the original author. Contact information: Patrick Townson/TELECOM Digest Post Office Box 50 Independence, KS 67301 Phone: 620-330-6774 Fax 1: 775-255-9970 Fax 2: 775-306-8390 Fax 3: 775-642-0603 Fax 4: 530-309-7234 Email: editor@telecom-digest.org Subscribe: telecom-subscribe@telecom-digest.org Unsubscribe:telecom-unsubscribe@telecom-digest.org This Digest is the oldest continuing e-journal about telecomm- unications on the Internet, having been founded in August, 1981 and published continuously since then. Our archives are available for your review/research. We believe we are the second oldest e-zine/ mailing list on the internet in any category! URL information: http://telecom-digest.org Anonymous FTP: mirror.lcs.mit.edu/telecom-archives/archives/ (or use our mirror site: ftp.epix.net/pub/telecom-archives) Email <==> FTP: telecom-archives@telecom-digest.org Send a simple, one line note to that automated address for a help file on how to use the automatic retrieval system for archives files. You can get desired files in email. ************************************************************************* * TELECOM Digest is partially funded by a grant from * * Judith Oppenheimer, President of ICB Inc. and purveyor of accurate * * 800 & Dot Com News, Intelligence, Analysis, and Consulting. * * http://ICBTollFree.com, http://1800TheExpert.com * * Views expressed herein should not be construed as representing * * views of Judith Oppenheimer or ICB Inc. * ************************************************************************* ICB Toll Free News. Contact information is not sold, rented or leased. One click a day feeds a person a meal. Go to http://www.thehungersite.com Copyright 2003 ICB, Inc. and TELECOM Digest. All rights reserved. Our attorney is Bill Levant, of Blue Bell, PA. In addition, gifts from Mike Sandman, Chicago's Telecom Expert have enabled me to replace some obsolete computer equipment and enter the 21st century sort of on schedule. His mail order telephone parts/supplies service based in the Chicago area has been widely recognized by Digest readers as a reliable and very inexpensive source of telecom-related equipment. Please request a free catalog today at http://www.sandman.com --------------------------------------------------------------- A new sponsor for the Digest is Teledeal. They offer Directory Assistance (411) Savings. TeleDeal Inc. specializes in helping businesses and organizations save over 80% on live operator directory assistance calls. Rates are as low as $.27/411 call. TeleDeal also offers a premium real-time 411 Internet database service. Visit http://www.1800teledeal.com or call 1-800-TELEDEAL The Directory Assistance Experts * We Know 411 TeleDeal Inc. George Jones, President ---------------------------------------------------------------- Finally, the Digest is funded by gifts from generous readers such as yourself who provide funding in amounts deemed appropriate. Your help is important and appreciated. A suggested donation of twenty dollars per year per reader is considered appropriate. See our address above. Please make at least a single donation to cover the cost of processing your name to the mailing list. All opinions expressed herein are deemed to be those of the author. Any organizations listed are for identification purposes only and messages should not be considered any official expression by the organization. End of TELECOM Digest V22 #662 ****************************** From editor@telecom-digest.org Tue Sep 23 22:23:52 2003 Received: (from ptownson@localhost) by massis.lcs.mit.edu (8.11.6p2/8.11.3) id h8O2Nqi18524; Tue, 23 Sep 2003 22:23:52 -0400 (EDT) Date: Tue, 23 Sep 2003 22:23:52 -0400 (EDT) From: editor@telecom-digest.org Message-Id: <200309240223.h8O2Nqi18524@massis.lcs.mit.edu> X-Authentication-Warning: massis.lcs.mit.edu: ptownson set sender to editor@telecom-digest.org using -f To: ptownson Approved: patsnewlist Subject: TELECOM Digest V22 #663 TELECOM Digest Tue, 23 Sep 2003 22:24:00 EDT Volume 22 : Issue 663 Inside This Issue: Editor: Patrick A. Townson and: Lisa Minter Re: What Happened to 951 Area Code? (The Green Troll) Verizon "Repair" (Reva LaVine) Norstar CICS Telephone System With CallPilot Voicemail (MichaelDG) Owner's Manual for Philips Evalia TD-5600 (kpix) Re: Gadgets That Work With Caller ID and Telemarketers? (Ray Normandeau) DID, DDI, ANI and CallerID (PBX Maniac) Re: Time Warner Sues Apartment Complex Over Wi-Fi (Tony Pellicci) Re: Liability Recording (Foxhat) ISDN Package 2 From Dialogic (Dave) 25 Pair Standard UK Voice Cable Colour Code? (Use.Netuser.de) Caller ID vs. *69 (Ken) Re: New Password for NT Times Readers (Fritz Whittington) Re: E911 Requirements (SayNoToCrossposters) Long-Distance Trouble On The Line (Eric Friedebach) Last Laugh! The "Traditional" (Gag/Cough/Choke) Print Media (Anonymous) All contents here are copyrighted by Patrick Townson and the individual writers/correspondents. Articles may be used in other journals or newsgroups, provided the writer's name and the Digest are included in the fair use quote. By using -any name or email address- included herein for -any- reason other than responding to an article herein, you agree to pay a hundred dollars to the recipients of the email. WE DO NOT PERMIT NAME/EMAIL ADDRESS HARVESTING FROM THIS JOURNAL. 'SALTED' EMAIL ADDRESSES APPEAR HEREIN TO VERIFY THIS. YOU GET SUED IN SMALL CLAIMS COURT IF YOU GET CAUGHT SPAMMING OR SENDING VIRUSES. DON'T DO IT. See the bottom of this issue for subscription and archive details and the name of our lawyer; other stuff of interest. ---------------------------------------------------------------------- From: aloe@rev.net (The Green Troll) Subject: Re: What Happened to 951 Area Code? Date: 22 Sep 2003 23:14:49 -0700 Organization: http://groups.google.com/ Linc Madison wrote in message news:: > There are only about 40 NPAs outside the U.S., How many used to be in Mexico? > and the 17 of those that are not in Canada represent a one-time- > only expenditure of numbering resources. None of those 17 area codes > is projected to exhaust in the foreseeable future. They ought to be changed, though. Because they look like US numbers, some are used to cheat callers out of money. There's no easy way to spot them. Maybe they should all start the same way. Or maybe they should require overseas dialing. -- Buster ------------------------------ From: Reva LaVine Subject: Verizon "Repair" Date: Tue, 23 Sep 2003 03:55:37 -0400 I ordered Verizon repair, waited a week, stayed home on designated day, and then NO SHOW! Their business office had NO APOLOGY/NO EXPLANATION. I guess that's why rates have gone UP. My internet doesn't work properly as a result of their generically shitty "service" but last time they came, "there was nothing wrong". This time I need the same improvement but I think the best remedy is to get rid of the phone. ------------------------------ From: wdltel@hotmail.com (MichaelDG) Subject: Norstar CICS Telephone System With CallPilot Voicemail Date: 23 Sep 2003 04:56:30 -0700 Organization: http://groups.google.com/ I am needing assistance in resolving a problem with the NIGHT RINGING SERVICE for a Norstar CICS system. When the night service is activated throught FEATURE 871 all calls will ring the telephone sets as programmed in the night service. Problem occurs after three rings (the number of rings is set at three purposely) if the call goes unanswered, the call is routed to the first available extension with voicemail. This not a desired action, the call should be routed to the Voicemail auto attendant for further routing depending on the callers choices in the attendant. If the extension for the voice mail is added to the night service programming (even though the voice mail extension is the last one in the system) it receives all the calls ofter the first ring. This never gives me the chance to answer the call. Does anyone know a programing sequence or workaround to this issue? Thanks MichaelDG [Lisa Minter note: Make the 'first available extension' following the three ring sequence be the voice mail extension. Then you should get three rings at various locations, one or two more rings at the voice mail extension, then voicemail, essentially after 4 or 5 rings. Lisa M.] ------------------------------ From: pixturesk@hotmail.com (kpix) Subject: Owner's Manual for Philips Evalia TD-5600 Date: 23 Sep 2003 07:10:27 -0700 Organization: http://groups.google.com/ This might be a little "off the wall" but I am looking for the owner's manual for the Philips Evalia TD-5600 Cordless Telephone/Digital Answering Machine Combo. Philips no longer keeps this info. The person from whom I got the unit has no manual. The phone works great. I cannot figure out the digital answering machine functions. Very frustrating!!! Thanks for any assistance. My email is: kpixturesk@aol.com. ------------------------------ From: rayta@msn.com (Ray Normandeau) Subject: Re: Gadgets That Work With Caller ID and Telemarketers? Date: 23 Sep 2003 07:51:30 -0700 Organization: http://groups.google.com/ Group Special Mobile wrote in message news:: > On 22 Sep 2003 12:13:00 -0700, marktettnanger@hotmail.com (M. > Tettnanger) wrote: > The call screening service from the telco would do that. The service > makes an announcement that if you are a solicitor please hang up. If > you are a genuine caller it will ask you to press 1 to be connected. I bought a gadget like that to use at home, it is called Screen Machine see http://www.spectrumresearchinc.com/ I bought three of them at Target when they were clearing them out. Three numbers can be pressed to generate distinctive ring at my end for different family members. ------------------------------ From: pbxmaniac2003@yahoo.com (PBX Maniac) Subject: DID, DDI, ANI and CallerID Date: 23 Sep 2003 08:52:24 -0700 Organization: http://groups.google.com/ Hello, Could someone explain to me what's the difference between DID, DDI, ANI and CallerID? Thanks PBX Maniac ------------------------------ From: Tony Pellicci Subject: Re: Time Warner Sues Apartment Complex Over Wi-Fi Organization: The Ace Tomato and Cement Company Date: Tue, 23 Sep 2003 12:18:02 -0500 In article , dana.raffaniello@gci.net says: > Tony Pelliccio wrote in message > news:telecom22.659.7@telecom-digest.org: >> In article , >> ronchapman@wideopenwest.com says: >>> By Matt Hines >>> Staff Writer, CNET News.com >>> Time Warner Cable filed a lawsuit charging a New York apartment >>> complex and its wireless Internet provider with illegally reselling >>> its high-speed Road Runner service over a wireless network. >>> The suit, filed Monday in the Southern district of New York, claims >>> that Internet service provider iNYC Wireless and London Terrace >>> Towers, a residential apartment complex, have been illegally pirating >>> and marketing Road Runner through a Wi-Fi network. >>> http://news.com.com/2100-7351_3-5077922.html >> I do hope Time Warner loses this lawsuit. Should they win it sets bad >> precedent for those using NAT routers, and those who've opened up >> their WiFi service unknowingly or out of the goodness of their hearts. > Why do you support stealing service? Because TW in it's TOS probably has an out that says if they do such a thing, they will simply terminate service. I know Cox does. ------------------------------ From: Foxhat Subject: Re: Liability Recording Date: Tue, 23 Sep 2003 17:45:20 GMT Organization: EarthLink Inc. -- http://www.EarthLink.net On Fri, 19 Sep 2003 13:51:57 -0400, JB wrote: > I wanted to get some ideas for companies that provide liability > recording -- cheap. Dictaphone is rectum-busting expensive. I would > prefer a system that taps extensions than the trunks -- as in > D-channel monitoring. > My system is a Nortel MICS 6.0. Try this site. http://www.algosolutions.com/ Not too expensive connects to either Norstar or Meridian sets and works off of a PC. ------------------------------ From: slowave@mail.com (Dave) Subject: ISDN Package 2 From Dialogic Date: 23 Sep 2003 12:01:17 -0700 Organization: http://groups.google.com/ Does anyone know where I can find Dialogic's ISDN Package 2? For various reasons I need to add ISDN to a Dialogic MS-DOS application and this seems to be the only package that will work according to the Intel Web site. Unfortunately Intel/Dialogic doesn't even acknowledged MSDOS anymore much less have the software available. I did try mixing and matching firmware from the later NT and Win95 packages but couldn't get everything to play together. Dave ------------------------------ From: Use.Netuser.de Subject: 25 Pair Standard UK Voice Cable Colour Code? Date: Tue, 23 Sep 2003 20:26:37 +0100 Hi Group, Does anyone have a URL for 25 Pair Standard UK Voice Cable Colour Code? Also does anyone know what a ITT Cannon MkII Connector is? Many Thanks. [TELECOM Digest Editor's Note: No guarentees, but check out the cabling and connector pages of Mike Sandman: http://sandman.com PAT] ------------------------------ From: googleguy_nj@yahoo.com (Ken) Subject: Caller ID vs. *69 Date: 23 Sep 2003 12:37:08 -0700 Organization: http://groups.google.com/ Are caller ID and *69 equivalent in determining the calling phone number? ------------------------------ From: Fritz Whittington Subject: Re: New Password for NT Times Readers Date: Tue, 23 Sep 2003 20:57:08 GMT Organization: AT&T Worldnet On or about 2003-09-22 06:11, Henry whipped out a trusty #2 pencil and scribbled: > TELECOM Digest Editor wrote: >> Some bozo went and changed the password for our group account when >> reading the NY Times without telling anyone *what* the 'new' password >> was. So I had to create a new account and password so it would work >> again. >> New York Times on line group user name is now telecomdigest9 and >> password is telecomdigest9. Note the only difference is the addition >> of '9' to the user name and password. The old user name is still >> active; the computer would not give it back to me. > It looks less like this was an accident, and more like 'enemy action'. > Because, I just now tried the 'revised' form suggested above and that > one doesn't work either. > Cheers, > Henry > [TELECOM Digest Editor's Note: It didn't work for me, either, and > since I had set up 'telecomdigest9' from an email account under my > own control, I immediatly claimed to have forgotten my password and > asked to have it emailed to me. Gee, guess what? My chosen email > address was not on their records either. Okay, we will try it a > different way this time. I have signed up yet a third time, this time > as 'telecomdigest1', and same thing for password. I used Lisa's > email account as the controlling email box this time. If the password > disappears again, then it must be an inside job by some joker at NYT > who works on their web edition, especially if the web site later > claims it never heard of lisa_minter2001@yahoo.com, the same way > it claimed it had never heard of my email address for emergency lookup > purposes. Here is the auto-ack letter I just now got back from NYT > thanking Lisa for signing up: > To: lisa_minter2001@yahoo.com > From: NYTimes.com > Reply-To: announce@inbox.nytimes.com > Subject: Welcome to The New York Times on the Web! > Date: Mon, 22 Sep 2003 13:00:41 -0400 (EDT) > Content-Length: 1862 > MIME-Version: 1.0 > Dear NYTimes.com Member, > Congratulations! You now have FREE access to the most trusted and > authoritative news source on the Internet. For your records, here's > your account information: > Member ID: telecomdigest1 > E-mail address: lisa_minter2001@yahoo.com > NYTimes.com publishes the same world-class journalism that appears in > The New York Times, updated continuously around the clock. Many of our > members make NYTimes.com their homepage, so that they feel informed > and tuned in all day. Follow instructions below to make NYTimes.com > your homepage: > Craig Calder > VP, Marketing > =============================== > > Rationale: The next time I have to tell them I 'forgot' my password > and want it sent through email, no one except Lisa theoretically can > access her email box and fetch the 'forgotten password'. On the other > hand, if 'forgot my password' results in no such user as > lisa_minter2001@yahoo.com then I guess I should send a letter to Mr. > Calder, mentioned above. They claim they never heard of editor@telecom- > digest.org even though I have a letter here from them identical to the > one sent to Lisa earlier today. PAT] I really hate to point this out, but since I've had my own NYT account for a few years now ... One of the things you can do with your account if you know the password is change your email address ... Then, you can change the password. I suppose you could write Mr. Calder and ask if you could get an account where the email and the password could not be changed in the usual way, but good luck. Fritz Whittington Let each man exercise the art he knows. (Aristophanes, Wasps, 422 B.C.) ------------------------------ From: SayNoToCrossposters Subject: Re: E911 Requirements Organization: Comcast Online Date: Tue, 23 Sep 2003 22:49:44 GMT PBX Maniac wrote in message news:telecom22.657.8@telecom-digest.org: > Hello, > I became responsible for managing several small PBX in different areas > in the US and I trying to get information about E911 compliance. > I am confused on the detailed requirements imposed by E911. > I know that only 7 states require some level of E911 requirement, but > the laws are difficult to interpret and vary from state to state. > My really problem is to understand when the PBX/Customer is supposed > to send the EXACT physical location where originates the emergency > call. > The current law in Illinois seems to only require to provide 1 ANI > (automatic Network Identification) per 40,000 square feet of > workspace. Is there any state or situation that requires to give 1 ANI > per emergency caller? > Thanks a lot, > Philip There are also caveats to the Illinois law. The 40,000 sq ft is rather vague and I would make sure you have an ID from every phone or you are setting yourself up for a major lawsuit. Really the only peole enforcing it right now are the lawyers from what I can tell ... but, I work in Illinois and damn near every system I have put in has a PRI just for this purpose. ------------------------------ From: Eric Friedebach Subject: Long-Distance Trouble On The Line Date: Tue, 23 Sep 2003 19:40:39 -0500 Organization: LeAnn Rimes/Busta Rhymes; Know the Difference Leslie Wines, 09.23.03, Forbes.com NEW YORK - For a brief moment earlier this year, the long-distance telecommunications industry enjoyed relatively stable pricing, a respite from years of cutthroat competitive pressures. But today's earnings warning from Verizon Communications underscores that that happy era already has ended. In cutting its full-year adjusted earnings to $2.56 to $2.60 per share from $2.70 to $2.80, Verizon cited weak business spending, retiree health care costs and falling demand. In response, Citigroup Smith Barney removed the stock from the brokerage's Recommended List and analyst Tobias Levkovich expressed fears that mounting price pressures will weigh on revenue and the stock price. "Pricing is fierce across all telecom segments, including long distance, data and wireless," Levkovich warned in a research note. "To the extent that top-line industry growth does not return, pricing could worsen as carriers fight each other for marketplace to gain scale." http://www.forbes.com/2003/09/23/cx_lw_0923verizon.html Eric Friedebach ------------------------------ Date: Tue, 23 Sep 2003 11:48:52 CDT From: Anonymous Poster Subject: Last Laugh! The "Traditional" (Gag/Cough/Choke) Print Media *************************************************************** PAT, feel free to publish in the Digest if you wish, but please DELETE my name and email address -- please post as "anonymous" Thanks! *************************************************************** Pat replied, regarding the bozos who've been f'n with the group username/password for the online NYTimes, as follows: > He (Salzberger and other cronies with the NYTimes) is almost as bad > as my other major competitor, Kay Graham and her *News Weak* Magazine Pat, that old bitty dropped dead about two years ago. Maybe that sounds too harsh? Okay... that old bag kicked the bucket two years ago. That any better? :-) ------------------------------ TELECOM Digest is an electronic journal devoted mostly but not exclusively to telecommunications topics. It is circulated anywhere there is email, in addition to various telecom forums on a variety of networks such as Compuserve and America On Line, and other forums. It is also gatewayed to Usenet where it appears as the moderated newsgroup 'comp.dcom.telecom'. TELECOM Digest is a not-for-profit, mostly non-commercial educational service offered to the Internet by Patrick Townson. All the contents of the Digest are compilation-copyrighted. You may reprint articles in some other media on an occasional basis, but please attribute my work and that of the original author. Contact information: Patrick Townson/TELECOM Digest Post Office Box 50 Independence, KS 67301 Phone: 620-330-6774 Fax 1: 775-255-9970 Fax 2: 775-306-8390 Fax 3: 775-642-0603 Fax 4: 530-309-7234 Email: editor@telecom-digest.org Subscribe: telecom-subscribe@telecom-digest.org Unsubscribe:telecom-unsubscribe@telecom-digest.org This Digest is the oldest continuing e-journal about telecomm- unications on the Internet, having been founded in August, 1981 and published continuously since then. Our archives are available for your review/research. We believe we are the second oldest e-zine/ mailing list on the internet in any category! URL information: http://telecom-digest.org Anonymous FTP: mirror.lcs.mit.edu/telecom-archives/archives/ (or use our mirror site: ftp.epix.net/pub/telecom-archives) Email <==> FTP: telecom-archives@telecom-digest.org Send a simple, one line note to that automated address for a help file on how to use the automatic retrieval system for archives files. You can get desired files in email. ************************************************************************* * TELECOM Digest is partially funded by a grant from * * Judith Oppenheimer, President of ICB Inc. and purveyor of accurate * * 800 & Dot Com News, Intelligence, Analysis, and Consulting. * * http://ICBTollFree.com, http://1800TheExpert.com * * Views expressed herein should not be construed as representing * * views of Judith Oppenheimer or ICB Inc. * ************************************************************************* ICB Toll Free News. Contact information is not sold, rented or leased. One click a day feeds a person a meal. Go to http://www.thehungersite.com Copyright 2003 ICB, Inc. and TELECOM Digest. All rights reserved. Our attorney is Bill Levant, of Blue Bell, PA. In addition, gifts from Mike Sandman, Chicago's Telecom Expert have enabled me to replace some obsolete computer equipment and enter the 21st century sort of on schedule. His mail order telephone parts/supplies service based in the Chicago area has been widely recognized by Digest readers as a reliable and very inexpensive source of telecom-related equipment. Please request a free catalog today at http://www.sandman.com --------------------------------------------------------------- A new sponsor for the Digest is Teledeal. They offer Directory Assistance (411) Savings. TeleDeal Inc. specializes in helping businesses and organizations save over 80% on live operator directory assistance calls. Rates are as low as $.27/411 call. TeleDeal also offers a premium real-time 411 Internet database service. Visit http://www.1800teledeal.com or call 1-800-TELEDEAL The Directory Assistance Experts * We Know 411 TeleDeal Inc. George Jones, President ---------------------------------------------------------------- Finally, the Digest is funded by gifts from generous readers such as yourself who provide funding in amounts deemed appropriate. Your help is important and appreciated. A suggested donation of twenty dollars per year per reader is considered appropriate. See our address above. Please make at least a single donation to cover the cost of processing your name to the mailing list. All opinions expressed herein are deemed to be those of the author. Any organizations listed are for identification purposes only and messages should not be considered any official expression by the organization. End of TELECOM Digest V22 #663 ****************************** From editor@telecom-digest.org Wed Sep 24 02:05:26 2003 Received: (from ptownson@localhost) by massis.lcs.mit.edu (8.11.6p2/8.11.3) id h8O65QO20578; Wed, 24 Sep 2003 02:05:26 -0400 (EDT) Date: Wed, 24 Sep 2003 02:05:26 -0400 (EDT) From: editor@telecom-digest.org Message-Id: <200309240605.h8O65QO20578@massis.lcs.mit.edu> X-Authentication-Warning: massis.lcs.mit.edu: ptownson set sender to editor@telecom-digest.org using -f To: ptownson Approved: patsnewlist Subject: TELECOM Digest V22 #664 TELECOM Digest Wed, 24 Sep 2003 02:05:00 EDT Volume 22 : Issue 664 Inside This Issue: Editor: Patrick A. Townson and: Lisa Minter EPIC Files Privacy Complaint Against JetBlue (Monty Solomon) California Moves to Ban Unsolicited E-Mail (Monty Solomon) A New Kind of Revolution in the Dorms of Dartmouth (Monty Solomon) New Sun Microsystems Chip May Unseat the Circuit Board (Monty Solomon) Satellite Companies Eye Free Digital Recorders - Murdoch (Monty Solomon) Tivo CEO Optimistic About DirecTV Ties (Monty Solomon) Remote Power: Can PVRs Kill TV Spots? (Monty Solomon) AOL Reaches Cancellation, Rebate Pact With US FTC (Monty Solomon) VeriSign Responds (Publicly) to SiteFinder Outcry (Monty Solomon) Prying Google Seen as a Risk (Monty Solomon) Verizon to Allow Land Numbers for Cells (Monty Solomon) Re: Hands Free, Wirelessly, Without Bluetooth (Michael D. Sullivan) Re: Gadgets That Work With Caller ID and Telemarketers? (Jerry) Re: What Happened to 951 Area Code? (Linc Madison) Re: Norstar CICS Telephone System With CallPilot Voicemail (Dave Phelps) All contents here are copyrighted by Patrick Townson and the individual writers/correspondents. Articles may be used in other journals or newsgroups, provided the writer's name and the Digest are included in the fair use quote. By using -any name or email address- included herein for -any- reason other than responding to an article herein, you agree to pay a hundred dollars to the recipients of the email. WE DO NOT PERMIT NAME/EMAIL ADDRESS HARVESTING FROM THIS JOURNAL. 'SALTED' EMAIL ADDRESSES APPEAR HEREIN TO VERIFY THIS. YOU GET SUED IN SMALL CLAIMS COURT IF YOU GET CAUGHT SPAMMING OR SENDING VIRUSES. DON'T DO IT. See the bottom of this issue for subscription and archive details and the name of our lawyer; other stuff of interest. ---------------------------------------------------------------------- Date: Tue, 23 Sep 2003 22:58:22 -0400 From: Monty Solomon Subject: EPIC Files Privacy Complaint Against JetBlue By Roy Mark The Electronic Privacy Information Center (EPIC) filed a complaint Monday with the Federal Trade Commission (FTC) claiming JetBlue Airways violated the FTC Act when it provided personal passenger data to Torch Concepts, a data mining company based in Little Rock, Ark. EPIC alleges JetBlue's actions were in violation of its own privacy policies. JetBlue does not deny the allegations but says it provided the information at the request of the Department of Defense. The airline also says Torch is a defense contractor working on a project concerning military base security and that JetBlue is not involved in the Transportation Security Administration's (TSA) controversial CAPPS II program. In an official company statement, JetBlue said, "It will not be a test airline nor has it ever shared customer information for the TSA's CAPPS II program and will not do so unless required by law." JetBlue's privacy policy as stated on its website is not to disclose personal passenger information to third parties. The EPIC complaint alleges JetBlue's disclosures to Torch constitute a deceptive trade practice and is seeking an injunction against the airline, fines and an order forcing JetBlue to disclose to its customers that their personal information was disclosed. EPIC also filed three Freedom of Information Act requests related to possible government use of the JetBlue data. http://dc.internet.com/news/article.php/3082071 ------------------------------ Date: Tue, 23 Sep 2003 23:09:51 -0400 From: Monty Solomon Subject: California Moves to Ban Unsolicited E-Mail By SAUL HANSELL California is trying a deceptively simple approach to the problem of junk e-mail: It is about to ban spam. Gov. Gray Davis of California signed a bill today that outlaws sending most commercial e-mail to or from the state that the recipient did not explicitly request. That is a far more wide-reaching law than any of the 35 other state laws meant to regulate spam or any of the proposed bills in Congress. http://www.nytimes.com/2003/09/23/business/23CND-SPAM.html [TELECOM Digest Editor's Note: I'd like to know how many investigators they plan to assign on a full time basis tracking down the sources of spam which they get from out of state, and how they plan to collect on fines from spammers in China or wherever. For readers of NY Times on line, what I believe is now the group reading name is 'telecomdigest1' with password 'telecomdigest1'. PAT] ------------------------------ Date: Tue, 23 Sep 2003 23:18:42 -0400 From: Monty Solomon Subject: A New Kind of Revolution in the Dorms of Dartmouth By KATIE HAFNER Perhaps because of its geographic remoteness, Dartmouth College in the small town of Hanover, N.H., has long been willing to try novel means of communication. The college introduced e-mail messaging to campus in the 1980's, well ahead of most other higher educational institutions. And in 2001, it was one of the first colleges to install a campuswide wireless data network. Now, the college is venturing into the world of "voice over Internet protocol," also known as VoIP, which essentially turns a computer into a telephone. This week, as classes begin, the 1,000 students entering the class of 2007 will be given the option of downloading software, generically known as softphones, onto Windows-based computers. Using the software together with a headset, which can be plugged into a computer's U.S.B. port, the students can make local or long-distance telephone calls free. Each student is assigned a traditional seven-digit phone number. http://www.nytimes.com/2003/09/23/technology/23DART.html [TELECOM Digest Editor's Note: I keep plugging away at this NY Times group read thing because of the problems arising with spam from the advertisers in the Times. If anyone discovers 'telecomdigest1' is not working please let me know. PAT] ------------------------------ Date: Tue, 23 Sep 2003 23:36:47 -0400 From: Monty Solomon Subject: New Sun Microsystems Chip May Unseat the Circuit Board By JOHN MARKOFF MOUNTAIN VIEW, Calif., Sept. 19 - Written off lately by the computer industry as a has-been, Sun Microsystems may still have a few tricks up its engineers' shirt sleeves. On Tuesday, Sun researchers plan to report that they have discovered a way to transmit data inside a computer much more quickly than current techniques allow. By placing the edge of one chip directly in contact with its neighbor, it may be possible to move data 60 to 100 times as fast as the present top speeds. For the computer industry, the advance - if it can be repeated on the assembly line - would be truly revolutionary. It would make obsolete the traditional circuit board constructed of tiny bits of soldered wires between chips, familiar to hobbyists who hand-soldered connections when assembling Heathkit electronic projects. http://www.nytimes.com/2003/09/22/technology/22SUN.html ------------------------------ Date: Tue, 23 Sep 2003 23:55:53 -0400 From: Monty Solomon Subject: Satellite Companies Eye Free Digital Recorders - Murdoch NEW YORK, Sept 8 (Reuters) - News Corp. (AUS:NCP) Chairman Rupert Murdoch said on Monday the satellite television industry is likely to offer personal video recorders for free or at very low cost within a year, as it fights to retain subscribers and win customers from the cable industry. Personal video recorders (PVR's), such as those made by TiVo Inc. (NASDAQ:TIVO), let users customize television viewing and digitally record programming on a computer hard drive in a set-top box. http://finance.lycos.com/qc/news/story.aspx?story=35611004 ------------------------------ Date: Wed, 24 Sep 2003 00:01:27 -0400 From: Monty Solomon Subject: Tivo CEO Optimistic About DirecTV Ties By Franklin Paul NEW YORK (Reuters) - Satellite TV provider DirecTV would be better armed to fend off rival EchoStar while teamed with television recording company TiVo Inc.TIVO.O , even after News Corp. Ltd.NCP.AX , which owns similar technology, acquires DirecTV, TiVo chief executive Michael Ramsey told Reuters. http://www.reuters.com/newsArticle.jhtml?type=topNews&storyID=3477023 ------------------------------ Date: Tue, 23 Sep 2003 21:53:32 -0400 From: Monty Solomon Subject: Remote Power: Can PVRs Kill TV Spots? By Robyn Greenspan Television commercials may become the casualty of personal video recorder (PVR) penetration, the Yankee Group finds, but the ad's demise may not come until mid-to-late 2005 when more than 10 million subscribe to the digital technology. PVRs - sometimes known as DVRs (digital video recorders) - are similar to VCRs (video cassette recorders) in the sense that they both record, rewind, stop, fast-forward and pause, but a PVR records to a hard drive instead of a tape. PVRs - like TiVo will search out your favorite programs to record - have higher functionality than VCRs, allowing you to pause a live broadcast, record more to disk, and use an interactive interface to customize the viewing experience. Often, viewers eliminate TV commercials with a touch of a button, and ReplayTV, a PVR vendor, has created an "ad-skip" feature on their remote controls. ------------------------------ Date: Tue, 23 Sep 2003 21:29:17 -0400 From: Monty Solomon Subject: AOL Reaches Cancellation, Rebate Pact With US FTC WASHINGTON, Sept 23 (Reuters) - The U.S. Federal Trade Commission said on Tuesday that AOL Time Warner Inc.'s (NYSE:AOL) America Online unit had agreed to promptly honor consumer cancellation requests as part of a settlement with the agency. AOL's CompuServe unit also settled FTC charges that it was late in delivering $400 rebates to consumers who signed up for Internet service. Under the proposed settlement, the companies would be required to provide rebates within the times specified in promotions, or, if no time is specified, within 30 days. Customers that inquire about canceling their service but then choose to remain as subscribers, will get a letter confirming their decision. The FTC had complained that AOL failed to ensure customer requests for cancellation were carried out and, in numerous instances, customers continued to be charged monthly fees. - http://finance.lycos.com/home/news/story.asp?story=35777935 ------------------------------ Date: Tue, 23 Sep 2003 22:51:56 -0400 From: Monty Solomon Subject: VeriSign Responds (Publicly) to SiteFinder Outcry By Jim Wagner VeriSign (Quote, Chart) executives came out Tuesday explaining to the public its support for the controversial SiteFinder service and insistence it is a benefit to end users. The public statement is a followup to a rather terse open letter sent to the Internet Corporation for Assigned Names and Numbers (ICANN) Monday afternoon, saying it was "premature" to turn off the service despite its widespread legal, privacy and technical issues. The SiteFinder service is essentially a redirect service for end users who mis-spell a Web site address or email address. In the past, a "Page Not Found" or email bounce from the sender's ISP (define) would have been the result. Instead errors go to VeriSign's SiteFinder Web page, a click-per-view search engine that programmers claim gathers personal information. In addition, the protocol governing how email and Web site mis-spells are handled has thrown a monkey wrench into the machines of network administrators worldwide. Since SiteFinder went into effect Sept. 15 at 8 p.m. EST, VeriSign claims it has been seen by more than 65 million users, 11 million of which actually used the search engine. Officials said they get five million unique visitors a day. http://www.internetnews.com/IAR/article.php/3081611 ------------------------------ Date: Wed, 24 Sep 2003 00:41:08 -0400 From: Monty Solomon Subject: Prying Google Seen as a Risk By RICHARD PAMATATAU Google, the omnivorous search engine with a silly name, is gobbling images and information from websites as it transforms internet use. Stephanie Perrin, principal of Montreal-based Digital Discretion, believes Google is a threat to personal privacy because it harvests images and information to serve up to anyone with a computer and internet access. People might be "googling" for shopping tips or out-of-print books, she said, but they were also prowling for information, pictures and associations exposed by a search engine. This was partly an erosion of privacy rights, making individuals a rank on a search engine list. Perrin, the fomer chief privacy officer of the Canadian privacy protection start-up Zero-Knowledge Systems, was in Auckland this week for a workshop with the Office of the Privacy Commissioner. She helped to develop Canada's privacy and cryptography policies and, as director of privacy policy for Industry Canada's Electronic Commerce Task Force, led the drive behind the Personal Information Protection and Electronic Documents Act, which was passed in 2001. http://www.nzherald.co.nz/storydisplay.cfm?storyID=3524226 ------------------------------ Date: Wed, 24 Sep 2003 01:37:19 -0400 From: Monty Solomon Subject: Verizon to Allow Land Numbers for Cells By BRUCE MEYERSON AP Business Writer NEW YORK (AP) -- Verizon Communications announced an agreement Monday that will enable its customers to turn the telephone number on a home or office line into the wireless number for a cell phone. The arrangement, essentially required by federal rules set to take effect Nov. 24, is designed to help stem the potential loss of customers to rival cell phone companies while rankling wireless rivals who still oppose the new rules. In announcing the deal between its traditional telephone business and its majority-owned Verizon Wireless unit, the company said it stands ready to forge similar agreements with other mobile phone carriers. However, although the Federal Communications Commission requires such capabilities of all wireline and wireless carriers who provide phone service in the same local calling areas within major markets, Verizon wouldn't say whether it plans to initiate such discussions with rivals or what will happen if no agreements are reached. - http://finance.lycos.com/home/news/story.asp?story=35779901 ------------------------------ From: Michael D. Sullivan Subject: Re: Hands Free, Wirelessly, Without Bluetooth Date: Wed, 24 Sep 2003 02:34:03 GMT On Mon, 22 Sep 2003 20:20:08 -0400, SELLCOM Tech support posted the following to comp.dcom.telecom: > Eric Friedebach posted on that vast internet > thingie: >> But to use a wireless headset in most cases, you first need a phone >> that supports Bluetooth -- and many phones don't. Or you need to buy a >> new phone that does, which means going to the trouble of moving all >> your contacts and any other information you've stored on your current >> phone to a new one. > I thought the Plantronics M1500 already worked genericly? Did I miss > something? It uses Bluetooth technology but I don't remember seeing > any compatibility questions? Jabra offers a bluetooth headset with or without an adapter for non- bluetooth phones. The adapter clips to your belt next to the holster for your phone and plugs into the headset socket and acts like a cordless phone base station for the bluetooth headset. Works like a charm. Michael D. Sullivan Bethesda, MD, USA (delete NOSPAM from address to mail me) ------------------------------ From: Jerry Subject: Re: Gadgets That Work With Caller ID and Telemarketers? Date: Tue, 23 Sep 2003 19:47:15 -0700 Reply-To: nospam.riechert@qwest.net Ray Normandeau wrote: > Group Special Mobile wrote in message > news:: >> On 22 Sep 2003 12:13:00 -0700, marktettnanger@hotmail.com (M. >> Tettnanger) wrote: >> The call screening service from the telco would do that. The service >> makes an announcement that if you are a solicitor please hang up. If >> you are a genuine caller it will ask you to press 1 to be connected. > I bought a gadget like that to use at home, it is called Screen > Machine see http://www.spectrumresearchinc.com/ > I bought three of them at Target when they were clearing them out. > Three numbers can be pressed to generate distinctive ring at my end > for different family members. I also bought one of Screen Machines. In the 6 months or so I've had it I've had one junk caller ring thru. He thought my message didn't apply to survey takers. I highly recommend it. They are available on the net and thru eBay. Jerry ------------------------------ Subject: Re: What Happened to 951 Area Code? From: Linc Madison Reply-To: Telecom@LincMad.com Organization: LincMad.com Consulting Date: Wed, 24 Sep 2003 03:29:56 GMT In article , The Green Troll wrote: > Linc Madison wrote in message > news:: >> There are only about 40 NPAs outside the U.S., > How many used to be in Mexico? Three, but they were all retired more than 12 years ago. Those three area codes are now in use for parts of Georgia, Texas, and Ontario. Even if you include the arrangement that some U.S. telcos had of treating Mexican numbers as if they were NANP numbers for billing purposes (e.g., +52 5 xxx-xxxx was treated as +1 525 xxx-xxxx, although it could not be dialed that way), it occupied only nine more area codes, and again, that usage is no longer current, since Mexico added two additional digits to their national numbers. >> and the 17 of those that are not in Canada represent a one-time- >> only expenditure of numbering resources. None of those 17 area >> codes is projected to exhaust in the foreseeable future. > They ought to be changed, though. Because they look like US numbers, > some are used to cheat callers out of money. There's no easy way to > spot them. Maybe they should all start the same way. Or maybe they > should require overseas dialing. Or maybe the rates should be brought down more into line with domestic rates. Very few people are now paying $1 to $2 per minute for calls to the Caribbean, as was common just a couple of years ago. Of considerable importance, the rate that your long-distance company pays to the island you are calling, has dropped quite a bit, thereby cutting the incentive to operate chat lines and other such operations that depend on taking a portion of those "settlements" as a kickback to the operator of the line. I maintain a web page specifically about telesleaze, and it has been over a year since I saw any new slime numbers in the NANP Caribbean. There has been talk of somehow breaking apart +1 into separate codes for the various countries, but there is no momentum for such a change. www dot LincMad dot com / Telecom at LincMad dot com Linc Madison * San Francisco, California ------------------------------ From: Dave Phelps Subject: Re: Norstar CICS Telephone System With CallPilot Voicemail Date: Tue, 23 Sep 2003 23:33:35 -0500 Organization: www.tippenring.com In article , wdltel@hotmail.com says: > Does anyone know a programing sequence or workaround to this issue? You have CFNA set up on some extensions. The CFNA configuration absolutely will be followed regardless of the reason for ringing. So, if x250 is set to CFNA to VM on 3 rings, then no matter why it is ringing, VM will get the call after the 3rd ring. There are apparently now certain exceptions for a hunt group, but I don't have a Norstar in front of me right now to test with. A couple of workarounds are to only add sets that don't use CFNA (or CFB) to the night service group, or install an auxilliary ringer(s) instead. If you want the AA to answer after 3 rings in night mode only, then add the AA extension to the night group, and configure the AA to answer after 3 rings. For no AA during the day, use F982 to disable line answering (set Answer lines to No). Dave Phelps DD Networks www.ddnets.com deadspam=tippenring ------------------------------ TELECOM Digest is an electronic journal devoted mostly but not exclusively to telecommunications topics. It is circulated anywhere there is email, in addition to various telecom forums on a variety of networks such as Compuserve and America On Line, and other forums. It is also gatewayed to Usenet where it appears as the moderated newsgroup 'comp.dcom.telecom'. TELECOM Digest is a not-for-profit, mostly non-commercial educational service offered to the Internet by Patrick Townson. All the contents of the Digest are compilation-copyrighted. You may reprint articles in some other media on an occasional basis, but please attribute my work and that of the original author. Contact information: Patrick Townson/TELECOM Digest Post Office Box 50 Independence, KS 67301 Phone: 620-330-6774 Fax 1: 775-255-9970 Fax 2: 775-306-8390 Fax 3: 775-642-0603 Fax 4: 530-309-7234 Email: editor@telecom-digest.org Subscribe: telecom-subscribe@telecom-digest.org Unsubscribe:telecom-unsubscribe@telecom-digest.org This Digest is the oldest continuing e-journal about telecomm- unications on the Internet, having been founded in August, 1981 and published continuously since then. Our archives are available for your review/research. We believe we are the second oldest e-zine/ mailing list on the internet in any category! URL information: http://telecom-digest.org Anonymous FTP: mirror.lcs.mit.edu/telecom-archives/archives/ (or use our mirror site: ftp.epix.net/pub/telecom-archives) Email <==> FTP: telecom-archives@telecom-digest.org Send a simple, one line note to that automated address for a help file on how to use the automatic retrieval system for archives files. You can get desired files in email. ************************************************************************* * TELECOM Digest is partially funded by a grant from * * Judith Oppenheimer, President of ICB Inc. and purveyor of accurate * * 800 & Dot Com News, Intelligence, Analysis, and Consulting. * * http://ICBTollFree.com, http://1800TheExpert.com * * Views expressed herein should not be construed as representing * * views of Judith Oppenheimer or ICB Inc. * ************************************************************************* ICB Toll Free News. Contact information is not sold, rented or leased. One click a day feeds a person a meal. Go to http://www.thehungersite.com Copyright 2003 ICB, Inc. and TELECOM Digest. All rights reserved. Our attorney is Bill Levant, of Blue Bell, PA. In addition, gifts from Mike Sandman, Chicago's Telecom Expert have enabled me to replace some obsolete computer equipment and enter the 21st century sort of on schedule. His mail order telephone parts/supplies service based in the Chicago area has been widely recognized by Digest readers as a reliable and very inexpensive source of telecom-related equipment. Please request a free catalog today at http://www.sandman.com --------------------------------------------------------------- A new sponsor for the Digest is Teledeal. They offer Directory Assistance (411) Savings. TeleDeal Inc. specializes in helping businesses and organizations save over 80% on live operator directory assistance calls. Rates are as low as $.27/411 call. TeleDeal also offers a premium real-time 411 Internet database service. Visit http://www.1800teledeal.com or call 1-800-TELEDEAL The Directory Assistance Experts * We Know 411 TeleDeal Inc. George Jones, President ---------------------------------------------------------------- Finally, the Digest is funded by gifts from generous readers such as yourself who provide funding in amounts deemed appropriate. Your help is important and appreciated. A suggested donation of twenty dollars per year per reader is considered appropriate. See our address above. Please make at least a single donation to cover the cost of processing your name to the mailing list. All opinions expressed herein are deemed to be those of the author. Any organizations listed are for identification purposes only and messages should not be considered any official expression by the organization. End of TELECOM Digest V22 #664 ****************************** From editor@telecom-digest.org Wed Sep 24 18:18:59 2003 Received: (from ptownson@localhost) by massis.lcs.mit.edu (8.11.6p2/8.11.3) id h8OMIxn26916; Wed, 24 Sep 2003 18:18:59 -0400 (EDT) Date: Wed, 24 Sep 2003 18:18:59 -0400 (EDT) From: editor@telecom-digest.org Message-Id: <200309242218.h8OMIxn26916@massis.lcs.mit.edu> X-Authentication-Warning: massis.lcs.mit.edu: ptownson set sender to editor@telecom-digest.org using -f To: ptownson Approved: patsnewlist Subject: TELECOM Digest V22 #665 TELECOM Digest Wed, 24 Sep 2003 18:19:00 EDT Volume 22 : Issue 665 Inside This Issue: Editor: Patrick A. Townson and: Lisa Minter Wireless Hacks / 100 Industrial-Strength Tips & Tools (Monty Solomon) State Department Computers Hit by Virus (Monty Solomon) DISH Network: 1 Million Digital Video Recorders (Monty Solomon) Court Knocks Down [Fed] 'Do Not Call' List (Monty Solomon) Virus Hits Federal Visa-Checking System (Monty Solomon) Re: 25 Pair Standard UK Voice Cable Colour Code? (obsidian) Re: 25 Pair Standard UK Voice Cable Colour Code? (Paul Coxwell) Re: 25 Pair Standard UK Voice Cable Colour Code? (Owain) Re: DID, DDI, ANI and CallerID (obsidian) Re: DID, DDI, ANI and CallerID (Jay R. Ashworth) +52 Mexico and +1 NANP, re: 909/951 NPA Split (Mark J Cuccia) Re: California Moves to Ban Unsolicited E-Mail (Rich Greenberg) Re: Verizon Repair (Charles Cryderman) All contents here are copyrighted by Patrick Townson and the individual writers/correspondents. Articles may be used in other journals or newsgroups, provided the writer's name and the Digest are included in the fair use quote. By using -any name or email address- included herein for -any- reason other than responding to an article herein, you agree to pay a hundred dollars to the recipients of the email. WE DO NOT PERMIT NAME/EMAIL ADDRESS HARVESTING FROM THIS JOURNAL. 'SALTED' EMAIL ADDRESSES APPEAR HEREIN TO VERIFY THIS. YOU GET SUED IN SMALL CLAIMS COURT IF YOU GET CAUGHT SPAMMING OR SENDING VIRUSES. DON'T DO IT. See the bottom of this issue for subscription and archive details and the name of our lawyer; other stuff of interest. ---------------------------------------------------------------------- Date: Wed, 24 Sep 2003 02:16:02 -0400 From: Monty Solomon Subject: Wireless Hacks / 100 Industrial-Strength Tips & Tools By Rob Flickenger September 2003 Series: Hacks 0-596-00559-8, Order Number: 5598 304 pages, $24.95 US, $38.95 CA, £17.50 UK Written for the intermediate to advanced wireless user, Wireless Hacks is full of direct, practical, ingenious solutions to real-world networking problems. Whether your wireless network needs to extend to the edge of your office or to the other end of town, this collection of non-obvious, "from the field" techniques will show you how to get the job done. [ Full Description ] Sample Hacks Hack #24: Passive Scanning with KisMAC (PDF) Hack #27: Finding Radio Manufacturers by MAC Address (PDF) Hack #30: "Brought to you by" Rendezvous Ad Redirector (PDF) Hack #61: Hermes AP (PDF) Hack #82: Aligning Antennas at Long Distances (PDF) http://www.oreilly.com/catalog/wirelesshks/ http://www.oreilly.com/catalog/wirelesshks/desc.html ------------------------------ Date: Wed, 24 Sep 2003 02:33:15 -0400 From: Monty Solomon Subject: State Department Computers Hit by Virus By THE ASSOCIATED PRESS WASHINGTON (AP) -- The State Department's electronic system for checking every visa applicant for terrorist or criminal history failed worldwide for several hours late Tuesday because of a computer virus, leaving the U.S. government briefly unable to issue visas. The virus crippled the department's Consular Lookout and Support System, known as CLASS, which contains more than 12.8 million records from the FBI, the State Department and U.S. immigration, drug-enforcement and intelligence agencies. Among the names are those of at least 78,000 suspected terrorists. In an internal message sent late Tuesday to embassies and consular offices worldwide, officials cautioned that 'CLASS is down due to a virus found in the system.' There was no backup system immediately available, and officials said they could not predict how long the outage might last. Within hours, the system was back up and running. A spokeswoman for the U.S. embassy in Seoul, Maureen Cormack, said it was a 'short outage'and 'not a major problem.' She said interviews for visa applicants continued but any decisions could not be made until the system was back up. In Washington, State Department spokeswoman Joanne Moore said the agency experienced some computer problems but could not confirm the visa-checking system was affected. http://www.nytimes.com/aponline/technology/AP-State-Computer-Virus.html [Lisa Minter note: Readers of NY Times on line may wish to use our group password 'telecomdigest1' and group username 'telecomdigest1'. Lisa M.] ------------------------------ Date: Wed, 24 Sep 2003 08:43:53 -0400 From: Monty Solomon Subject: DISH Network: 1 Million Digital Video Recorders LITTLETON, Colo.--(BUSINESS WIRE)--Sept. 24, 2003-- DISH Network's DISH Player Digital Video Recorder Skips Recorded TV Commercials, Pauses Live TV EchoStar Communications Corporation (Nasdaq:DISH) today announced that its DISH Network(TM), the fastest growing subscription television service, has reached another TV industry first by selling its 1 millionth digital video recorder (DVR). With this announcement, DISH Network has established the lead as the fastest growing and largest DVR provider in the nation. - http://finance.lycos.com/home/news/story.asp?story=35786435 ------------------------------ Reply-To: Monty Solomon From: Monty Solomon Subject: Court Knocks Down [Fed] 'Do Not Call' List Date: Wed, 24 Sep 2003 13:29:30 -0400 By Caroline E. Mayer Washington Post Staff Writer A U.S. District Court has knocked down the federal government's plan to curb unsolicited telemarketing calls through a national do-not-call list that was scheduled to start next week. More than 50 million phone numbers have been posted to the anti-telemarketing registry; as of October 1, telemarketers were supposed to stop calling those numbers. Judge Lee R. West in Oklahoma City issued a decision late Monday saying the Federal Trade Commission lacked authority to develop the list. Although Congress gave the agency funding to run the list, it did not give the FTC specific authority to implement the list, West said. An administrative agency's power to regulate in the public interest must "always be grounded in a valid grant of authority from Congress," West said. http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/articles/A57823-2003Sep24.html http://news.findlaw.com/wp/docs/ftc/donotcall92303ord.pdf ------------------------------ Date: Wed, 24 Sep 2003 16:48:58 -0400 From: Monty Solomon Subject: Virus Hits Federal Visa-Checking System By TED BRIDIS AP Technology Writer WASHINGTON (AP) -- A virus seriously disrupted computer systems at the State Department, including the database for checking every visa applicant for terrorist or criminal history. The outage left the U.S. government unable to issue visas worldwide for nine hours. Effects of the virus crippled the department's Consular Lookout and Support System, known as CLASS, which contains more than 15 million records from the FBI, the State Department and U.S. immigration, drug-enforcement and intelligence agencies. Among the names are those of at least 78,000 suspected terrorists. State Department spokesman Stuart Patt said the "Welchia" virus did not affect any data on the name-checking system, and the agency's classified computer network _ used to send its most sensitive messages and files _ was not affected. Service to some consular offices in Asia was restored within 11 hours. Welchia is an aggressive infection unleashed last month that exploits a software flaw in recent versions of Microsoft Corp.'s Windows software. - http://finance.lycos.com/home/news/story.asp?story=35794318 ------------------------------ From: obsidian Subject: Re: 25 Pair Standard UK Voice Cable Colour Code? Date: Wed, 24 Sep 2003 08:43:19 +0200 Organization: -= Belgacom Usenet Service =- Try http://www.telephonesuk.co.uk/wiring_info.htm about halfway down the page. obsidian Use.Netuser.de wrote in message news:telecom22.663.10@telecom-digest.org: > Does anyone have a URL for 25 Pair Standard UK Voice Cable Colour > Code? Also does anyone know what a ITT Cannon MkII Connector is? > Many Thanks. > [TELECOM Digest Editor's Note: No guarentees, but check out the cabling and connector pages of Mike Sandman: http://sandman.com PAT] ------------------------------ From: PaulCoxwell@aol.com Date: Wed, 24 Sep 2003 05:41:59 EDT Subject: Re: 25 Pair Standard UK Voice Cable Colour Code? > Does anyone have a URL for 25 Pair Standard UK Voice Cable Colour Code? Each pair takes a color from each of two groups: 1. White, red, black, yellow, violet. 2. Blue, orange, green, brown, slate. Here's a link to the full list: http://web.ukonline.co.uk/freshwater/cableco1.htm For some reason this list uses the term "grey" instead of the usual telephone terminology "slate." Note also that in British parlance the A-wire is the tip side of the line and the B-wire is the ring side. ------------------------------ From: spuorgelgoog@gowanhill.com (Owain) Subject: Re: 25 Pair Standard UK Voice Cable Colour Code? Date: 24 Sep 2003 12:14:06 -0700 Organization: http://groups.google.com/ Use.Netuser.de wrote: > Does anyone have a URL for 25 Pair Standard UK Voice Cable Colour Code? > Also does anyone know what a ITT Cannon MkII Connector is? > [TELECOM Digest Editor's Note: No guarentees, but check out the > cabling and connector pages of Mike Sandman: http://sandman.com PAT] Also try news:uk.telecom Owain ------------------------------ From: obsidian Subject: Re: DID, DDI, ANI and CallerID Date: Wed, 24 Sep 2003 08:49:12 +0200 Organization: -= Belgacom Usenet Service =- DDI = Direct Dialling In (English) DID = Direct Inward Dialing (American) Both mean the same thing, in that when calling a company for example you can directly dial to the extension you want. PRI carried over an E1 is used for larger companies and 1 or more BRI used in smaller companies. obsidian PBX Maniac wrote in message news:telecom22.663.6@telecom-digest: > Hello, > Could someone explain to me what's the difference between DID, DDI, > ANI and CallerID? > Thanks > PBX Maniac ------------------------------ From: Jay R. Ashworth Subject: Re: DID, DDI, ANI and CallerID Reply-To: jra@baylink.com Date: Wed, 24 Sep 2003 15:50:13 GMT Organization: RoadRunner - Central Florida Stanley settled back into the couch, and PBX Maniac said to him: > Could someone explain to me what's the difference between DID, DDI, > ANI and CallerID? Wow, the homework questions are getting more and more complicated ... :-) Direct Inward Dialing is a service that lets you have more phone numbers than you have lines and phones to answer the calls with -- the dialed number is sent along to you in one fashion or another so your phone system can route the call properly. It's popular with large corporations, and with answering services. Automatic Number Identification is similar to Caller ID; both send you a phone number of someone who's calling you. But it's not always the same number; ANI is mostly a *billing* service for INWATS customers; it can't be blocked on the theory that you (the INWATS subscriber) are paying for that call, you're entitled to know where it's coming from. I've never heard of DDI in 15 years, that I remember. And what sort of facilities these services are delivered over varies; DID is both a service and a type of analog trunk ... though analog delivery is becoming rarer these days; most of this stuff comes in to newer services over T-1 or ISDN. Cheers, Jay R. Ashworth jra@baylink.com Member of the Technical Staff Baylink The Suncoast Freenet The Things I Think Tampa Bay, Florida http://baylink.pitas.com +1 727 647 1274 God, unlike Anya, is fond of bunnies. -- Chelsea Christenson ------------------------------ Date: Wed, 24 Sep 2003 07:24:13 CDT From: Mark J Cuccia Subject: +52 Mexico and +1 NANP, re: 909/951 NPA Split At one point recent in the thread about whatever happened to the 909/951 area code split in southern California (Riverside/San Bernardino) ... Linc Madison wrote: > There are only about 40 NPAs outside the US And then "The Green Troll" asked: > How many used to be in Mexico? To which Linc repied: > Three, but they were all retired more than 12 years ago. > Those three area codes are now in use for parts of GA, TX, ON But there were never more than two of those three in use at any one time. In 1962/63, the northwestern border area of Mexico, most of which was served by Telefonica Fronteriza (NOT Telefonos de Mexico, aka Tel-Mex) was assigned NANP Area Code 903. Note that in this timeframe, the ITU (CCITT) had only just begun to develop a worldwide country code format, expanding upon an earlier draft of a "Pan-European" country code and limited dialing format (possibly initially only intended for telephone operators to use for semi-automated international intra-European service). (see Dave Leibold's World Telephone Numbering Guide for the history of country code assignments, http://www.wtng.info/wtng-hst.html) Those northwestern Mexican border communities in Baja North, and eventually Sonora, as well as the town of Las Palomas in Chihuahua, actually "homed" on US-based AT&T Long Lines, Pacific (Bell) Telephone and Telegraph, and Mountain States (Bell) Telephone tandems and toll switches, rather than on Tel-Mex tandems. There were possibly direct trunks which did connect Tijuana (Baja North) with other Tel-Mex toll boards in the interior though, but the basic *homing* of Tijuana was on AT&T/Pacific Tel in the US (California). Some communities in Sonora, as well as Las Palomas in Chihuahua actually were provided their *dialtone* out of US-based local central offices! The two communities in northeastern Sonora, Naco and Agua Priete, got dialtone out of Mountain Bell's local central offices in Bisbee AZ and Douglas AZ (respectively). Las Palomas (CHIH) got its dialtone out of the Contel-of-the-West (independent telco) local central office in Columbus NM. (Columbus NM was spun off by Contel sometime in the 1980s/90s timeframe, and is now Valley Telephone Co-Op). It took some time for 903 to be implemented in all of the various border communities which "homed" on US telco switches, but it was in place by the 1970s for DDD with the US/Canada. By the late 1970s, "nationalistic pride" in Mexico (and TelMex was a government owned monopoly) caused a desire to *takeover* the operations of Telefonica Fronteriza in the northwest. And also, Telefonica Fronteriza was partially owned by executives and other shareholders of AT&T/PacTel! Mexican government and TelMex officials actually seized control of the operations of Telefonica Fronteriza in the late 1970s! But before all of this happened ... AT&T always had the desire to include Mexico, (all of) the Caribbean, and actually all of Latin America (the entire Western Hemisphere) within the US/Canada DDD system. But Mexico, the Caribbean, and possibly Central America, because of their close proximity to the US, were the primary desires. In 1969/70, AT&T reserved area code 905 for use for US/Canada dialing to Mexico City. Mexico had already been assigned its own unique country code of +52 by the ITU, as they really weren't all that concerned about joining the US/Canada NANP/DDD system. But there was a large amount of US-originated calling to (at least) Mexico City. And (semi) automated switching/routing/trunking was now possible from the US/Canada DDD/NANP to (at least) Mexico City. But IDDD (International DDD) was not yet widespread for customers in the US/Canada to dial to anything within +52 Mexico. Thus, this "patch" code (temporary), 905, for customers to be able to dial to Mexico City. The city code of '5' within +52 Mexico corresponded to the '5' in +1/NANP's area code 905. And by the mid-70s, Mexico City's own local numbers were now seven-digits long, NXX-xxxx. SO, +52-5-NXX-xxxx could be "thought of as if it were" +1-905-NXX-xxxx. This set up a temporary precedent in the numbering/dialing format, when Mexican government and TelMex officials took over Telefonica Fronteriza in the late 1970s. These northwestern border towns would now be numbered and dialed as part of Mexico's +52 country code, instead of +1-903. The city codes for other (TelMex) towns in northwestern Mexico began with the digit of '6'. The Telfonica Fronteriza towns (now part of a new Mexican-held company Telefonos de Noroeste, aka TelNor, mostly held by TelMex) were renumbered to conform to +52 *MEXICAN* numbering/dialing standards, as +52-6NXX-xxxx. But most customers in the US and Canada still didn't have IDDD capability (although operators did). Luckily, there was a NANP area code (of the older N0X/N1X format) with a third digit of '6' that hadn't yet been assigned -- 706. Thus, beginning 18-October-1980, these northwestern border towns, as well as *ANY* "automated" town elsewhere in TelMex sections of northwestern Mexico with a city code beginning with '6', could be directly dialed by US/Canada customers "as if" they were placing a regular NANP/DDD call ... i.e. +52=6NXX-xxxx could be thought of as if it were +1-706-NXX-xxxx . The use of 903 for northwestern Mexico's border towns was *DISCONTINUED ALTOGATHER* by AT&T/TCTS, on 18-Oct-1980, despite the fact that it still appeared *ERRONEOUSLY* in lists of valid/active area codes for many years to come, even on lists published into the 1990s, well *AFTER* the 903 code was reassigned to Texas. (I remember seeing *AT&T* and *LUCENT* branded lists/maps of area codes of the US/Canada in the mid/late 1990s which *STILL* had 903 for "northwestern Mexico" *as well as* its 1990 re-assigned location in northeastern TX! WRONG WRONG WRONG -- what was AT&T, of all companies, smoking?) Over time, throughout the early-to-mid 1980s, the northwestern Mexican border towns were rehomed on TelMex tandem and toll switches, even though there were still crossborder trunks between them and the US. Customer-originated IDDD to *all* dialable points within +52 Mexico was established around 1981/82, for those US/Canada customers who had IDDD origination capabilities. And for those customers who didn't have IDDD origination capabilities, they could still directly dial (without operator assistance) those city codes in +52 Mexico which began with '6' with the [1/0]+70-6-nxx-xxxx method, and those city codes in the Mexico City and vicinity region which began with '5' using the [1/0]+90-5-nxx-xxxx method. However, this use of 70-6 and 90-5 as "pseudo-NANP patch" area codes was only intended as temporary, until most everyone in the US and Canada eventually had customer-originating IDDD capability (011/01+52+etc). In late 1990, the 903 code (discontinued for use within northwestern Mexico already for *TEN* years since October 1980) was reassigned to the split of 214 in northeastern TX, the Dallas Metro area retaining 214, with 903 reassigned now to the remainder of what was 214 in the area. In Feb.1991, the use of 70-6 and 90-5 for "pseudo-NANP patch" purposes to reach their specific portions of Mexico was completely discontinued by AT&T, MCI and US-Sprint. Any calls dialed using either of these two codes would result in a bi-lingual recording (English, Espanol), instructing the customer to hang-up and then re-dial using IDDD (011+) dialing procedures for Country Code +52. 706 was reassigned to become active in the split of 404 in northern GA in May 1992. The Atlanta Metro area retaining 404, with 706 now assigned to the remained of what used to be 404 in the area. 905 was reassigned to become active in the split of 416 in the Toronto ON Metro area in October 1993. Toronto ON "itself" retained 416, while the suburbs and exurbs that used to be 416 were now assigned 905. All "pseudo NANP" billing-identification-only uses (*NOT* dialable by customer nor operator, but only used in billing processing equipment) of 521 through 529, where any +52 Mexico number could "look like" a ten-digit NANP number (strictly for billing purposes) was recently elminated, since Mexico has now recently expanded their own domestic numbering/dialing to +52+ten-digits, making a twelve digit Mexican number in the worldwide ITU E.164 format. In the 1970s, only 903 and 90-5 were used for Mexico destination purposes, In the 1980s, only 90-5 and 70-6 were used for Mexico purposes, as actual NANP area codes, dialble by customer and operator as well as used internally by automated billing equipment (AMA). Only two codes at any one time were ever in use for Mexico, if you're referring to actual dialable area codes. And 903 was *truly* a DDD/NANP-based code when it was in use in the 1960s/70s for calling to the Telefonica Fronteriza border towns in northwestern Mexico. 903 was *NOT* simply a "patch" code in the way that 90-5 and 70-6 were when they were in use. Mark J. Cuccia mcuccia (at) tulane (dot) edu New Orleans LA USA ------------------------------ From: richgr@panix.com (Rich Greenberg) Subject: Re: California Moves to Ban Unsolicited E-Mail Date: 24 Sep 2003 10:15:31 -0400 Organization: Organized? Me? In article , Monty Solomon wrote: > By SAUL HANSELL > California is trying a deceptively simple approach to the problem of > junk e-mail: It is about to ban spam. > Gov. Gray Davis of California signed a bill today that outlaws sending > most commercial e-mail to or from the state that the recipient did not > explicitly request. That is a far more wide-reaching law than any of > the 35 other state laws meant to regulate spam or any of the proposed > bills in Congress. > http://www.nytimes.com/2003/09/23/business/23CND-SPAM.html One thing I don't see in the NYT article that was mentioned on a radio news report this morning was that the seller of the advertised product can be penalized for the spam. Thats the only approach that can work. Rich Greenberg Work: Rich.Greenberg atsign worldspan.com + 1 770 563 6656 N6LRT Marietta, GA, USA Play: richgr atsign panix.com + 1 770 321 6507 Eastern time zone. I speak for myself & my dogs only. VM'er since CP-67 Canines:Val(Chinook,CGC,TT), Red & Shasta(Husky,(RIP)) Owner:Chinook-L Atlanta Siberian Husky Rescue. www.panix.com/~richgr/ Asst Owner:Sibernet-L ------------------------------ From: Cryderman, Charles Subject: Re: Verizon Repair Date: Wed, 24 Sep 2003 11:17:47 -0400 Reva LaVine wrote about Verizon "Repair" Reva LaVine told us: > I ordered Verizon repair, waited a week, stayed home on designated > day, and then NO SHOW! Their business office had NO APOLOGY/NO > EXPLANATION. I guess that's why rates have gone UP. My internet > doesn't work properly as a result of their generically shitty > "service" but last time they came, "there was nothing wrong". This > time I need the same improvement but I think the best remedy is to > get rid of the phone." File a claim in "Small Claims" court. Failure to make a scheduled appointment they are libel to you for your time and are required to reimburse your for it. You can sue up to the amount you would have made at work. It doesn't matter if you got paid vacation or personal time or even if the time was given to you by your boss. You can use this for any missed appointments from Verizon or your cable provider. Chip Cryderman ------------------------------ TELECOM Digest is an electronic journal devoted mostly but not exclusively to telecommunications topics. It is circulated anywhere there is email, in addition to various telecom forums on a variety of networks such as Compuserve and America On Line, and other forums. It is also gatewayed to Usenet where it appears as the moderated newsgroup 'comp.dcom.telecom'. TELECOM Digest is a not-for-profit, mostly non-commercial educational service offered to the Internet by Patrick Townson. All the contents of the Digest are compilation-copyrighted. You may reprint articles in some other media on an occasional basis, but please attribute my work and that of the original author. Contact information: Patrick Townson/TELECOM Digest Post Office Box 50 Independence, KS 67301 Phone: 620-330-6774 Fax 1: 775-255-9970 Fax 2: 775-306-8390 Fax 3: 775-642-0603 Fax 4: 530-309-7234 Email: editor@telecom-digest.org Subscribe: telecom-subscribe@telecom-digest.org Unsubscribe:telecom-unsubscribe@telecom-digest.org This Digest is the oldest continuing e-journal about telecomm- unications on the Internet, having been founded in August, 1981 and published continuously since then. Our archives are available for your review/research. We believe we are the second oldest e-zine/ mailing list on the internet in any category! URL information: http://telecom-digest.org Anonymous FTP: mirror.lcs.mit.edu/telecom-archives/archives/ (or use our mirror site: ftp.epix.net/pub/telecom-archives) Email <==> FTP: telecom-archives@telecom-digest.org Send a simple, one line note to that automated address for a help file on how to use the automatic retrieval system for archives files. You can get desired files in email. ************************************************************************* * TELECOM Digest is partially funded by a grant from * * Judith Oppenheimer, President of ICB Inc. and purveyor of accurate * * 800 & Dot Com News, Intelligence, Analysis, and Consulting. * * http://ICBTollFree.com, http://1800TheExpert.com * * Views expressed herein should not be construed as representing * * views of Judith Oppenheimer or ICB Inc. * ************************************************************************* ICB Toll Free News. Contact information is not sold, rented or leased. One click a day feeds a person a meal. Go to http://www.thehungersite.com Copyright 2003 ICB, Inc. and TELECOM Digest. All rights reserved. Our attorney is Bill Levant, of Blue Bell, PA. In addition, gifts from Mike Sandman, Chicago's Telecom Expert have enabled me to replace some obsolete computer equipment and enter the 21st century sort of on schedule. His mail order telephone parts/supplies service based in the Chicago area has been widely recognized by Digest readers as a reliable and very inexpensive source of telecom-related equipment. Please request a free catalog today at http://www.sandman.com --------------------------------------------------------------- A new sponsor for the Digest is Teledeal. They offer Directory Assistance (411) Savings. TeleDeal Inc. specializes in helping businesses and organizations save over 80% on live operator directory assistance calls. Rates are as low as $.27/411 call. TeleDeal also offers a premium real-time 411 Internet database service. Visit http://www.1800teledeal.com or call 1-800-TELEDEAL The Directory Assistance Experts * We Know 411 TeleDeal Inc. George Jones, President ---------------------------------------------------------------- Finally, the Digest is funded by gifts from generous readers such as yourself who provide funding in amounts deemed appropriate. Your help is important and appreciated. A suggested donation of twenty dollars per year per reader is considered appropriate. See our address above. Please make at least a single donation to cover the cost of processing your name to the mailing list. All opinions expressed herein are deemed to be those of the author. Any organizations listed are for identification purposes only and messages should not be considered any official expression by the organization. End of TELECOM Digest V22 #665 ****************************** From editor@telecom-digest.org Thu Sep 25 00:04:11 2003 Received: (from ptownson@localhost) by massis.lcs.mit.edu (8.11.6p2/8.11.3) id h8P44Aa28496; Thu, 25 Sep 2003 00:04:11 -0400 (EDT) Date: Thu, 25 Sep 2003 00:04:11 -0400 (EDT) From: editor@telecom-digest.org Message-Id: <200309250404.h8P44Aa28496@massis.lcs.mit.edu> X-Authentication-Warning: massis.lcs.mit.edu: ptownson set sender to editor@telecom-digest.org using -f To: ptownson Approved: patsnewlist Subject: TELECOM Digest V22 #666 TELECOM Digest Thu, 25 Sep 2003 00:04:00 EDT Volume 22 : Issue 666 Inside This Issue: Editor: Patrick A. Townson and: Lisa Minter Re: What Happened to 951 Area Code? (Jay R. Ashworth) Re: What Happened to 951 Area Code? (Joey Lindstrom) Re: What Happened to 951 Area Code? (Group Special Mobile) Re: Caller ID vs. *69 (Jay R. Ashworth) Re: Caller ID vs. *69 (Steve Michelson) Re: Caller ID vs. *69 (John David Galt) Selective Call Forwarding Device? (Jody Bregler) Re: Private Video Transmission (Jay R. Ashworth) Kazaa Files Lawsuit Against Music, Movie Companies (Joey Lindstrom) RIAA Drops Suit Against Senior (Joey Lindstrom) Re: California Moves to Ban Unsolicited E-Mail (AES/newspost) Re: DID, DDI, ANI and CallerID (Tony Pelliccio) Cable, Phone and Internet in a Single Box (Greg DeBacker) AUTODIN (JIME7USAF@aol.com) Another Price Raise? (stealthbomber777) Re: Prying Google Seen as a Risk (stealthbomber777) Tough Times in Telecom (Paul Cook) All contents here are copyrighted by Patrick Townson and the individual writers/correspondents. Articles may be used in other journals or newsgroups, provided the writer's name and the Digest are included in the fair use quote. By using -any name or email address- included herein for -any- reason other than responding to an article herein, you agree to pay a hundred dollars to the recipients of the email. WE DO NOT PERMIT NAME/EMAIL ADDRESS HARVESTING FROM THIS JOURNAL. 'SALTED' EMAIL ADDRESSES APPEAR HEREIN TO VERIFY THIS. YOU GET SUED IN SMALL CLAIMS COURT IF YOU GET CAUGHT SPAMMING OR SENDING VIRUSES. DON'T DO IT. See the bottom of this issue for subscription and archive details and the name of our lawyer; other stuff of interest. ---------------------------------------------------------------------- From: Jay R. Ashworth Subject: Re: What Happened to 951 Area Code? Reply-To: jra@baylink.com Date: Wed, 24 Sep 2003 15:20:03 GMT Organization: RoadRunner - Central Florida Stanley settled back into the couch, and The Green Troll said to him: > Linc Madison wrote in message > news:: > There are only about 40 NPAs outside the U.S., > How many used to be in Mexico? As I understand it, none. There were some NPA codes that were kludged to *look* like they were in Mexico, for the convenience of USAdian callers, but they didn't work from non-NANPA phones; that is, they weren't *really* the phone number for that phone. Mark Cuccia would likely have more on this. Cheers, -- jra Jay R. Ashworth jra@baylink.com Member of the Technical Staff Baylink The Suncoast Freenet The Things I Think Tampa Bay, Florida http://baylink.pitas.com +1 727 647 1274 God, unlike Anya, is fond of bunnies. -- Chelsea Christenson ------------------------------ From: Joey Lindstrom Date: Wed, 24 Sep 2003 09:39:58 -0600 Subject: Re: What Happened to 951 Area Code? Reply-To: joey@telussucks.info On Sat, 20 Sep 2003 13:08:38 -0400 (EDT), Jeff Sutter wrote: > I still don't understand why this upsets you so. You seem to live and > die for 1+10D. Some of us just don't believe the hype. There are > sensible answers to prefix utilization that don't require Linc > Mandates. He's upset because of the complete lack of sensibility in the arguments you've presented. Like Robert Heinlein, he doesn't suffer fools easily. >> There is NO SUCH THING as a "tech overlay." All overlays in the United >> States -- by law -- are "all services" overlays. The FCC has said that > Gee, what was that they implemented in New York City, about ten years > ago? Seems to me, everyone called it a "tech overlay". But what do I > know? You don't seem to know that the FCC banned them after this occurred, and that the overlay in question IS NOW an all-services overlay. Linc was speaking to today, not yesterday. >> What is nonsense is the astonishingly ignorant claim that you can put >> fax machines in a separate area code. Never mind the legal issues, it > Hmm. I believe I offered to move my fax, it is you who assumed it is > a machine, as opposed to a service accomodated by new technology, > which, like batches of cellphone prefixes, could be easily reassigned > to a new area code. OK ... >> Likewise, you can't separate cellphones out, because in the very near >> future, there will be local number portability between wireless and >> landline prefixes. Right now, if I see a phone number 310-213-xxxx, I >> know that it's a Sprint PCS cellphone. By the end of the year, though, >> it could be T-Mobile or Cingular or any other wireless carrier, and >> the plan is to extend that to any other carrier that serves the >> Gardena area, including SBC. > Irrelevant, as if it was even going to happen. Cellular and Landline > companies have been thwarting number portability for years, and they > will continue to do so. Even if we have portability, so what? All the > cell prefixes in Gardena can be moved to the new area code. I'm sure > you'll retort, "ITS ILLEGAL", but number portability won't guarantee > you can keep the same area code for life, no matter what you protest. Excuse me, but you have been claiming all along to be arguing on behalf of the public, against the big bad telco industry (and the FCC) who are trying to ram an unpopular dialing plan down people's throats. But it seems pretty clear to me -- someone who's just come across this argument a few days late, and who has no reason to defend or attack Linc Madison -- that you simply haven't thought this through. Linc, on the other hand, has. Moreover, I'm absolutely convinced that your "solution" will be far, far more unpopular than anything Linc has advocated. I'm sure you'll disagree, so please answer this patently obvious question for me. How would a consumer in California benefit from your let's-keep-seven plan in the following scenario? 1) Consumer signs up for cellphone service, and is assigned a number in your "tech" overlay area code. Consumer can now call other cellphone customers using only 7 digits, but must dial 11 digits to call landline numbers. 2) Number portability between cellphones and landlines is implemented. (Despite your disbelief, this is coming) 3) Consumer is enticed by local telco to switch to landline service. Consumer agrees, but only because he can keep the same phone number, which all his friends know and is printed on his expensive business cards. 4) Consumer is now in the odd position of being the only person on his block who has to dial 11-digits from his landline to order a pizza or call his neighbour -- everybody else can dial 7-digits. That's just ridiculous. Now turn it around: what if the consumer ports a landline number to a cellphone? Now all of the people he deals with day-to-day (via cellphone) can call all their other friends with 7-digits, but our hapless number-ported consumer has to be dialed with 11. He'll be the telephone leper, like Elaine in that episode of Seinfeld where she got assigned a 646 number. What you wind up with is a VERY confusing situation. People don't want to remember "ok, when I call this group of friends, I dial them as 7-digits, but when I call this other group of friends, it's 11". People want either all-7 or all-11. All-7 is becoming more and more difficult to manage in some areas, and as Linc pointed out, there are already many areas where there are so many numbers all within the same ratecenter that all-7 has become impossible. So your choice is all-11 (or all-10) or this weird-ass mishmash that you propose. >> that if a new telco only has numbers in the new overlay code, and >> their customers have to dial 1+10D to call everyone else (or >> vice-versa), that new telco will have a much more difficult time >> selling its service. That makes it more difficult for a new telco to >> compete, which is supposed to be the goal. > After incumbent technology prefixes are migrated to the tech overlay, > the same prefixes will be available in the non-tech area code. See above: after portability, the line between "tech" and "non-tech" will blur considerably. Furthermore, your solution will cost a lot of money. See all of the endlessly-rehashed arguments regarding splits versus overlays: your solution, while technically an overlay, is essentially a split, based on technology rather than geography. Either way, it's far more expensive to implement than an overlay: you get the worst of both worlds. >> * How do you propose for new carriers to get customers if their >> subscribers are at an inherent disadvantage on an issue that you claim >> as tremendously important? > New carriers are not at an inherent disadvantage. They will have > equal access to recycled number blocks in the incumbent area code, > should they desire to provide voice services with dialtone in that > area. Otherwise, they will have plenty of number blocks in the tech > overlay, for new service offerings. And besides, the vast majority of > local "competitors" are just reselling ILEC dialtone. The last mile > is a natural monopoly. Can we try to stay on track here? How does the fact that some competitors are resellers bear in any way on access to "desirable" prefixes? Your thinking sure seems muddled. No wonder Linc was so frustrated with you. >> * In an area code like 310, where over 97% of prefixes have been >> assigned, how do you propose to recover the random pockets of unused >> numbers without forcing large numbers of end-users to change their 7D >> phone numbers? > This is the same dribble that you guys used three years ago, when you > told us we have three months before self-destructing. The fact then, > and now, is that prefixes have been assigned, but they are not fully > utilized. Industry can work number block allocation out amongst > themselves, or suffer without. They didn't do their homework the first > time, figuring they could just force another split without > consideration of the public. Earnestine is still alive, 30 years > hence - "We're the phone company. We don't care. We don't have to." Your solution isn't much better. "Force them to work it out somehow" is what you're saying. "We're the consumer advocate. We don't care if our goals are difficult or impossible to implement. We don't have to." And by the way: the word you were looking for is "drivel", not "dribble". Your arguments will have more credibility if you can demonstrate an ability to properly use the language we've all agreed to use. > I'm surprised that Linc, who is clearly well versed in all things > telecom, can not see beyond the party line, that there are ways to > address the "problem" that industry has artificially created, without > resorting to 1+10D. Creative engineers know there is rarely "one and > only" solution to architectural issues. > This will be my last post on the subject. Oooooh! How brave of you! You finish off with a slam against Linc, followed by ducking for cover. There goes the rest of your credibility. If you don't have the balls to back up your arguments, then please do us all a favour and go back to lurking. Your intellectual contribution to this forum will net about the same. ------------------------------ From: Group Special Mobile Subject: Re: What Happened to 951 Area Code? Date: Wed, 24 Sep 2003 08:44:59 -0700 Organization: Posted via Supernews, http://www.supernews.com Reply-To: look@signature_for_reply_instructions On 22 Sep 2003 23:14:49 -0700, aloe@rev.net (The Green Troll) wrote: >> and the 17 of those that are not in Canada represent a one-time- >> only expenditure of numbering resources. None of those 17 area codes >> is projected to exhaust in the foreseeable future. > They ought to be changed, though. Because they look like US numbers, > some are used to cheat callers out of money. There's no easy way to > spot them. Maybe they should all start the same way. Or maybe they > should require overseas dialing. There is no insurance against apathy or stupidity. Anyone who randomly dials a number not knowing where the end destination is deserves whatever ripoff they get. And what makes you believe that there are no ripoff numbers within the US? Even numbers that are definitely not zone 1 calls can be made to appear "normal" by changing the parsing of the number so it looks perfectly harmless to call a number in Guyanna not knowing that the number's charge per minute is some outrageous amount. To send an email reply send to GSMthemobilestandard (@) yahoo.com ------------------------------ From: Jay R. Ashworth Subject: Re: Caller ID vs. *69 Reply-To: jra@baylink.com Date: Wed, 24 Sep 2003 16:17:38 GMT Organization: RoadRunner - Central Florida Stanley settled back into the couch, and Ken said to him: > Are caller ID and *69 equivalent in determining the calling phone > number? This will depend on the generic loaded in the switch, but in general, yes, *69 uses CNID, not ANI, to determine the number. Amusingly enough, *69 will often return a call that was marked as Private -- *as long as it's not a toll call*. (I know this because Nortel got it *wrong* at first, and there was a patch. :-) Cheers, Jay R. Ashworth jra@baylink.com Member of the Technical Staff Baylink The Suncoast Freenet The Things I Think Tampa Bay, Florida http://baylink.pitas.com +1 727 647 1274 God, unlike Anya, is fond of bunnies. -- Chelsea Christenson ------------------------------ From: Steve Michelson Subject: Re: Caller ID vs. *69 Date: Wed, 24 Sep 2003 23:47:05 GMT Organization: EarthLink Inc. -- http://www.EarthLink.net Caller ID will tell you who's calling before you answer the phone. *69 will allow you to determine the number after the fact, if your local switch reads back the number to you before placing the call. The number will be the same in both cases, and if privacy is requested, you won't be able to learn the number in either case. Ken wrote in message news:telecom22.663.11@telecom-digest.org: > Are caller ID and *69 equivalent in determining the calling phone number? ------------------------------ From: John David Galt Subject: Re: Caller ID vs. *69 Date: Wed, 24 Sep 2003 13:20:09 -0700 Organization: Diogenes the Cynic Hot-Tubbing Society Ken wrote: > Are caller ID and *69 equivalent in determining the calling phone number? *69 uses the same data as Caller ID, however, in some places (such as the SBC areas of California) *69 will work on any call where Caller ID data is sent, even if the caller uses blocking to prevent your Caller ID box from displaying his number. ------------------------------ From: craphound999@hotmail.com (Jody Bregler) Subject: Selective Call Forwarding Device? Date: 24 Sep 2003 08:46:32 -0700 Organization: http://groups.google.com/ Hello, my local phone company does not offer Selective Call Forwarding. What I am interested in doing is sending calls from only a few numbers to a different number. Are there any devices out there that would do such a thing for me? Thanks in advance Jody ------------------------------ From: Jay R. Ashworth Subject: Re: Private Video Transmission Reply-To: jra@baylink.com Date: Tue, 23 Sep 2003 16:36:05 GMT Organization: RoadRunner - Central Florida Stanley settled back into the couch, and Tony Pelliccio said to him: > In article , > jra@dorothy.baylink.com says: >> Stanley settled back into the couch, and Dan McKeon >> said to him: >>> It's great to get a perspective from someone who understands >>> networking AND has law enforcement experience. In movies, they always >>> call on their "all knowing" computer pro in times like this. >> You have the mistaken impression that *anything* involving computers >> in a Follywood script is *ever* correct? >> > Yes, I found it a bit humorous myself. Hollywood is run by committee, > that means that you'll never get one person who has a clue making the > decisions. Except on the late, lamented Aaron Sorkin West Wing. :-) > Well -- it does work out into the field somewhat. But it's often poorly > implemented. I'll give you a perfect example: > The Providence Police Department in Rhode Island started off going in > the direction of a custom solution, got wined and dined into buying a > $4 million system called HTE that doesn't work for them (Takes on > average, 45 minutes to enter incident data.) and now they're searching > for a new I.T. director. Word is that the city CIO thinks IMC is the > bomb -- problem is that IMC won't scale to a department the size of > Providence, the states largest. And the software prices for IMC aren't > modest in the least, and maintenance fees are a significant expense > for IMC. Yeah. But Largo seems to be getting this right -- hell, I dunno about the cops, but the City is running a big 8-way Linux server. > So once again they'll end up with a system that doesn't work, and an > I.T. director who is simply a puppet for the city CIO. Bad, bad, bad. Pretty much. > I'll give you another example. Having worked at the AG's office it was > interesting when the state started requiring background checks on > anyone who worked in a primary or secondary school. My unit had to > craft a tracking database rather quickly - and roll it out to each > department. Problem was, most departments didn't have the first idea > whether they had MS Access or not, nor did they even have an email > address for the AFIS results to be transmitted back to. 3-tier. Netscape 7. SSL. :-) >> Jay R. Ashworth jra@baylink.com >> Member of the Technical Staff Baylink >> The Suncoast Freenet The Things I Think >> Tampa Bay, Florida http://baylink.pitas.com +1 727 647 1274 > Suncoast Freenet? I'm loosely affiliated with the tech crew on the > Ocean State Free Net. No relation to the peer-to-peer servent that stole our name ... Loosely affiliated is about where I am these days, too ... Cheers, Jay R. Ashworth jra@baylink.com Member of the Technical Staff Baylink The Suncoast Freenet The Things I Think Tampa Bay, Florida http://baylink.pitas.com +1 727 647 1274 God, unlike Anya, is fond of bunnies. -- Chelsea Christenson ------------------------------ From: Joey Lindstrom Date: Wed, 24 Sep 2003 12:52:53 -0600 Subject: Kazaa Files Lawsuit Against Music, Movie Companies Reply-To: joey@telussucks.info LOS ANGELES (AP) -- Makers of the most popular online file-sharing network are suing entertainment companies for copyright infringement, alleging the companies used unauthorized versions of its software to snoop on users in their efforts to battle piracy. Sharman Networks, the company behind the Kazaa file-sharing software, filed a federal lawsuit Monday, accusing the movie studios and the Recording Industry of America of using "Kazaa Lite," a replica of its software without advertising, to get onto the network. Sharman claims its copyright was violated because Kazaa Lite is an unauthorized version of its free software. Once on the network, the companies offered bogus versions of copyright music and movies and then sent online messages to users warning them they were breaking the law. Sharman claims those moves violated terms for using its network. http://www.canoe.ca/JamMusic/sep24_kazaa-ap.html ------------------------------ From: Joey Lindstrom Date: Wed, 24 Sep 2003 12:53:55 -0600 Subject: RIAA Drops Suit Against Senior Reply-To: joey@telussucks.info BOSTON (AP) -- The recording industry has withdrawn a lawsuit accusing a 66-year-old woman, who says she didn't even have file-sharing software, of illegally sharing hundreds of songs including rap. The lawsuit against sculptor Sara Seabury Ward was among 261 lawsuits filed this month by the Recording Industry Association of America as part of a fight against Internet file-trading. It accused her of illegally sharing more than 2,000 songs through the file-sharing service Kazaa, including rapper Trick Daddy's "I'm a Thug." The industry threatened to hold her liable for up to $150,000 for each song. But Ward's lawyer, Jeffrey Beeler wrote in a letter to industry representatives that Ward was a "computer neophyte" who never even installed file-sharing software on her computer, The Boston Globe reported Wednesday. http://www.canoe.ca/JamMusic/sep24_downloadman-ap.html ------------------------------ From: AES/newspost Subject: Re: California Moves to Ban Unsolicited E-Mail Date: Wed, 24 Sep 2003 16:48:09 -0700 In article , richgr@panix.com (Rich Greenberg) wrote: >> Gov. Gray Davis of California signed a bill today that outlaws sending >> most commercial e-mail to or from the state that the recipient did not >> explicitly request. That is a far more wide-reaching law than any of >> the 35 other state laws meant to regulate spam or any of the proposed >> bills in Congress. I received earlier today a fancy HTML-format email coming From: "members@XXX.org" where XXX is a major professional organization, with Subject: line "Join XXX Today and Get 15 Months of Membership for the Price of 12!" It was apparently sent to some other bulk mailing list in the same field without cross-checking addresses; I'm not only already a member of XXX, I was its *president* a few years back. Clicking on a link in the message led to some commercial firm, apparently some kind of mailing services firm. Would this have any chance of being considered "commercial email" under the Calif law? ------------------------------ From: kd1s@yahoo.com (Tony Pelliccio) Subject: Re: DID, DDI, ANI and CallerID Date: 24 Sep 2003 16:56:50 -0700 Organization: http://groups.google.com/ pbxmaniac2003@yahoo.com (PBX Maniac) wrote in message news:: > Hello, > Could someone explain to me what's the difference between DID, DDI, > ANI and CallerID? > Thanks > PBX Maniac DID is Direct Inward Dial - where a person can dial a seven digit number and reach an extension on a PBX. The carrier transmits a 4-5 digit sequence to the PBX so it knows how to route the call. DDI I'm not sure of, other than as Deputy Director, Intelligence. :) ANI is Automatic Number Identification -- delivered on all calls in reality. Those with 800 numbers get detailed info about calling numbers either in real-time or on their monthly bill. CLID is a method of transmitting calling number to a subscriber. It's loosely based on ANI from what I remember. ------------------------------ From: gdebacker@windsweptsoftware.com (Greg DeBacker) Subject: Cable, Phone and Internet in a Single Box Date: 24 Sep 2003 16:57:11 -0700 Organization: http://groups.google.com/ I've recently rewired my house (1895 knob & tube) and next I want to add cable and phone to all of the bedrooms. My thought is to run 1 or 2 coaxial and 1 or 2 CAT5 lines to each room and have them all in one box. All runs would terminate in the attic where I would have some type hub system set up on one wall. Radio Shack makes a modular face plate that allows you to mix and match up to 4 coax and/or phone jacks. My concern is interference. There would be telephone, cable TV, and either cable modem or DSL in each box. Are the cables and CAT5 lines shielded enough to have runs of about 30 feet in close proximity to one and other without causing interference? I've heard of stuff called fire-wire (or something like that) but I'm sure it is out of my budget. Greg ------------------------------ From: JIME7USAF@aol.com Date: Wed, 24 Sep 2003 20:20:05 EDT Subject: AUTODIN I WAS IN THE AF STATIONED AT CLARK AB FROM 1977 THRU 1980 AND WORKED AT THE CLARK AUTODIN SWITCH. I WAS PRESENT WHEN THE "DRUP" COMMAND WAS GIVEN TO SHUT DOWN THE CLARK ASC. AFTER THAT I WAS THE "PROGRAM CONTROL MANAGER" AND NCOIC OF AUTODIN OPERATIONS AT THE ANDREWS ASC FROM 1980-1985. I OVERSAW THE CHANGES FROM THE OLD CORE MEMORIES TO SOLID STATE AND THE CHANGE FROM TAPE DRIVES TO DISC DRIVES, FOR ITS TIME, AUTODIN WAS THE FOREMOST IN COMMUNICATIONS SWITCHING AND IT WILL BE SAD TO SEE IT'S DEMISE. JAMES HART MSGT USAF (RET) ------------------------------ From: stealthbomber77@comcast.net (stealthbomber777) Subject: Another Price Raise? Date: 24 Sep 2003 18:30:51 -0700 Organization: http://groups.google.com/ My first regular Ameritech bill was $45.91 in August. The last 2 have been for $53.93. I haven't made any calls that weren't toll free. Has SBC raised their price again? ------------------------------ From: stealthbomber77@comcast.net (stealthbomber777) Subject: Re: Prying Google Seen as a Risk Date: 24 Sep 2003 18:33:04 -0700 Organization: http://groups.google.com/ She's stupid. If you're dumb enough to put your private information on the Internet, you can rest assured it'll find its way to Google. Monty Solomon wrote in message news:: > By RICHARD PAMATATAU > Stephanie Perrin, principal of Montreal-based Digital Discretion, > believes Google is a threat to personal privacy because it harvests > images and information to serve up to anyone with a computer and > internet access. > This was partly an erosion of privacy rights, making individuals a > rank on a search engine list. > http://www.nzherald.co.nz/storydisplay.cfm?storyID=3524226 ------------------------------ Reply-To: Paul Cook From: Paul Cook Subject: Tough Times in Telecom Date: Wed, 24 Sep 2003 15:52:10 -0700 Organization: Proctor & Associates, Inc. I've been posting to this forum for 15 years from home (where I used to post as tad@ssc.com) and about 7 years from here at work. I have never done this before, so please excuse me if this seems like spam to the list, which of course PAT can delete or edit as he pleases. Take a look at www.proctorinc.com. As of today you can buy any customer premises or test equipment for 20% off the listed price, but call me first for details. 425-881-7000, and hit Option One when the auto-attendant answers. We have lots of hotline-ringdown circuits, power supply/ring generators, MF/DTMF test boxes, and other test equipment in stock. Paul Cook - Applications Engineer pcook@proctorinc.com 425-881-7000, ext 566 fax: 425-885-3282 Proctor & Associates 15305 NE 95 St Redmond WA 98052-2517 www.proctorinc.com [TELECOM Digest Editor's Note: Well Paul, the **only** reason I let this message past is because you have been around here on the mailing list for somewhere between 15-20 years. I guess it is pointless to say 'you should have known better' because I am sure you do (know better) and won't do it again. I do not think even once in fifteen plus years I have ever dumped out any of your stuff and you have made some very valuable contributions to the Digest in the past. I'm assuming your subject title is correct; that times are tough at Proctor as they are in many places. A good friend of mine in the Chicago area says that no one is buying anything telecom-related right now; in fact two weeks ago he was forced to lay off about fifty percent of his employees. Things are pretty grim all over. I hope this pitch helps your company out a little. Another thing to bear in mind is that I honestly believe spam is very contagious. At one point so many of us had 'holier than thou' attitudes about the other guy's 'spam' and claimed we would never do it ourselves. But for some of us, you either spam or you starve, no middle ground. Then you see so damn much of it all over the net these days, and figure no one (but possibly yourself and a few friends) give an iota either way any more, so you figure what the hell, I will try it myself and see what it gets me. Consider when I first started running 'Share Day' messages here in the Digest about a year ago. At first I absolutely hated posting them, too proud I was ... now in the past few months it has gotten easier and easier. They never bring me very much money, but at least I know from what comes in there are still some readers out there who are interested in *my* welfare. Anyway, Paul, this is *my* Digest, so I have to hold you to the one spurious spam printed in this issue, and I hope Proctor benefits from it. And I hope business gets better for my friend in Chicago also. PAT] ------------------------------ TELECOM Digest is an electronic journal devoted mostly but not exclusively to telecommunications topics. It is circulated anywhere there is email, in addition to various telecom forums on a variety of networks such as Compuserve and America On Line, and other forums. It is also gatewayed to Usenet where it appears as the moderated newsgroup 'comp.dcom.telecom'. TELECOM Digest is a not-for-profit, mostly non-commercial educational service offered to the Internet by Patrick Townson. All the contents of the Digest are compilation-copyrighted. You may reprint articles in some other media on an occasional basis, but please attribute my work and that of the original author. Contact information: Patrick Townson/TELECOM Digest Post Office Box 50 Independence, KS 67301 Phone: 620-330-6774 Fax 1: 775-255-9970 Fax 2: 775-306-8390 Fax 3: 775-642-0603 Fax 4: 530-309-7234 Email: editor@telecom-digest.org Subscribe: telecom-subscribe@telecom-digest.org Unsubscribe:telecom-unsubscribe@telecom-digest.org This Digest is the oldest continuing e-journal about telecomm- unications on the Internet, having been founded in August, 1981 and published continuously since then. Our archives are available for your review/research. We believe we are the second oldest e-zine/ mailing list on the internet in any category! URL information: http://telecom-digest.org Anonymous FTP: mirror.lcs.mit.edu/telecom-archives/archives/ (or use our mirror site: ftp.epix.net/pub/telecom-archives) Email <==> FTP: telecom-archives@telecom-digest.org Send a simple, one line note to that automated address for a help file on how to use the automatic retrieval system for archives files. You can get desired files in email. ************************************************************************* * TELECOM Digest is partially funded by a grant from * * Judith Oppenheimer, President of ICB Inc. and purveyor of accurate * * 800 & Dot Com News, Intelligence, Analysis, and Consulting. * * http://ICBTollFree.com, http://1800TheExpert.com * * Views expressed herein should not be construed as representing * * views of Judith Oppenheimer or ICB Inc. * ************************************************************************* ICB Toll Free News. Contact information is not sold, rented or leased. One click a day feeds a person a meal. Go to http://www.thehungersite.com Copyright 2003 ICB, Inc. and TELECOM Digest. All rights reserved. Our attorney is Bill Levant, of Blue Bell, PA. In addition, gifts from Mike Sandman, Chicago's Telecom Expert have enabled me to replace some obsolete computer equipment and enter the 21st century sort of on schedule. His mail order telephone parts/supplies service based in the Chicago area has been widely recognized by Digest readers as a reliable and very inexpensive source of telecom-related equipment. Please request a free catalog today at http://www.sandman.com --------------------------------------------------------------- A new sponsor for the Digest is Teledeal. They offer Directory Assistance (411) Savings. TeleDeal Inc. specializes in helping businesses and organizations save over 80% on live operator directory assistance calls. Rates are as low as $.27/411 call. TeleDeal also offers a premium real-time 411 Internet database service. Visit http://www.1800teledeal.com or call 1-800-TELEDEAL The Directory Assistance Experts * We Know 411 TeleDeal Inc. George Jones, President ---------------------------------------------------------------- Finally, the Digest is funded by gifts from generous readers such as yourself who provide funding in amounts deemed appropriate. Your help is important and appreciated. A suggested donation of twenty dollars per year per reader is considered appropriate. See our address above. Please make at least a single donation to cover the cost of processing your name to the mailing list. All opinions expressed herein are deemed to be those of the author. Any organizations listed are for identification purposes only and messages should not be considered any official expression by the organization. End of TELECOM Digest V22 #666 ****************************** From editor@telecom-digest.org Thu Sep 25 17:40:51 2003 Received: (from ptownson@localhost) by massis.lcs.mit.edu (8.11.6p2/8.11.3) id h8PLepq04568; Thu, 25 Sep 2003 17:40:51 -0400 (EDT) Date: Thu, 25 Sep 2003 17:40:51 -0400 (EDT) From: editor@telecom-digest.org Message-Id: <200309252140.h8PLepq04568@massis.lcs.mit.edu> X-Authentication-Warning: massis.lcs.mit.edu: ptownson set sender to editor@telecom-digest.org using -f To: ptownson Approved: patsnewlist Subject: TELECOM Digest V22 #667 TELECOM Digest Thu, 25 Sep 2003 17:41:00 EDT Volume 22 : Issue 667 Inside This Issue: Editor: Patrick A. Townson and: Lisa Minter Jury Convicts Man in DMCA Case (Monty Solomon) CAPPS 2 Public Comment Deadline is 9/30 (Monty Solomon) Concerned About Verisign "Taking" of .COM and .NET (Gene Gaines) Why Hasn't the FTC or DOJ Enjoined Verisign's Site Finder? (Gene Gaines) FTC Charged VeriSign With Deceptive-Business Practices (Gene Gaines) Petition Against Verisign Site Finder (Gene Gaines) Experts say Microsoft Monopoly Poses National Security Risk (John Stahl) Talking In The Free World (Eric Friedebach) Do-Not-Call List Likely To Call Back (Eric Friedebach) NEC Electra Elite IPK (Epic) Net2phone: Any Experiences? (mrxcoffee) Covista "Federally Regulated Charge" For Hearing Impaired (Refugee) All contents here are copyrighted by Patrick Townson and the individual writers/correspondents. Articles may be used in other journals or newsgroups, provided the writer's name and the Digest are included in the fair use quote. By using -any name or email address- included herein for -any- reason other than responding to an article herein, you agree to pay a hundred dollars to the recipients of the email. WE DO NOT PERMIT NAME/EMAIL ADDRESS HARVESTING FROM THIS JOURNAL. 'SALTED' EMAIL ADDRESSES APPEAR HEREIN TO VERIFY THIS. YOU GET SUED IN SMALL CLAIMS COURT IF YOU GET CAUGHT SPAMMING OR SENDING VIRUSES. DON'T DO IT. See the bottom of this issue for subscription and archive details and the name of our lawyer; other stuff of interest. ---------------------------------------------------------------------- Date: Thu, 25 Sep 2003 01:51:39 -0400 From: Monty Solomon Subject: Jury Convicts Man in DMCA Case By Paul Festa Staff Writer, CNET News.com A federal jury has convicted a Florida man of violating the Digital Millennium Copyright Act, in the first jury-trial conviction under the controversial law, according to a U.S. attorney's office. The Los Angeles jury found 38-year-old Thomas Michael Whitehead guilty on Friday of selling hardware that could access DirecTV satellite broadcasts without paying for them, according to the U.S. attorney's office in Los Angeles. Whitehead, who was also known by his computer name "JungleMike," was convicted on one count of conspiracy, two counts of selling hardware that unlawfully decrypted the broadcasts, and three counts of violating the DMCA . With the six felony convictions, Whitehead faces up to 30 years in federal prison and fines of as much as $2.75 million. Sentencing is scheduled for Jan. 26, 2004. http://news.com.com/2100-1025-5080807.html ------------------------------ Date: Wed, 24 Sep 2003 22:47:47 -0400 From: Monty Solomon Subject: CAPPS 2 Public Comment Deadline is 9/30 Submitted by: John Gilmore There's something you can do *right now* that will stop pending abuses of air travelers' private data. And your chance to do it will expire this coming Tuesday (Sept 30). The government has published a Privacy Act notice about its CAPPS-2 program, which would require all airlines to provide JetBlue-style information (full PNRs) to the government -- all the time, before every flight. It's like another JetBlue database dump that happens again and again, day after day, month after month, airline after airline. Affecting everyone who ever flies. CAPPS-2 is the real thing, for which the Torch Concepts/JetBlue contract was one of the test runs. The government is taking public comments on the CAPPS-2 proposal, by email or postal mail, between now and September 30th. After that, if you send them your opinion, they'll ignore it (even more than usual). Address your email like this: To: privacy@dhs.gov Subject: DHS/TSA-2003-1 Then tell them whatever you want. If the government is honest, then they would stop CAPPS-2 if they got individual notes from 10,000 people saying "KILL CAPPS-2! Don't sacrifice the privacy of 600 million travelers each year in a foolish attempt to catch less than a dozen actual terrorists each year." If they are dishonest and don't care what the public thinks, then they would at least be on notice that 10,000 honest and involved people are watching them. You can write them pages and pages of details on how terrible CAPPS-2 is, and how corrupt they are to propose it, instead of a short note. But I suggest reading the details of what they propose, if you're going to that much trouble. You can find their proposal (in proprietary PDF format) here: http://www.dhs.gov/interweb/assetlibrary/CAPPSII_PRIVACY_ACT_NOTICE.pdf They claim that they're putting up the comments for public viewing on http://www.dhs.gov, but if they have done so, I can't find them there. You can find an earlier round of 282 overwhelmingly negative public comments on CAPPS-2 here, if you click "Simple Search" and enter "1437": http://dms.dot.gov As a brief overview, CAPPS-2 would require airlines to collect peoples' full legal name, residence address, home phone number, and date of birth (none of which is currently used by airlines today) before they can even make a flight reservation. They would be required to hand this information, and everything else in the PNR (flight reservation), to the government, LONG BEFORE the flight takes off. Then the government (or its "contractors") would do the same kind of data matching that Torch Concepts did, hooking up your flight reservations to credit databases and many other government and private databases. The difference is that if YOUR data was one of those "anomalous records" (that didn't fit one of the standard patterns of your airline's customers), you would be singled out to be specially searched, and/or kept off the airplane. Torch Concepts' report blew the whistle on this secret program. The report is at http://cryptome.org/jetblue-spy.pdf. On page 22, Torch found two major groupings of JetBlue customers: (1) Young Middle Income Home Owners with Short Length-of-Residence (2) Older Upper Income Home Owners with Longer Length-of-Residence Everybody else they categorized into "anomalous records". If you're an oldster who moved to Florida recently -- or a renter -- or a lower income person of any type -- you're anomalous. You're going to get that special government search whenever you fly on JetBlue, if TSA succeeds in imposing CAPPS 2. (Oh, perhaps their final system will be more subtle than this clumsy contractor was, but the basic problem is the same: the government will forcibly identify each traveler, evalulate their lifestyle from database records, and then make snap decisions about what civil rights that person will have while traveling. They propose to permanently withhold the right to anonymity; grant or withhold the right to travel; and grant or withhold the right not to be searched without probable cause. I thought rights were something that you had *all the time*, not just if the government likes your lifestyle.) CAPPS-2 also proposes that this "airport checkpoint" also be used to try to catch various kinds of criminals, rather than solely to make flying supposedly safer. It would also be used to catch foreign visitors whose visa has expired or whose paperwork is snarled. And once the public is used to it, of course I expect it would be expanded to stop people for everything up to and including parking tickets. The judges say that searching the general public without cause, in order to catch criminals, is unconstitutional. But don't depend on a judge to guard your rights. Complain to the government yourself, right now! Here's the best part. Besides the "blacklists" that today's CAPPS-1 system uses, the CAPPS-2 system will have "whitelists". Anyone with a government security clearance, or a "position of trust and confidence", will never get singled out, screened, or delayed. They will be able to show up at the airport half an hour before their flight, like everyone used to be able to do, and just walk on board. There'll be one rule for "Party members" and another rule for the "proletariat". CAPPS-2 assumes you are guilty until proven innocent -- and assumes you are innocent if you work for the government. That alone is reason enough to stop it. EFF has also set up an Action Alert web site as another way to submit your comments on CAPPS-2. See: http://action.eff.org/action/index.asp?step=2&item=2785 John Gilmore http://freetotravel.org and Electronic Frontier Foundation (EFF) ------------------------------ Date: Thu, 25 Sep 2003 12:58:18 -0400 From: Gene Gaines Organization: Gaines Group Subject: Concerned About Verisign "Taking" of .COM and .NET Pat, I speak maybe once every 5 years to you. This time, first let me say how much I respect you and what you do, and hope you are feeling better / doing well. The Verisign preemptive "strike" implementing the misspelled name rerouting of web traffic truly disturbs me. I will send two emails, to you, in the next few minutes that you might consider distributing. I have no economic ax to grind here, other than I am an active Internet user, as most of us are today. You know, the Internet _IS_ telecom, and is important to everyone, both for freedom of information and expression as well as economic reasons. Most technologists in IETF, ISOC, etc. appear to believe that if they talk about the technical problems that the Verisign move is causing, it will go away. I think it will take more than that, and think it important that a broad range of Internet users protest the change. In my belief, Verisign has moved unilaterally to hijack to Internet naming service process that relates to the two names they provide service for under contract to the U.S. Department of Commerce and under ICANN. Best wishes to you. Wish I have the finances to provide you some support, but my wife and I are heavily embroiled in a slap suit against me (as president of our homeowners association), our county officials, and other homeowners over our attempt to keep a developer from improper use of our community. I was sued for $1.5 million, though now withdrawn, so you know where my spare cash is going -- lawyers lawyers lawyers bills bills bills. Gene Gaines gene.gaines@gainesgroup.com Sterling, Virginia [TELECOM Digest Editor's Note: Thanks for your note of support, and your emails follow here for distribution. PAT] ------------------------------ Date: Thu, 25 Sep 2003 13:05:52 -0400 From: Gene Gaines Organization: Gaines Group Subject: Why Hasn't the FTC or DOJ Enjoined Verisign's Site Finder? Good question. Well, one could look into the political campaign contribution of the president of Network Solutions (the subsidiary of Verisign that operates SiteFinder) and Verisign itself. Or, could might take a few minutes and file a protest where it will be counted. For those who believe that SiteFinder should not be permitted, breaks some functions of the Internet, or perhaps is illegal, have you taken any action as an individual, or as a corporate entity? 1. Have you filed a complaint with the FTC? I have. And I have received a complaint number. I would expect other people might take the time to file a complaint. To file a complaint with the FTC, call tollfree, 1-877-FTC-HELP (1-877-382-4357), or use the complaint form at www.ftc.gov. Also, if you think the Verisign action is illegal, file a complaint with the National Internet Fraud Information Center, 1-800-867-7060 (9 a.m. to 5 p.m. Eastern time, M-F), outside U.S, Canada, PR., call 1-202-331-8590, or use the complaint form at www.fraud.org/. 2. Other contact information. These U.S. Federal Trade Commission officials appear to be concerned with the Verisign case: Stephen L. Cohen, Staff Attorney, 202-326-3222 Eric A. Wenger, Staff Attorney, 202-326-2310 Division of Marketing Practices Bureau of Consumer Protection Federal Trade Commission (These two gentlemen are the attorneys of record on the court consent order signed by Verisign with the FTC just last week regarding "Network Solutions [dba Verisign] Settles FTC Charges, False Solicitations Allegedly Duped Consumers to Transfer Domain Name Registrations".) 3. Here is a good place to monitor the ongoing Verisign problems, Blog: http://www.circleid.com/sitefinder/ Monitoring the controversy over VeriSign's new Site Finder service. Recent quotes there: "Returning resource records in a way which is contrary to the very design of the DNS certainly does not promote the stability of the Internet." The ICANN At-Large Advisory Committee. E-mail delivery will be interfered with. Scores of other applications will also break. In some cases, there will be security problems, where users running applications that should have given them an error now connect them to a distant Internet site. Brad Templeton, Chairman of the Electronic Frontier Foundation Breaks technical standards, by rewriting the expected error codes to instead point to VeriSign's pay-per-click web directory, and threatens the security and stability of the Internet. George Kirikos, President, Leap of Faith Financial Services Inc. I am now searching for a new parent domain whose publisher will guarantee me, in perpetuity, that there will be no wildcard name as there now is in "com". Paul Vixie, Founder & Chairman of Internet Software Consortium "VeriSign had traffic rank 1,559. But today its traffic rank is 19 -- meaning, at least among Alexa users (who are generally representative of web users), the verisign.com domain has suddenly become joined the top 20 sites." Benjamin Edelman, Harvard Law School Student & Researcher at its Berkman Center for Internet & Society. Recent industry commentary cited there, with links: * Breaking the Internet's Consensus Rule Sep 24, 03 * SiteFinder Is Leaking Data Sep 23, 03 * PIR Opposes SiteFinder; Will Not Implement Similar Service for * .ORG Sep 23, 03 * It's "Verisign vs. Users" Sep 23, 03 * GoDaddy Sues VeriSign Over Site Finder Sep 22, 03 * Why Site Finder is Breaking MS Outlook & Windows Networking Utilities Sep 21, 03 * Quantifying SiteFinder Traffic Sep 20, 03 * ICANN and IAB Ask VeriSign to Suspend Site Finder Sep 20, 03 * $100 Million Lawsuit Filed Against VeriSign Sep 18, 03 * Site Finder: The Technical, Legal & Privacy Concerns Sep 18, 03 * ALAC Statement on Site Finder Sep 17, 03 * Bug Reveals the Snooper in VeriSign's Site Finder Sep 17, 03 * Paul Vixie in Response to Site Finder Controversy Sep 16, 03 * Petition Against Site Finder Sep 16, 03 * Brad Templeton in Response to Site Finder Controversy Sep 16, 03 + Add Your Opinion to the comments there. Gene Gaines gene.gaines@gainesgroup.com Sterling, Virginia USA ------------------------------ Date: Thu, 25 Sep 2003 13:17:33 -0400 From: Gene Gaines Organization: Gaines Group Subject: FTC Charged VeriSign With Deceptive-Business Practices Three remarkable events last week involving Verisign: 1. The FTC appears in court over the deceptive business practice issue (see details below) on September 11, and settles with Verisign in the following several days. 2. Verisign signs a two-year contract renewal with the Department of Commerce. 3. Several days later, Verisign slams in the SiteFinder service on .COM and .NET with essentially no advance notice to Internet operators or users. Gosh. All an innocent coincidence? Gene Gaines gene.gaines@gainesgroup.com Sterling, Virginia > Reuters > VeriSign agrees to Oversight of marketing efforts > Monday September 15, 3:10 pm ET (2003) > By Andy Sullivan > WASHINGTON, Sept 15 (Reuters) - U.S. regulators will make sure > Internet domain-name seller VeriSign Inc (NasdaqNM:VRSN - News). > provides refunds or free service to consumers it signed up in a > controversial marketing campaign last year, according to court > documents filed late last week. > The Federal Trade Commission charged VeriSign with deceptive-business > practices on Thursday in U.S. court in Washington after the firm sent > out "domain name expiration notices" to competitors' customers in the > spring of 2002. > VeriSign warned domain-name holders that they could lose control of > addresses like "www.example.com" if they did not promptly send $29 to > VeriSign. > The forms were intended to trick domain owners into unwittingly > transferring their accounts to VeriSign, the FTC charged. > VeriSign agreed to provide refunds or a year of free service to > thousands of customers under a class-action settlement reached earlier > this year in a California court. Friday's FTC settlement, in which the > company did not admit or deny guilt, means that it could face steep > fines if it resorts to such marketing tactics again. > VeriSign must also allow the FTC to monitor its marketing efforts for > the next five years. > "This matter relates to a marketing campaign that ended more than a > year ago," VeriSign spokesman Tom Galvin told Reuters. "VeriSign > cooperated fully with the FTC and is pleased that the matter is fully > resolved." > An FTC official declined to comment. ------------------------------ Date: Thu, 25 Sep 2003 13:20:21 -0400 From: Gene Gaines Organization: Gaines Group Subject: Petition Against Verisign Site Finder Worthy of reading and considering signing. A petition to ICANN against Verisign's Sitefinder. http://www.whois.sc/verisign-dns/ If you do not know the details of the Verisign Sitefinder controversy, here is a good place to get briefed: http://www.circleid.com/sitefinder/ Text of petition: Petition Against Site Finder By George Kirikos To: ICANN We Internet users, who either own domain names or have an interest in the domain name system, wish to object to the VeriSign's Site Finder system. We believe that the system: 1. Breaks technical standards, by rewriting the expected error codes to instead point to VeriSign's pay-per-click web directory, and threatens the security and stability of the Internet; 2. Breaks technical standards affecting email services, and other Internet systems; 3. Is anti-competitive, providing VeriSign with 20 million eyeballs per day for "free", while not paying for the domains they are resolving. All other market participants pay at least $6 per domain per year (wholesale); 4. Violates trademark rights of domain holders, by typosquatting on their .com and .net domains; and 5. Violates the authoritative nature of DNS, turning it instead into a "best guess" system filled with uncertainty, thereby destroying the coherence of the DNS for VeriSign's own short-term profit. We hereby demand that ICANN immediately: a) Insist that VeriSign cease giving incorrect answers to any query in .com and .net, and should instead follow the IETF standards; b) If VeriSign refuses, should re-delegate the .com and .net zones to registries that are more willing to follow the DNS standards; c) For greater certainty for all gTLD registries, pass a resolution stating that "gTLD Registry operators WILL return NXDOMAIN for ALL DNS queries for which there is not a REGISTERED domain name"; and d) That VeriSign be reprimanded for their monopolistic abuse of the DNS system, and return all audited gross revenues from their Site Finder system to stakeholders, via a payment to the Generic Names Supporting Organization (GNSO) of ICANN in the name of the Non-Commercial constituency Supporting documentation can be found at the sites below: http://www.merit.edu/mail.archives/nanog/ http://www.opensrs.org/archives/discuss-list/0309/date.html http://slashdot.org/article.pl?sid=03/09/16/0034210 http://gnso.icann.org/mailing-lists/archives/registrars/ http://gnso.icann.org/mailing-lists/archives/ga/ http://log.does-not-exist.org/ http://www.icann.org/correspondence/lynn-message-to-iab-06jan03.htm http://www.icann.org/correspondence/iab-message-to-lynn-25jan03.htm http://gnso.icann.org/mailing-lists/archives/ga/msg00336.html Sincerely, The Undersigned ------------------------ Gene Gaines Sterling, Virginia USA ------------------------------ Date: Thu, 25 Sep 2003 08:01:01 -0400 From: John Stahl Subject: Experts Say Microsoft Monopoly Poses National Security Risk From: SECURITY WIRE DIGEST, VOL. 5, NO. 72, SEPTEMBER 25, 2003 Security Wire Digest is a newsletter published by Information Security, the industry's leading source of security news and information. *EXPERTS SAY MICROSOFT MONOPOLY POSES NATIONAL SECURITY RISK Calling for increased biodiversity in IT infrastructures, a group of infosecurity luminaries warns that Microsoft's dominance in the software and operating systems markets is threatening U.S. security. "Cyber Insecurity: The Cost of Monopoly," released Wednesday at the Computer & Communications Industry Association's meeting in Washington, D.C., asserts that Microsoft's overwhelming market share has caused U.S. computer networks to be susceptible to massive, cascading failures. The authors didn't elaborate on the consequences of Microsoft security problems. "As fast as the world's computing infrastructure is growing, vulnerability to attack is growing faster still," said @stake CTO Dan Geer. "Microsoft's attempts to tightly integrate myriad applications with its operating system have significantly contributed to excessive complexity and vulnerability. This deterioration of security compounds when nearly all computers rely on a single operating system subject to the same vulnerabilities the world over." Geer coauthored the report with Becky Bace, CEO of consultancy Infidel; Bruce Schneier, CTO of MSSP Counterpane Internet Security; Peter Gutmann, a computer science researcher at the University of Auckland; Charles Pfleeger; master security architect at Exodus Communications; John Quarterman, founder of InternetPerils; and Perry Metzger, the managing partner at Metzger, Dowdeswell & Co. According to the authors, Microsoft's hold on excessively complex and vulnerable software fortifies its dominance in desktop computing and ensures not only that Microsoft will continue to be the number one target of malicious viruses, worms and other attacks, but that those attacks will have far-reaching effects. Citing Windows market share at more than 94 percent of consumer client software, the report calls for government to "dismantle the monopoly" by making Microsoft applications and interfaces available on non-Microsoft platforms. Other recommendations include the introduction laws to ensure the rights of end users harmed by security flaws and "rigorous, independent evaluations" of code. It also suggests government lead by example and "ensure nothing that it deems important is dependent on a monoculture of IT platforms." The authors don't advocate breaking Microsoft into an operating systems company and an applications company, but rather say that Microsoft should be mandated to support a list of applications and development tools on a long list of platforms. The report comes on the heels of a recent presentation Microsoft CEO Steve Ballmer gave at the Churchill Club in Santa Clara, Calif. There, he spoke of the need for "the highest levels of security" and a belief that "better security and constant innovation go hand in hand." Admitting that Microsoft has a long road ahead of it to more secure software, Ballmer reaffirmed Microsoft's commitment to security, which includes: -- raising the bar on security for all products -- working with law enforcement to identify and prosecute hackers -- working with users to fully utilize security technologies -- improving the entire patch management process -- blocking viruses and other attacks by combining security technologies Downloadable copy of the report is located at: http://www.ccianet.org/papers/cyberinsecurity.pdf Things can only get worse for Microsoft as new "holes" seem to be reported just about every week. John Stahl Aljon Enterprises Telecom/Data Consultants ------------------------------ From: Eric Friedebach Subject: Talking In The Free World Date: Thu, 25 Sep 2003 09:31:28 -0500 Organization: LeAnn Rimes/Busta Rhymes; Know the Difference Daniel Lyons, 09.25.03, Forbes.com NEW YORK - "Something for nothing" might be the unofficial motto of the Internet. Free music, free e-mail, free software. And now free phone calls. In just ten months, some 60,000 people have subscribed to a service called Free World Dialup that lets you make phone calls free over the Internet. It's pretty simple: You download the FWD software and get a five-digit FWD number. Then, you hook up a microphone and headphones to your PC -- and you've turned your PC into a telephone. Your voice gets digitized and sent as packets over the Internet, using voice-over-Internet-Protocol (VoIP) technology. Sure, there are drawbacks. One is that FWD is a closed system -- you can only call other FWD subscribers. So most users are either geeky hobbyists who think it's way cool to make free calls over the Internet, or people who have friends in far-away countries and don't want to pay for international calls. Now the creator of FWD -- Jeffrey Pulver, a 41-year-old ham radio fanatic who has made his name (and a small fortune) running conferences devoted to voice-over-IP technology--is dreaming up ways to extend the reach of his system. This week, at his annual Voice Over Network conference in Boston, Pulver announced that FWD now has voicemail. Free, of course. He also announced a product called IP Patch that lets you connect your regular desktop telephone to the Internet, and a wireless telephone that lets you make IP-based phone calls from any Wi-Fi hotspot. http://www.forbes.com/2003/09/25/cx_dl_0925tentech.html Eric Friedebach ------------------------------ From: Eric Friedebach Subject: Do-Not-Call List Likely To Call Back Date: Thu, 25 Sep 2003 09:37:25 -0500 Organization: LeAnn Rimes/Busta Rhymes; Know the Difference Dan Ackman, 09.25.03, Forbes.com NEW YORK - The decision yesterday that the U.S. Federal Trade Commission lacked authority to issue a do-not-call list designed to block calls from telemarketers may do little to block the plan as Congress can easily move in to create the necessary authority. Yesterday, U.S. District Judge Lee R. West, sitting in Oklahoma, set back the plan with his ruling. But with 50 million Americans already signed up, legislators are likely to move fast to put the do-not-call list back on track. "This decision is clearly incorrect," FTC Chairman Timothy Muris said in a statement. "We will seek every recourse to give American consumers a choice to stop unwanted telemarketing calls." http://www.forbes.com/2003/09/25/cx_da_0925topnews.html Eric Friedebach ------------------------------ From: epic_eric@hotmail.com (Epic) Subject: NEC Electra Elite IPK Date: 25 Sep 2003 11:22:57 -0700 Organization: http://groups.google.com/ Our company is looking seriously at purchasing an NEC Electra Elite IPK 192 system including NEC ACD-Plus and Caller ID. We have a call centre that requires 4 queues two English and two French, with seperate auto attendants, one in each language. Just curious if anyone out there has any experience positive or otherwise in a similar situation with this system, or even just in one language. I just want to make sure that the lower cost does not reflect the quality of the product. Thanks. ------------------------------ From: mrxcoffee@yahoo.com (mrxcoffee) Subject: Net2phone: Any Experiences? Date: 25 Sep 2003 08:20:54 -0700 Organization: http://groups.google.com/ Hello, As an American living in Japan I am looking for a cheap solution to call friends and family back home. I was using VOIP but it is not available in my new apartment. Can anyone tell me good or bad experiences they have had with Net2Phone? I am running windows XP and have a static IP so my bandwith is pretty good and have a decent soundcard. I tried net2phone a couple years ago and the sound quality wasn't too hot. I heard they improved. Any feedback would be appreciated. Thanks, mrxcoffee ------------------------------ From: AllstonParkingRefugee@hotmail.com (Allston Parking Refugee) Subject: Covista "Federally Regulated Charge" For Hearing Impaired Date: 24 Sep 2003 15:24:28 -0700 Organization: http://groups.google.com/ So I recently switched long distance companies to Covista, aka Capsulecare aka Capsulecom, since they were offering a long-distance plan with no monthly fees. Now that I received my first bill, I see a 0.99 cent "carrier cost recovery charge". Their customer service people claim that this is a new "federally-regulated charge" to pay for services for the hearing impaired and that all long distance companies now charge it. They also play word games and claim that it isn't a "monthly fee". I keep an eye out for telecom industry news, and this was news to me. I would guess that this charge is like the Universal Service Fund charges, in that the government assesses the company a certain amount, and companies can choose to absorb the cost, or they can pass it on to you and me, or they can even add it as a line item that costs us *more* than they're paying to the FCC. Is this the case? The promotional portion of their website still claims they have no monthly fees. http://capsulecom.com/products/longDistance.html says "As for access fees, well, we appreciate your business and wouldn't think of charging you just for doing business with us." Is it worth fighting this on deceptive advertising grounds? Can anyone recommend a long distance company that charges no monthly fees, and is reputable and stable enough so that it isn't likely to start doing so the month after I switch? -Apr ------------------------------ TELECOM Digest is an electronic journal devoted mostly but not exclusively to telecommunications topics. It is circulated anywhere there is email, in addition to various telecom forums on a variety of networks such as Compuserve and America On Line, and other forums. It is also gatewayed to Usenet where it appears as the moderated newsgroup 'comp.dcom.telecom'. TELECOM Digest is a not-for-profit, mostly non-commercial educational service offered to the Internet by Patrick Townson. All the contents of the Digest are compilation-copyrighted. You may reprint articles in some other media on an occasional basis, but please attribute my work and that of the original author. Contact information: Patrick Townson/TELECOM Digest Post Office Box 50 Independence, KS 67301 Phone: 620-330-6774 Fax 1: 775-255-9970 Fax 2: 775-306-8390 Fax 3: 775-642-0603 Fax 4: 530-309-7234 Email: editor@telecom-digest.org Subscribe: telecom-subscribe@telecom-digest.org Unsubscribe:telecom-unsubscribe@telecom-digest.org This Digest is the oldest continuing e-journal about telecomm- unications on the Internet, having been founded in August, 1981 and published continuously since then. Our archives are available for your review/research. We believe we are the second oldest e-zine/ mailing list on the internet in any category! URL information: http://telecom-digest.org Anonymous FTP: mirror.lcs.mit.edu/telecom-archives/archives/ (or use our mirror site: ftp.epix.net/pub/telecom-archives) Email <==> FTP: telecom-archives@telecom-digest.org Send a simple, one line note to that automated address for a help file on how to use the automatic retrieval system for archives files. You can get desired files in email. ************************************************************************* * TELECOM Digest is partially funded by a grant from * * Judith Oppenheimer, President of ICB Inc. and purveyor of accurate * * 800 & Dot Com News, Intelligence, Analysis, and Consulting. * * http://ICBTollFree.com, http://1800TheExpert.com * * Views expressed herein should not be construed as representing * * views of Judith Oppenheimer or ICB Inc. * ************************************************************************* ICB Toll Free News. Contact information is not sold, rented or leased. One click a day feeds a person a meal. Go to http://www.thehungersite.com Copyright 2003 ICB, Inc. and TELECOM Digest. All rights reserved. Our attorney is Bill Levant, of Blue Bell, PA. In addition, gifts from Mike Sandman, Chicago's Telecom Expert have enabled me to replace some obsolete computer equipment and enter the 21st century sort of on schedule. His mail order telephone parts/supplies service based in the Chicago area has been widely recognized by Digest readers as a reliable and very inexpensive source of telecom-related equipment. Please request a free catalog today at http://www.sandman.com --------------------------------------------------------------- A new sponsor for the Digest is Teledeal. They offer Directory Assistance (411) Savings. TeleDeal Inc. specializes in helping businesses and organizations save over 80% on live operator directory assistance calls. Rates are as low as $.27/411 call. TeleDeal also offers a premium real-time 411 Internet database service. Visit http://www.1800teledeal.com or call 1-800-TELEDEAL The Directory Assistance Experts * We Know 411 TeleDeal Inc. George Jones, President ---------------------------------------------------------------- Finally, the Digest is funded by gifts from generous readers such as yourself who provide funding in amounts deemed appropriate. Your help is important and appreciated. A suggested donation of twenty dollars per year per reader is considered appropriate. See our address above. Please make at least a single donation to cover the cost of processing your name to the mailing list. All opinions expressed herein are deemed to be those of the author. Any organizations listed are for identification purposes only and messages should not be considered any official expression by the organization. End of TELECOM Digest V22 #667 ****************************** From editor@telecom-digest.org Thu Sep 25 21:00:39 2003 Received: (from ptownson@localhost) by massis.lcs.mit.edu (8.11.6p2/8.11.3) id h8Q10dL05679; Thu, 25 Sep 2003 21:00:39 -0400 (EDT) Date: Thu, 25 Sep 2003 21:00:39 -0400 (EDT) From: editor@telecom-digest.org Message-Id: <200309260100.h8Q10dL05679@massis.lcs.mit.edu> X-Authentication-Warning: massis.lcs.mit.edu: ptownson set sender to editor@telecom-digest.org using -f To: ptownson Approved: patsnewlist Subject: TELECOM Digest V22 #668 TELECOM Digest Thu, 25 Sep 2003 21:00:00 EDT Volume 22 : Issue 668 Inside This Issue: Editor: Patrick A. Townson and: Lisa Minter Re: What Happened to 951 Area Code? (Linc Madison) Re: What Happened to 951 Area Code? (Jay R. Ashworth) Re: Cable, Phone and Internet in a Single Box (Carl Navarro) Re: Cable, Phone and Internet in a Single Box (Lawrence Jones) Re: Prying Google Seen as a Risk (Dave Phelps) Re: Prying Google Seen as a Risk (Jay R. Ashworth) Re: Another Price Raise? (Steven J Sobol) Re: Court Knocks Down [Fed] 'Do Not Call' List (lets sign him up) Re: +52 Mexico and +1 NANP, re: 909/951 NPA Split (Jay R. Ashworth) Re: Verizon Repair (Jay R. Ashworth) Re: AUTODIN (Jay R. Ashworth) Re: Tough Times in Telecom (Jay R. Ashworth) Re: Selective Call Forwarding Device? (Stuart Friedman) Re: Caller ID vs. *69 (Allston Parking Refugee) Re: DID, DDI, ANI and CallerID (Carl Navarro) All contents here are copyrighted by Patrick Townson and the individual writers/correspondents. Articles may be used in other journals or newsgroups, provided the writer's name and the Digest are included in the fair use quote. By using -any name or email address- included herein for -any- reason other than responding to an article herein, you agree to pay a hundred dollars to the recipients of the email. WE DO NOT PERMIT NAME/EMAIL ADDRESS HARVESTING FROM THIS JOURNAL. 'SALTED' EMAIL ADDRESSES APPEAR HEREIN TO VERIFY THIS. YOU GET SUED IN SMALL CLAIMS COURT IF YOU GET CAUGHT SPAMMING OR SENDING VIRUSES. DON'T DO IT. See the bottom of this issue for subscription and archive details and the name of our lawyer; other stuff of interest. ---------------------------------------------------------------------- Subject: Re: What Happened to 951 Area Code? From: Linc Madison Reply-To: Telecom@LincMad.com Organization: LincMad.com Consulting Date: Thu, 25 Sep 2003 10:18:31 GMT In article , Group Special Mobile wrote: > There is no insurance against apathy or stupidity. Very true. > Anyone who randomly dials a number not knowing where the end > destination is deserves whatever ripoff they get. That's more than a little harsh. > And what makes you believe that there are no ripoff numbers within > the US? By law, they are carefully segregated into well-known numbering ranges, either NPA-976-xxxx or 900-xxx-xxxx or 700-xxx-xxxx. (The last format is carrier-dependent, and thus not used much any more for telesleaze, since most callers will have to dial it as 101xxxx-1-700-xxx-xxxx.) There are a few other ranges that are used regionally, such as NPA-540-xxxx in the New York City area, but they are fairly widely advertised by the telco, and included in services like 976/900 blocking. > Even numbers that are definitely not zone 1 calls can be made to > appear "normal" by changing the parsing of the number so it looks > perfectly harmless to call a number in Guyanna not knowing that the > number's charge per minute is some outrageous amount. Yes, but there's a substantial qualitative difference between not knowing the difference between 1+ and 011+, versus not knowing the difference between 1-757 and 1-758, even if the 011 is presented as something like 01-1-692-xxx-xxx, or even "dial the magic number 101-xxxx-011, followed by your personal feature code, 692-xxx-xxx," to try to confuse people. Indeed, it's not terribly easy to find out where some of the more obscure Caribbean area codes are located. My current telephone directory (SBC, San Francisco CA, 2002-11) leaves out two of the non-mainland-U.S. codes, Turks & Caicos Islands and the Commonwealth of the Northern Mariana Islands. The latter is a domestic call, but not necessarily at the same rates as other domestic calls, even on plans that don't differentiate rates by distance within the lower 48 states. (I don't quite understand how it's legal to say "4 cents/minute on all interstate calls" and then charge 20 or 25 cents/minute to places like Puerto Rico, Guam, and even Alaska and Hawaii, but I'm assured that it is in fact legal.) The list is also rife with other errors, such as listing 403 as "Albert" and "Northwest Terr.", and inconsistencies such as "289 Southern Ontario" and "780 Canada" in among the rest of the listings showing only the state or province(s). Compared to most of the listings I've seen, though, the SBC list is actually better than average. The situation isn't quite as bad as Arthur Dent and the Interstellar Bypass in "Hitchhiker's Guide to the Galaxy," but for the average consumer, the information about which NANP area codes may generate expensive international toll charges, is not readily available. www dot LincMad dot com / Telecom at LincMad dot com Linc Madison * San Francisco, California ------------------------------ From: Jay R. Ashworth Subject: Re: What Happened to 951 Area Code? Reply-To: jra@baylink.com Date: Thu, 25 Sep 2003 16:18:29 GMT Organization: RoadRunner - Central Florida Stanley settled back into the couch, and Joey Lindstrom said to him: > I'm sure you'll disagree, so please answer this patently obvious > question for me. > How would a consumer in California benefit from your let's-keep-seven > plan in the following scenario? > 1) Consumer signs up for cellphone service, and is assigned a number in > your "tech" overlay area code. Consumer can now call other cellphone > customers using only 7 digits, but must dial 11 digits to call landline > numbers. > 2) Number portability between cellphones and landlines is implemented. > (Despite your disbelief, this is coming) > 3) Consumer is enticed by local telco to switch to landline service. > Consumer agrees, but only because he can keep the same phone number, > which all his friends know and is printed on his expensive business > cards. > 4) Consumer is now in the odd position of being the only person on his > block who has to dial 11-digits from his landline to order a pizza or > call his neighbour -- everybody else can dial 7-digits. > That's just ridiculous. > Now turn it around: what if the consumer ports a landline number to a > cellphone? Now all of the people he deals with day-to-day (via > cellphone) can call all their other friends with 7-digits, but our > hapless number-ported consumer has to be dialed with 11. He'll be the > telephone leper, like Elaine in that episode of Seinfeld where she got > assigned a 646 number. > What you wind up with is a VERY confusing situation. People don't > want to remember "ok, when I call this group of friends, I dial them > as 7-digits, but when I call this other group of friends, it's 11". > People want either all-7 or all-11. All-7 is becoming more and more > difficult to manage in some areas, and as Linc pointed out, there are > already many areas where there are so many numbers all within the same > ratecenter that all-7 has become impossible. So your choice is all-11 > (or all-10) or this weird-ass mishmash that you propose. Yup, and all of this to keep a few mouthy wimps from having to dial more than 7 digits. Get used to it, people: we're *going* to 12 digits. It's *going* to happen, and it won't be pretty. And I'm betting no later than 2010. Though I still don't think I understand why Linc gave up on "add the 9 and 3 to get 12". That was yours, right, Linc? :-) Cheers, Jay R. Ashworth jra@baylink.com Member of the Technical Staff Baylink The Suncoast Freenet The Things I Think Tampa Bay, Florida http://baylink.pitas.com +1 727 647 1274 God, unlike Anya, is fond of bunnies. -- Chelsea Christenson ------------------------------ From: Carl Navarro Subject: Re: Cable, Phone and Internet in a Single Box Date: Thu, 25 Sep 2003 06:10:52 -0400 Organization: Airnews.net! at Internet America On 24 Sep 2003 16:57:11 -0700, gdebacker@windsweptsoftware.com (Greg DeBacker) wrote: > I've recently rewired my house (1895 knob & tube) and next I want to > add cable and phone to all of the bedrooms. My thought is to run 1 or > 2 coaxial and 1 or 2 CAT5 lines to each room and have them all in one > box. All runs would terminate in the attic where I would have some > type hub system set up on one wall. Radio Shack makes a modular face > plate that allows you to mix and match up to 4 coax and/or phone > jacks. My concern is interference. There would be telephone, cable TV, > and either cable modem or DSL in each box. Are the cables and CAT5 > lines shielded enough to have runs of about 30 feet in close proximity > to one and other without causing interference? I've heard of stuff > called fire-wire (or something like that) but I'm sure it is out of my > budget. > Greg First of all, Rat Shack doesn't "make" anything. Leviton, ICC, Hubbell, Avaya or somebody in Taiwan "made it" and RS labelled it. It can't hurt to understand the concepts of cabling and what goes where. Both DSL and cable modems require the first appearance of your lines to be at the modem box. IOW, plan for a dedicated cable run to wherever you put the modem box. Unless you can stand to be in the attic year 'round and have easy access to the modem box, I wouldn't put it up there. My cable modem goes in streaks. Sometimes it works and sometimes it is just a paperweight. Would you like to run to the attic to troubleshoot same? Comercially we run hundreds of Cat-5 cable pairs next to each other and don't have a problem and the RG-6 right next to it didn't interfere with the voice and data cables. Each jack then will have telephone(s), CATV, and Ethernet. Minimum is 2 Cat-5 and 2 RG-6 cables as a suggestion. Try to plan your intended use before you finish. In single gang housings, the real manufacturer also makes 1,2,3,4 and 6 port faceplates. When you had your 1895 house rewired, were there amenities like closets and/or cavities in walls that you might be able to find for cable locations? The home improvement stores sell termination boxes that fit between studs (ie dimensions of 20x16x4 inches) with places to terminate cables. Other companies make naked enclosures that you can fill yourself. Bringing all RG-6 cables to a common point and labelling them (white tape and a black Sharpie works wonders if you don't own a Kroy labeller :-) is pretty inexpensive since once the video is done you will seldom have to patch it anywhere. Voice and data jacks are a bit more difficult since you have different things to deal with. When I rewired my house I never dreamed that I'd own 2 Rio receivers, a digital piano, cable modem, and the other half's second office in the little used dining room. I started with only a single Cat-5e and a single Cat-3 cable to the bedrooms, living room, Cat-3 to the dining room, pantry, and music room, and single RG-6 to the music room, living room, and bedrooms. I terminate my 5's on a jack panel and the 3's on 66 blocks. In my case, the entire assembly is on a commercial frame 19" wide and 22" or so high (A Homaco 50M201-19D with a Leviton 49255-Q89 for reference) You can do someting similar if you plan on a phone system, or terminate all your cables on a patch panel if your telecom needs are simple. I just break my voice cables out to 2 pairs 1 pair 1 pair out of habit so I can have my system phone and any single line device at each jack. Anyway, good luck in your project. Try to stay out of attics :-) Carl Navarro ------------------------------ From: lawrence.j