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. --------------------------------------------------------------- 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. --------------------------------------------------------------- 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. --------------------------------------------------------------- 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. --------------------------------------------------------------- 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. --------------------------------------------------------------- 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. --------------------------------------------------------------- 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. --------------------------------------------------------------- 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. --------------------------------------------------------------- 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. --------------------------------------------------------------- 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. --------------------------------------------------------------- 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. --------------------------------------------------------------- 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. --------------------------------------------------------------- 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. --------------------------------------------------------------- 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. --------------------------------------------------------------- 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. --------------------------------------------------------------- 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, Ģ17.50 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. --------------------------------------------------------------- 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. --------------------------------------------------------------- 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. --------------------------------------------------------------- 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.jones@eds.com Subject: Re: Cable, Phone and Internet in a Single Box Date: Thu, 25 Sep 2003 20:13:00 GMT Organization: Road Runner High Speed Online http://www.rr.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? Absolutely. The current recommendation is to run two RG6 quad shield coax cables and two CAT5E cables to each drop, and some people recommdend running fiber optic, too. Many manufacturers make modular faceplates that allow you to have up to six outlets of various types (coax, RJ11 phone, RJ45 ethernet, banana jacks for speakers, etc.). Don't use boxes, however; for low-voltage wiring like this, you want to use mud rings. A mud ring is basically a very shallow box with no back -- just an opening into the wall cavity that gives you a place to attach the faceplate. It makes it much easier to work on the cabling, avoids problems with kinking the cable, and lets you keep a loop of spare cable in the wall. For more info, see the comp.dcom.cabling newsgroup. -Larry Jones Can I take an ax to school tomorrow for ... um ... show and tell? -- Calvin ------------------------------ From: Dave Phelps Subject: Re: Prying Google Seen as a Risk Date: Thu, 25 Sep 2003 00:30:40 -0500 Organization: www.tippenring.com In article , monty@roscom.com says: > 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. If the info is on the internet, then isn't it _public_ information? If something is published on the internet inadvertently, it isn't Google's fault. Dave Phelps DD Networks www.ddnets.com deadspam=tippenring ------------------------------ From: Jay R. Ashworth Subject: Re: Prying Google Seen as a Risk Reply-To: jra@baylink.com Date: Thu, 25 Sep 2003 16:24:30 GMT Organization: RoadRunner - Central Florida Stanley settled back into the couch, and stealthbomber777 said to him: > 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. Or if anyone else does. Fun experiment: Dogpile your SSN about once a month. 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: Steven J Sobol Subject: Re: Another Price Raise? Date: Wed, 24 Sep 2003 23:49:10 -0500 stealthbomber777 wrote: > 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? What does your bill say? 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: fairfaxwatch@yahoo.com (lets sign him up) Subject: Re: Court Knocks Down [Fed] 'Do Not Call' List Date: 25 Sep 2003 00:34:01 -0700 Organization: http://groups.google.com/ Let's sign him up for people TO CALL HIM and while we are at it, we can start signing him up for all kinds of junk mailings, too The Honorable Lee R. West Senior United States District Judge Western District of Oklahoma U.S. Courthouse 200 N.W. Fourth St. Oklahoma City, OK 73102 Rm 3001, Courtroom 303, Third Floor Chambers Telephone: 405-609-5140 Chambers Facsimile: 405-609-5151 ------------------------------ From: Jay R. Ashworth Subject: Re: +52 Mexico and +1 NANP, re: 909/951 NPA Split Reply-To: jra@baylink.com Date: Thu, 25 Sep 2003 14:52:18 GMT Organization: RoadRunner - Central Florida Stanley settled back into the couch, and Mark J Cuccia said to him: > 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. You forgot to quote the part where I said "But I'll bet Mark Cuccia has more on this." ;-) 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: Verizon Repair Reply-To: jra@baylink.com Date: Thu, 25 Sep 2003 16:11:44 GMT Organization: RoadRunner - Central Florida Stanley settled back into the couch, and Cryderman , Charles said to him: > 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. With all due respect, sir, I myself would have a difficult time taking legal advice from someone who can not only misspell "liable"... but in the process turns it into a *different* legal offense. :-} Can you provide case citations wherein this theory has been successfully used? I know they're a little less stringent in Small Clams, but ... 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: AUTODIN Reply-To: jra@baylink.com Date: Thu, 25 Sep 2003 16:23:45 GMT Organization: RoadRunner - Central Florida Stanley settled back into the couch, and 2JIME7USAF@aol.com said to him: > 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. Wow. Welcome aboard. We love anecdotes. :-) We'll even forgive you the capital letters, given the amount of time you must have spent chained to 28ASR's. What's replaced AUTODIN? DCA's Milnet? And where was Clark? Guam? Alaska? I've got a bit set says it was *SOMEWHERE* exotic... 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: Tough Times in Telecom Reply-To: jra@baylink.com Date: Thu, 25 Sep 2003 16:21:21 GMT Organization: RoadRunner - Central Florida Stanley settled back into the couch, and Paul Cook said to him: > 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. FWIW, I've *been* on this NG for most of those 15 years, and I'll testify to Paul's helpfulness with people's stuff here. He gets my vote for "entitled to post an ad, occasionally". 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: Stuart Friedman Subject: Re: Selective Call Forwarding Device? Organization: SBC http://yahoo.sbc.com Date: Thu, 25 Sep 2003 17:10:18 GMT Take a look at pulver.com's phone patch. It does a number of tricks based on callerid. Jody Bregler wrote in message news:telecom22.666.7@telecom-digest.org: > 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: AllstonParkingRefugee@hotmail.com (Allston Parking Refugee) Subject: Re: Caller ID vs. *69 Date: 25 Sep 2003 11:55:57 -0700 Organization: http://groups.google.com/ John David Galt wrote: > *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. So if someone blocks caller ID info when making a call (by dialing *67 or subscribing to all-call blocking), you're implying that his number gets sent but the receiving caller ID box is configured not to receive it? If I dial a OneSuite (prepaid calling card) local-access number (i.e. a 7-digit number, not a toll-free number) and I block caller ID, they can still identify my account automatically when I'm calling from my home phone. How is this possible? -Apr ------------------------------ From: Carl Navarro Subject: Re: DID, DDI, ANI and CallerID Reply-To: cnavarro@wcnet.org Date: Thu, 25 Sep 2003 20:41:04 GMT Organization: Road Runner High Speed Online -- Northeast Ohio On 23 Sep 2003 08:52:24 -0700, pbxmaniac2003@yahoo.com (PBX Maniac) wrote: > Hello, > Could someone explain to me what's the difference between DID, DDI, > ANI and CallerID? I dated an Annie does that count for anything? DID is direct inward dial. It involves you providing the trunk and the telco dials into you. In the old days it was an analog trunk, complete with talk battery and winkback to tell the C.O. you were ready to accept the digits. Sometimes, today it is done over a T-1 circuit but small quantities of DID are still the same as they were 30 years ago. DDI is Direct Dial Inward which is probably entirely similar to DID except it may have more information. Mitel referrs to DDI in their manuals, so it's probably British. ANI is Automatic Number Identification. It is sent to the customer on answer as MF (Multi Frequency tones IIRC somewhere between 1100 and 1700 Hz) like 1100,1300,1400,1725 or some such. It is sent for all numbers and cannot be suppressed. E-911 uses ANI and some large companies who do ordering like HSN, Tiger Software, etc. use ANI. CID or ICLID is the signalling for the rest of us. It is sent as a carrier tone between the first and second rings. It can be suppressed by blocking and, in fact, is required to be blocked for people with private lines. Carl Navarro ------------------------------ 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. --------------------------------------------------------------- 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 #668 ****************************** Received: (from ptownson@localhost) by massis.lcs.mit.edu (8.11.6p2/8.11.3) id h8QKNAf12472; Fri, 26 Sep 2003 16:23:10 -0400 (EDT) Date: Fri, 26 Sep 2003 16:23:10 -0400 (EDT) From: editor@telecom-digest.org Message-Id: <200309262023.h8QKNAf12472@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 #669 TELECOM Digest Fri, 26 Sep 2003 16:23:00 EDT Volume 22 : Issue 669 Inside This Issue: Editor: Patrick A. Townson and: Lisa Minter Status Quo for Travel Privacy (Monty Solomon) Army Admits Using JetBlue Data (Monty Solomon) Congress Puts Brakes on CAPPS II (Monty Solomon) TiVo Shares Tumble on Rumors (Monty Solomon) Microsoft Monopoly Represents National Security Risk (Monty Solomon) Microsoft Critic Dismissed by @Stake (Monty Solomon) Re: Covista Federally Regulated Charge For Hearing Impaired (RChapman) Re: Covista Federally Regulated Charge For Hearing Impaired (Greenberg) Re: Covista Federally Regulated Charge For Hearing Impaired (Just Time) Re: NEC Electra Elite IPK (SayNoToCrossposters) Re: FTC Charged VeriSign With Deceptive-Business Practices (Steve Sobol) Re: Concerned About Verisign "Taking" of .COM and .NET (Ed Clarke) Re: Caller ID vs. *69 (Dave Phelps) Re: Caller ID vs. *69 (Jay R. Ashworth) ANI vs. CNID and "Privacy", was Re: Caller ID vs. *69 (Danny Burstein) All contents here are copyrighted by Patrick Townson and the individual writers/correspondents. Articles may be used in other journals or newsgroups, provided the writer's name and the Digest are included in the fair use quote. By using -any name or email address- included herein for -any- reason other than responding to an article herein, you agree to pay a hundred dollars to the recipients of the email. WE DO NOT PERMIT NAME/EMAIL ADDRESS HARVESTING FROM THIS JOURNAL. 'SALTED' EMAIL ADDRESSES APPEAR HEREIN TO VERIFY THIS. YOU GET SUED IN SMALL CLAIMS COURT IF YOU GET CAUGHT SPAMMING OR SENDING VIRUSES. DON'T DO IT. See the bottom of this issue for subscription and archive details and the name of our lawyer; other stuff of interest. ---------------------------------------------------------------------- Reply-To: Monty Solomon From: Monty Solomon Subject: Status Quo for Travel Privacy Date: Fri, 26 Sep 2003 10:43:45 -0400 By Ryan Singel Airlines and other travel companies are looking over their privacy policies and practices this week in response to the uproar -- and two class action lawsuits -- directed against JetBlue for violating its privacy policy in turning over 5 million passenger records to a defense contractor. Most, however, are saying they do not plan to make any changes to their policies, even though they are weaker than JetBlue's stated policy. And one of the largest data reservation systems in the world, Galileo, seems to be sticking to its agreement to turn over millions of passenger records to the government in the near future. Galileo, which is one of the four computer reservations systems that power the sprawling travel reservation system, agreed this summer to help test the Transportation Security Agency's controversial new airline passenger-profiling system. That system, called CAPPS II, will color-code passengers by checking personal information in their reservations against commercial databases, terrorist watch lists and outstanding warrant lists. Galileo, which also hosts data for 683 airlines and runs Cheaptickets.com, defended its decision, saying the company was committed to combating terrorism and that the company doesn't sell or market its data. http://www.wired.com/news/privacy/0,1848,60584,00.html ------------------------------ Reply-To: Monty Solomon From: Monty Solomon Subject: Army Admits Using JetBlue Data Date: Fri, 26 Sep 2003 10:41:30 -0400 By Ryan Singel and Noah Shachtman Millions of JetBlue passenger records were used in a military effort whose methods closely resemble those employed in the notorious Terrorism Information Awareness Database program, the Army confirmed Monday. Last week, defense contractor Torch Concepts came under heavy scrutiny after Wired News revealed that the company had crunched fliers' private data without their knowledge. On Monday, Army spokesman Maj. Gary Tallman said the information was used by Torch Concepts to test a prototype of a data-mining system designed to screen out terrorists who might want to infiltrate or attack Army bases worldwide. According to a corporate press release from May 8, 2002, the Torch-built system would identify "abnormal events or activities that may include rebel actions before damaging events occur." To do this, the contractor would apply "intelligent pattern recognition in identifying latent relationships and behaviors that may help point to potential terrorist threats." To privacy advocates, that sounds a lot like TIA's mission (PDF) of researching "data search and pattern recognition technologies ... based on the idea that terrorist planning activities or a likely terrorist attack could be uncovered by searching for indications of terrorist activities in vast quantities of transaction data." http://www.wired.com/news/privacy/0,1848,60540,00.html ------------------------------ Reply-To: Monty Solomon From: Monty Solomon Subject: Congress Puts Brakes on CAPPS II Date: Fri, 26 Sep 2003 11:17:10 -0400 By Ryan Singel Congress moved Wednesday to delay the planned takeoff of a controversial new airline passenger-profiling system until an independent study of its privacy implications and effectiveness at stopping terrorism can be completed. A congressional conference committee, which was reconciling the Senate and House versions of the Department of Homeland Security's budget for next year, opted to keep the Senate's stronger language. That language prohibits deployment of the Transportation Security Administration's CAPPS II program until the General Accounting Office certifies to Congress that the system will not finger too many innocent passengers. The study will also check whether the system will effectively pinpoint terrorists, and whether an appeals system is in place for those delayed or prohibited from flying. CAPPS II is intended as a high-tech replacement for the current system, which simply checks passenger names against a list of suspected terrorists. The new system will require passengers to provide airlines with additional information, which the agency will check against commercial databases and a watch list of suspected terrorists and people wanted for violent crimes. The system will then color-code each passenger, according to decisions made by the system's pattern-matching algorithms. http://www.wired.com/news/politics/0,1283,60600,00.html ------------------------------ Date: Thu, 25 Sep 2003 23:45:13 -0400 From: Monty Solomon Subject: TiVo Shares Tumble on Rumors NEW YORK (AP) -- Shares of TiVo Inc. tumbled Thursday amid rumors that DirectTV would drop the service if DirectTV's parent is successfully acquired by News Corp. Ltd. - http://finance.lycos.com/home/news/story.asp?story=35819222 ------------------------------ Date: Fri, 26 Sep 2003 12:34:13 -0400 From: Monty Solomon Subject: Microsoft Monopoly Represents National Security Risk? Microsoft Monopoly Represents National Security Risk, Say Internet Security Experts Washington, DC - Some of the nation's leading computer science and network security experts today issued a report warning that the computers and critical technological infrastructure worldwide are increasingly vulnerable to attack because of the security practices and dominance of Microsoft software in desktop computing. As a result of Microsoft's concerted effort to fortify and expand its monopolies by tightly integrating applications with its operating system, and its success in achieving near ubiquity in personal computing, our computer networks are now susceptible to massive, cascading failures. http://www.ccianet.org/press/03/0924.pdf http://www.ccianet.org/papers/cyberinsecurity.pdf ------------------------------ Date: Fri, 26 Sep 2003 12:40:32 -0400 From: Monty Solomon Subject: Microsoft Critic Dismissed by @Stake By John Borland Staff Writer, CNET News.com A computer security expert who contributed to a paper deeply critical of Microsoft has been dismissed by his employer, a consulting company that works closely with the software giant. Dan Geer, a longtime computer security researcher, and several colleagues released a controversial study on Wednesday that called the ubiquity of Microsoft software a hazard to the economy and to national security. Although independently financed and researched, the study was distributed by the Computer and Communications Industry Association (CCIA), a Washington-based trade association largely made up of Microsoft's rivals. Cambridge, Mass-based @Stake, where Geer worked as chief technical officer, said in a statement Thursday that the researcher had not gotten his employers' approval for the study's release, and that he was no longer associated with the company. http://news.com.com/2100-1014-5082649.html ------------------------------ Date: Thu, 25 Sep 2003 17:46:34 -0400 From: Ron Chapman Subject: Re: Covista "Federally Regulated Charge" For Hearing Impaired In article , AllstonParkingRefugee@hotmail.com (Allston Parking Refugee) wrote: > 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? I just switched to: http://www.039centsperminute.com From their Q&A: > Q. Will my bill only include the calls themselves, or are > there going to be a lot of other taxes and fees? > A. There are government-regulated taxes on all phone > services, which are charged as a percentage of the phone > usage (just like sales tax that you pay at a department > store for goods you buy, or various taxes you pay at the gas > station for gasoline). These taxes will be included in your > bill. I don't know if this is the best deal in town, but I didn't mind their terms or their price. I wonder if Covista isn't yanking your chain. ------------------------------ From: richgr@panix.com (Rich Greenberg) Subject: Re: Covista "Federally Regulated Charge" For Hearing Impaired Date: 25 Sep 2003 19:34:36 -0400 Organization: Organized? Me? In article , Allston Parking Refugee wrote: > 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? I have been quite happy since I switched to GTC some years ago. They do have some fees. Out of a total bill of 2.69, there is 19cents USF and 7cents RCR fees and 8cents Federal Excise tax. http://www.gtctelecom.com/ 5cents/min interstate, intrastate varies depending on state. They bill your credit card. 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: a_user2000@yahoo.com (Justin Time) Subject: Re: Covista "Federally Regulated Charge" For Hearing Impaired Date: 26 Sep 2003 06:15:43 -0700 Organization: http://groups.google.com/ AllstonParkingRefugee@hotmail.com (Allston Parking Refugee) wrote in message news:: > 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 Many firms are adding fees to their bill and attempting to hide them using quasi-regulatory language. The most common wording is something like "regualtory compliance." Often the phrase will be prefaced with federal or something else, but it is not a federally or even state mandated fee. It is a fee added by the company to each phone line to allow them to recover some of their costs in complying with regualtory matters. When actually the fee is used to offset business overhead costs, like executive perqs (AKA perks.) I personally find it difficult to believe that it costs a company like a Verizon or SBC or Bell South a dollar a month to handle the regulatory paperwork on a phone line that has not changed since installation. Now, if the line changes, such as a provisioning change, then perhaps a fee could be added to reflect the paperwork necessary - but wait a moment, isn't that why we pay a hefty service order fee in the first place? Rodgers Platt [TELECOM Digest Editor's Note: I *thought* there was a specific federal law against referring to some sum of money as a 'tax' when in fact there was no such tax. I do know that McDonald's Restaurants in Chicago got sued once on that point and lost the suit. They were using cash registers which automatically added taxes to purchases; they were using some registers (in a suburb) which usually were used in Chicago itself, and programmed accordingly. Some suburban customers complained about why the food there was a penny or two more per purchase than the same food in a McDonald's down the street. The manager said it was the cash register's fault: the registers are programmed according to the Chicago tax structure. We can't change that. You can't do that, he was told. You cannot say, or claim or imply or force collection of some sum of money blaming it on a tax that does not exist or is some lesser amount of money. It wound up as a class action, anyone who sent into the class action administrator got a coupon in the mail good for one free hamburger or small drink, or tiny bag of french fries. Illinois Bell in Chicago had the same kind of hassle once. City of Chicago added some municipal tax on pay telephones, the end result was pay phone calls went up by *one cent* each. Since Bell does not make payphones that can collect pennies, they said raise the rate for calls a nickle which we can get. Trouble was, in cases of calling card calls and collect calls, where they could charge the one penny with ease, they were charging a nickle also and blaming it on that evil old Mayor Daley the first. That went on for *years* with the sluggards at Bell listening to no one until they also got sued; the end result was that anyone with a telephone in Chicago *and* a calling card got a refund on their phone bill one month for several dollars. I'd say people who are victimized by these so-called 'federal regu- latory fees' and 'regulatory recovery fees' should consider banding together as a group and suing to force the recovery of their money. PAT] ------------------------------ From: SayNoToCrossposters Subject: Re: NEC Electra Elite IPK Organization: Comcast Online Date: Thu, 25 Sep 2003 21:51:27 GMT Epic wrote in message news:telecom22.667.10@telecom-digest.org: > 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. Generally you get what you pay for. NEC also makes another system called Aspire that may do what you want as well. When you are talking ACD and you need nifty features...like I said you generally get what you pay for. I would definately flow chart your ACD and have them sign off on the way it will work. NOTE: make sure agents can be part of more than one ACD group at one time ... this is a biggie. Good Luck. ------------------------------ From: Steven J Sobol Subject: Re: FTC Charged VeriSign With Deceptive-Business Practices Date: Thu, 25 Sep 2003 17:08:18 -0500 Gene Gaines wrote: > 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? As if ... 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: Ed Clarke Subject: Re: Concerned About Verisign "Taking" of .COM and .NET Date: 25 Sep 2003 23:30:41 GMT Organization: Ciliophora Associates, Inc. Reply-To: clarke@cilia.org In article , Gene Gaines wrote: > 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 That's quite unnecessary. ISC has already corrected the problem in Bind 9.2.3rc3. The correction is documented in: http://www.isc.org/products/BIND/delegation-only.html Using the current bind (and/or patches to back versions) it doesn't matter what Verisign/Thawte does or refuses to do. Their preemptive strike struck the sewage settling pond and is rapidly sinking out of sight. I expect that the other major system (djbdns) is either working on similar code or has already completed an equivalent fix. Who knows what Microsoft will do. ------------------------------ From: Dave Phelps Subject: Re: Caller ID vs. *69 Date: Fri, 26 Sep 2003 00:22:05 -0500 Organization: www.tippenring.com In article , AllstonParkingRefugee@hotmail.com says.: > So if someone blocks caller ID info when making a call (by dialing *67 > or subscribing to all-call blocking), you're implying that his number > gets sent but the receiving caller ID box is configured not to receive > it? My understanding is that the CID box is configured to display a pre-defined message when the private flag is on. I believe the CID data is still sent. "Fixing" a CID box is one of my 'after I win the lottery' projects. > If I dial a OneSuite (prepaid calling card) local-access number (i.e. > a 7-digit number, not a toll-free number) and I block caller ID, they > can still identify my account automatically when I'm calling from my > home phone. How is this possible? ANI is not the same as CID. Anyone that has an 800# has the option of receiving ANI per call. They usually get it on paper via the bill even if they don't receive it per call. It is generally accepted that the paying party gets to see the phone number of the person calling, hence the 800 # owner receives ANI. Dave Phelps DD Networks www.ddnets.com deadspam=tippenring [TELECOM Digest Editor's Note: But Dave, he said he dials a 'local- access, 7-digit number, not a toll-free number'. But I personally suspect it may be a 'local access number' but still be a toll free number, meaning OneSuite could get the ANI if desired. We had that arrangement here in Independence for quite awhile, when Cingular Wireless had a deal with Southwestern Bell to treat 620-870 as a statewide local access number for their cell phones. It was not an Independence/Coffeyville number but we did not pay to use it for our cell phones. When Cingular Wireless stopped that deal with SWB, I had to go to the Cingular agent here in town (Integrity Wireless) and they changed me over to a local Independence number. Maybe that is the same deal OneSuite has for their customers. PAT] ------------------------------ From: Jay R. Ashworth Subject: Re: Caller ID vs. *69 Reply-To: jra@baylink.com Date: Fri, 26 Sep 2003 15:26:46 GMT Organization: RoadRunner - Central Florida Stanley settled back into the couch, and Allston Parking Refugee said to him: > John David Galt wrote: >> *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. > So if someone blocks caller ID info when making a call (by dialing *67 > or subscribing to all-call blocking), you're implying that his number > gets sent but the receiving caller ID box is configured not to receive > it? The terminating End Office receives it (which is why *69 works) but is programmed not to send it to *you*. If "you" are a PBX customer with an ISDN PRI, sometimes that leaks. > If I dial a OneSuite (prepaid calling card) local-access number (i.e. > a 7-digit number, not a toll-free number) and I block caller ID, they > can still identify my account automatically when I'm calling from my > home phone. How is this possible? I *think* that's because they have an FGD trunk to the destination switch, and thus get ANI, but someone who knows will likely correct me. 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: Danny Burstein Subject: ANI vs. CNID and "Privacy", was Re: Caller ID vs. *69 Date: Fri, 26 Sep 2003 01:44:53 UTC Organization: PANIX Public Access Internet and UNIX, NYC In AllstonParkingRefugee@hotmail.com (Allston Parking Refugee) writes: > John David Galt wrote: >> *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. > So if someone blocks caller ID info when making a call (by dialing *67 > or subscribing to all-call blocking), you're implying that his number > gets sent but the receiving caller ID box is configured not to receive > it? > If I dial a OneSuite (prepaid calling card) local-access number (i.e. > a 7-digit number, not a toll-free number) and I block caller ID, they > can still identify my account automatically when I'm calling from my > home phone. How is this possible? There are two different methods for your number to get to, for want of a better term, "there". In the standard situation where your mother in law is calling your phone, the local central office near her sends a caller-id identifier to your local central office. The one near you then does one of two things: a) if there's no "privacy" flag (*67 or a fulltime block), then the central office near you sends the number the rest of the way to your phone. b) if there IS a privacy flag, then the central office near you, which, remember, DOES get the number, does NOT send it that last mile to your home There is ANOTHER method, though, for the number to get across, and that's with Automatic Number Identification (ANI). This was the original method and is used internally by the telcos for *billing* purposes. So, for example, when you make a long distance call, the inter-exchange-carrier gets your number so it knows how to bill. (In the majority of cases CNID has the same digits as ANI, but most assuredly not quite always). The other best known case of this sort is when you call a (largish) company with a 1-800 number. They get your calling number, via ANI, regardless of whether you try blocking it or not. Reason is that they pay for the call so have the right to do so -- the same way that Sprint, for example, gets your number in a regular long distance call. This is used by them in, for example, phone orders. When you call them the salesrep's computer screen gets your number -- which then pulls up their database on you with your order history, etc. They may not tell you this. (Smaller companies and individuals also get your phone number, but won't have the computer interface.) Anyway, when you call OneSuite, your local telco is either providing them with ANI under the inter-telco-billing arrangements (don't let that seven digit number fool you) *or* OneSuite has convinced them to kick over all the caller id info using the same reasons, even if you try blocking. Knowledge may be power, but communications is the key dannyb@panix.com [to foil spammers, my address has been double rot-13 encoded] ------------------------------ TELECOM Digest 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. --------------------------------------------------------------- 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 #669 ****************************** From editor@telecom-digest.org Fri Sep 26 19:15:00 2003 Received: (from ptownson@localhost) by massis.lcs.mit.edu (8.11.6p2/8.11.3) id h8QNF0C14048; Fri, 26 Sep 2003 19:15:00 -0400 (EDT) Date: Fri, 26 Sep 2003 19:15:00 -0400 (EDT) From: editor@telecom-digest.org Message-Id: <200309262315.h8QNF0C14048@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 #670 TELECOM Digest Fri, 26 Sep 2003 19:12:00 EDT Volume 22 : Issue 670 Inside This Issue: Editor: Patrick A. Townson and: Lisa Minter NANP "Exhaust"? (Mark J Cuccia) Perkins Coie's John Clark To Edit Pike & Fischer Wireless (eWorldwire) Re: CAPPS 2 Public Comment Deadline is 9/30 (Dave Phelps) Re: AUTODIN (Justin Time) Re: Selective Call Forwarding Device? (Jody Bregler) Motorola Plays With Nintendo (Eric Friedebach) Re: Verizon Repair (Charles Cryderman) WiFi / VOIP Solutions (Mark) Editorial: When is it Good to Outsource Telecom Details (Auditel) Re: Private Video Transmission (Dan McKeon) 'Cross Country' Internet Access Over Leased Line (craig) Re: A New Kind of Revolution in the Dorms of Dartmouth (Al Gillis) Ireland -> Germany Calling Card Suggestions? (Georg Schwarz) Re: Cable, Phone and Internet in a Single Box (Greg DeBacker) All contents here are copyrighted by Patrick Townson and the individual writers/correspondents. Articles may be used in other journals or newsgroups, provided the writer's name and the Digest are included in the fair use quote. By using -any name or email address- included herein for -any- reason other than responding to an article herein, you agree to pay a hundred dollars to the recipients of the email. WE DO NOT PERMIT NAME/EMAIL ADDRESS HARVESTING FROM THIS JOURNAL. 'SALTED' EMAIL ADDRESSES APPEAR HEREIN TO VERIFY THIS. YOU GET SUED IN SMALL CLAIMS COURT IF YOU GET CAUGHT SPAMMING OR SENDING VIRUSES. DON'T DO IT. See the bottom of this issue for subscription and archive details and the name of our lawyer; other stuff of interest. ---------------------------------------------------------------------- Date: Fri, 26 Sep 2003 09:54:43 CDT From: Mark J Cuccia Subject: NANP "Exhaust"? In the continuing soapy/sudzy serialized story here in TELECOM Digest regarding the postponed relief of NPA 909 in southern California (with 951 to split off), Jay R. Ashworth (jra@baylink.com) wrote: > 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. Well, I dunno about 2010 ... even a few years back when it was claimed 2007, I thought that was WAY too shortsighted ... Only two weeks ago, on Friday 12 September 2003, I prepared a post which appeared in Digest issue #645 released that afternoon on the issue of NANP Exhaust (in reply to a post started by the 909/951 CA split that's still "on hold"), and Linc also posted an article which appeared in that very same issue 645, on the same subject of NANP Exhaust. Here is the bulk of what I posted exactly two weeks ago: (but first a word about Proctor & Gamble's Ivory and Oxydol ! :-) Larry wrote: > ... is anyone aware of any fundamental reorganization of the > numbering system before we run out of area codes altogether? At this > rate of area code growth, it's looking like that will happen sooner > rather than later. Actually, with more porting of numbers now possible (including cellular/ wireless numbers later this year), initial assignments of numbering/code resources down to the "thousands" level of the -xxxx line-numbers instead of initial assignments of an entire NPA-NXX c.o.code (of all ten thousands), and with the change in the economy and overall oversaturation of "fly-by-night" telcos that happened over the past 2-3 years, there is actually a DOWNTURN in the number of area codes and other numbering/code resources requested. The NANPA has actually projected "exhaust" of the area code format further out, now in the 2030 to 2050 time-frame, which was the projection made back during 1990-95. So, *IF* the NANP format of ten-digits in the NXX-NXX-xxxx format is going to "exhaust", it is now back to *LATER* than sooner! :-) Last year (2002), there were only eight new area codes activated in the NANP, and all within the (continental) US -- nothing needed in Canada, the Caribbean, nor the Pacific. A year with only eight new area codes is actually *LESS* than the "max" year of the pre-1995 period, when 1957 had TEN new area codes. This year (2003), there are only THREE new area codes activated, all within the Republic of Texas, 430 overlaying 903 in northeastern TX in late April, and 915 in west Texas going into permissive dialing of a three-way split in early April (mandatory use of the two new codes in this 3-way split takes effect in early October). El Paso/etc. retained 915. The Midland/Odessa/etc. region in the "middle" of "old" 915 changes to 432. The Abilene/Sweetwater/etc. region in the northeastern part of "old" 915 as well as the GTE-VeriZon San Angelo region in the southeastern part of "old" 915 changes to 325. SO FAR, as of next year, the only "known" new area code to take effect is when American Samoa officially joins the NANP/DDD Network, when the numerics of its existing *country* code +684 becomes NANP *AREA* code 684, within our Country Code of +1. i.e., +684 becomes +1-684 This is to take effect in October 2004, with permissive/parallel type dialing possible until Spring 2005. It is also "possible" that 424 will split from the existing part of 310 in so.Cal, as well as "possible" that 951 will also split from the existing part of 909 also in So.Cal. But the Ca.PUC website will have the latest info on those decisions. In March 2005, it is also "possible" that 385 will split from the (discontiguous) northern and southern end suburbs of metro Salt Lake City UT (presently all area code 801), but that new 385 split from 801 was originally scheduled to take effect in Dec. 2000 yet keeps getting postponed every year. It could also happen that the next projected date will be changed to later than 2005. Canada has three future area code overlays "in the works": 226 to overlay 519 in southern Ontario, presently planned for Feb. 2005, yet this could be postponed YET AGAIN to a later date. 438 to overlay 514, Montreal PQ "itself", presently planned for Oct. 2005, yet even this has been postponed several times in the past and is likely to be postponed yet again. And 613 in eastern ON (which includes Ottawa ON) is under relief planning, along with adjacent 819 in PQ (which includes Hull PQ across the river from Ottaw ON) could go into mandatory ten-digit local dialing to be consistant with 613 (when it goes into mandatory ten-digit dialing) since there are numerous local calling arrangements between various metro areas straddling 613/819 which presently still retain seven-digit local dialing. But the new code to overlay 613 hasn't been made public yet (343 is the guess that many of us have), nor have there been any "formal/official" dates for mandatory ten-digit dialing between Ottawa/Hull or any other cross-boundary local arrangements, nor for mandatory ten-digit local dialing *within* 613 or *within* 819, nor for the overlay (343?) to 613. Things are in a VERY slow period regarding new code assignments of ANY kine in numbering in North America, and possibly even elsewhere in the world. Projections of NANP "exhaust" (as I mentioned earlier) as well as individual area codes within the NANP, keep getting pushed further and further into the future according to various NPA/area code documentation at NANPA's website, see http://www.nanpa.com and related sub-pages at that site. Another site you might find of interest is the ATIS website, especially for the INC (Industry Numbering Committee) of ATIS, see: http://www.atis.org (end of my previous post two weeks ago) ------------------------------ So, while there will always be some form of growth of services/etc., even the growth of utilized CODES/NUMBERING resources in the 1997-2001 timeframe was because of the growth NOT of new customers/services, but rather new competitive local telcos which needed initial code resources in an assignment method that was not designed for a competitive environment. That problem has mostly been tackled with both the supposed downturn in the economy (i.e., the dot-com bust) as well as how many CLECs could really exist (i.e., oversaturation), and current assignment methods of thousands-blocks instead of complete c.o.codes. And that will ultimately be refined and streamlined over time, to where numbering/code resources won't identify service- providers (or even specific geography) but individual customers (i.e., FULL porting/pooling, even geographic) but that will be some time off in the future before it is completely realized ... When ever (if ever) the NANP needs to expand to greater-than-ten-digits (most likely twelve-digit intra-NANP numbers), you're right, it WON'T be "pretty", but that's because government/regulatory, the "mainstream" media/press, the unwashed masses, and even today's batch of dipsh*ts and bozos in the telco industry itself -- will make it ... HAVE ALREADY made it ... "ugly"! But tune in again next week for possible reasons on the how's and why's it will be "ugly". Mark J. Cuccia New Orleans LA USA mcuccia [at] tulane [dot] edu ------------------------------ From: Eworldwire Subject: Perkins Coie's John Clark To Edit Pike & Fischer Wireless Industry Date: Fri, 26 Sep 2003 11:57:54 -0400 Communications facilities-siting publication creates new position to monitor policy and marshall content WASHINGTON , D.C./EWORLDWIRE/Sep. 26, 2003 --- Pike & Fischer, Inc. and Perkins Coie LLP today announced that John F. Clark, an attorney in Perkins Coie's Washington, DC office, has been named Executive Editor of CELULR, the Communications Environmental & Land Use Law Report (www.celulr.com), published by Pike & Fischer. CELULR provides a convenient single source for monitoring a broad range of laws and policies that impact the siting of communications facilities, including wireless communication and broadcast towers. The subscription service, which includes a monthly newsletter and access to a deep archive of valuable content at www.celulr.com, covers the increasingly overlapping laws that regulate these facilities including local laws governing zoning and land use and federal laws regulating environmental and historic preservation matters. The complexity of these interrelated regulatory schemes makes CELULR a valuable reference source and policy guide for wireless carriers, broadcasters, licensees, and tower companies, as well as for public officials, attorneys, and consultants. "John Clark is recognized nationally as a top practitioner in this area," said Meg Hargreaves, Group Publisher of Pike & Fischer. "His experience at the FCC and his valuable work for many of the most important companies and associations in the industry make him uniquely qualified to assist us with content development and strategic direction. Coupling his knowledge with the telecommunications skillsets of our attorney-editors greatly increases the value of CELULR for our clients." "I am pleased that Pike & Fischer has asked me to undertake this role," Clark said. "The wireless industry is entering a new phase of accelerated network development. At the same time, community activists and environmental groups are increasingly applying environmental and land use laws to delay and sometimes block badly needed facilities. CELULR is an indispensable resource, both for understanding this wide range of changing laws and policies and for avoiding or overcoming problems in this complicated regulatory environment." Pike & Fischer, Inc. (www.pf.com) is the preeminent legal and regulatory authority in the field of telecommunications. Founded in 1939 and now a subsidiary of The Bureau of National Affairs, Inc., (www.bna.com), Pike & Fischer publishes reference services, newsletters, special reports, directories and software and produces conferences and special events. For more information, go to www.pf.com or call 301-562-1530 x 229. Perkins Coie (www.perkinscoie.com) is a leading international law firm with nearly 600 attorneys serving clients from 14 offices across the U.S. and China. The firm represents clients ranging in size from Fortune 100 companies to startups and has historically represented market leaders in traditional and cutting-edge technology industries. John Clark is of Counsel at Perkins Coie, where he has practiced since 2000. His practice is focused exclusively on the federal regulation of towers and related communications infrastructure. His clients include several of the country's leading wireless carriers, tower companies, and associations. Before joining Perkins Coie, Clark was Senior Attorney with the FCC's Environmental Compliance Group. HTML: http://newsroom.eworldwire.com/wr/092603/1734.htm PDF: http://newsroom.eworldwire.com/pdf/092603/1734.pdf ONLINE NEWSROOM: http://newsroom.eworldwire.com/1779.htm LOGO: http://newsroom.eworldwire.com/1779.htm CONTACT: Meg Hargreaves Pike & Fischer, Inc. 1010 Wayne Ave. Suite 1400 Silver Spring, MD 20910 PHONE. 301-562-1530 EMAIL: mhargreaves@pf.com http://celulr.com ------------------------------ From: Dave Phelps Subject: Re: CAPPS 2 Public Comment Deadline is 9/30 Date: Fri, 26 Sep 2003 00:35:28 -0500 Organization: www.tippenring.com In article , monty@roscom.com says: > 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. Well, that's ok then. Why are you posting this here? We're all phonemen. Phonemen are trusted completely by everyone. It won't affect us, so why should we care? 'It doesn't affect me, why should I care' is not really my opinion. Just the opposite, actually. However, it's such a prevalent attitude that it's sad. Take a stand, people! Defend your rights! Write that email, it'll only take a few seconds. Get on a couple of email lists, such as www.eff.org or www.aclu.org. That way you'll know about these issues and can make your feelings known. Otherwise the first you'll hear about the next new law will be when the cops come to arrest you for talking on it. Dave Phelps DD Networks www.ddnets.com deadspam=tippenring ------------------------------ From: a_user2000@yahoo.com (Justin Time) Subject: Re: AUTODIN Date: 26 Sep 2003 05:55:37 -0700 Organization: http://groups.google.com/ Jay R. Ashworth wrote in message news:: > Stanley settled back into the couch, and 2JIME7USAF@aol.com > said to him: <> > What's replaced AUTODIN? DCA's Milnet? And where was Clark? Guam? > Alaska? I've got a bit set says it was *SOMEWHERE* exotic... Clark AFB was near Mt. Pinatubo (sp?) in the Phillipines. ------------------------------ From: craphound999@hotmail.com (Jody Bregler) Subject: Re: Selective Call Forwarding Device? Date: 26 Sep 2003 07:41:54 -0700 Organization: http://groups.google.com/ Thank you very much for the info. Jody Stuart Friedman wrote in message news:: > Take a look at pulver.com's phone patch. It does a number of tricks > based on callerid. ------------------------------ From: Eric Friedebach Subject: Motorola Plays With Nintendo Date: Fri, 26 Sep 2003 11:09:01 -0500 Organization: LeAnn Rimes/Busta Rhymes; Know the Difference Arik Hesseldahl, 09.26.03, Forbes.com NEW YORK - The holiday season is shaping up to be a rough one for electronics giant Motorola. It's mobile-phone business looks like its going to lag behind rivals Nokia and Samsung when it comes to delivering the kinds of mobile phones that consumer seem to want this year -- especially those with integrated cameras -- because it's unable to deliver them. At least maybe now we have a clue as to why Motorola's board of directors had such a strong "difference of opinion" with outgoing Chief Executive Christopher Galvin that led to his departure from the company last week. But the other great wireless fad of the holiday season will be gaming. And at least when it comes to chips, Motorola has some good news coming there. Already it has landed chips inside the much-anticipated Tapwave gaming PDA, which we noted earlier this month. This morning it announced another deal with videogame concern Nintendo, which said it plans to introduce a wireless adapter for its Game Boy Advance handheld player that will let its users play against each other over wireless links. But since it won't ship until next year, it seems that it will be late to the party. http://www.forbes.com/2003/09/26/cx_ah_0926tentech.html Eric Friedebach ------------------------------ From: Cryderman, Charles Subject: Re: Verizon Repair Date: Fri, 26 Sep 2003 12:20:26 -0400 Jay R. Ashworth replied to me: > With all due respect, sir, I myself would have a difficult time > taking legal advice from someone who can not only misspell > "liable" ... but in the process turns it into a *different* legal > offense. :-} I guess I missed that mis-spelling, sorry about that. Thank you for pointing it out. > Can you provide case citations wherein this theory has been > successfully used? I know they're a little less stringent in Small > Clams, but ... The actual case I can not cite, it was in Michigan and some lawyer had just moved into a new home and had scheduled for Ameritech (now SBC) and the cable company in her area for service installation. Nether company showed up on the day scheduled. Sue, first sent each a bill ($100 per hour I think). Both refused to pay her so she took them to court. Both ended up paying $800 as well as her attorney fees and court cost. I believe they each ended up paying well over a grand. The reason she was able to do this is because both companies have in their policies the requirement that if the customer is not available during a call out the customer has to pay for a service call. Her stance with the court was that if they can charge for the customer not being available then the customer should also have the right if they miss a scheduled appointment. I agree with her position. Chip Cryderman ------------------------------ From: Mark Subject: WiFi / VOIP Solutions Date: Fri, 26 Sep 2003 12:39:05 -0500 Organization: Posted via Supernews, http://www.supernews.com The phone technology of the future is here. Vonnage, Packet8, keep looking, they don't have the patented plug & play technology that is exclusively available from: www.zkara.com Check it out then contact me @ mark@zkara.com ------------------------------ Reply-To: From: auditel Subject: Editorial: When it is Best to Outsource Telecom Details Date: Fri, 26 Sep 2003 13:48:14 -0400 Telecommunications Bill Auditing, Advantage? By Greg Randolph Auditing your telecommunications invoices may sound like a scary proposition. Technology has changed and bills aren't simple to analyze. However; with the large cost of these bills and tight budgetary constraints affecting most large organizations, the benefits can far outweigh the effort. By having your telecommunication bills audited, you can gain several advantages over your competitors. You gain Knowledge. When a telecommunication bill arrives at most companies, its one and only stop is in the Accounts Payable Department where it is coded and paid. Little or no time is spent verifying the validity of each and every charge. In the current economy with businesses consolidating departments and locations, it is not uncommon to find lines that should have been cancelled but are still being billed. A complete telecommunications audit can help identify this and many other issues. Most companies only have a list of their advertised numbers along with main site location numbers and faxes. A complete list and identification of lines is necessary to have control over your telecommunications. You would not keep an inaccurate record of your product inventory. Why would any company be comfortable without a complete and accurate list of all of their lines and the services they use? What if you don't have enough lines to handle all of your business and important customers are unable to reach you? A detailed audit can also help to point out monies spent on services you don't need or determine if your current services are adequate. You gain Control. A company needs control over their telecommunications and would have to employ large staffs of professionally trained telecom billing and service personnel to accomplish this task. A great way to cut your business's overhead is to outsource all of those positions to a company that provides those services. Their staff would not be on your payroll and would be able to audit the invoices more rapidly because of their experience and dedication to the task. A professionally trained Telecommunications Outsourcing Company can go through your bills with a fine tooth comb to identify and correct errors in the billing. They can handle the monthly maintenance of circuits, systems, frame, and internet outages or troubleshoot line and system problems to resolution. You can potentially gain MONEY! Everyone likes to receive money back. A complete telecommunications audit can help identify potential refunds. Companies frequently find that they are paying for unused lines, disconnected lines, residential lines or even another organization's long distance usage. It is also possible to find that the Long Distance and Local rates negotiated in your contracts are not the rates at which you are being billed! Though it may seem a scary proposition, it is easy to see how a telecommunications audit can give you the edge that is needed in the highly competitive business world of today. Greg Randolph - Technical Support for Auditel Inc. Greg Randolph served 3 years as Technical Support Manager for the 80 seat Orlando Customer Service Call Center of Sears Termite and Pest Control before bringing his expertise and ingenuity to Auditel. He is a Microsoft Certified Professional who has provided LAN and PC support in a Windows NT environment, programming and maintenance of Lucent Defininty G3si, including vectoring and ACD administration, and training and PC support of proprietary customer management system software. At Auditel, Greg's eagerness and aptitude for creating solutions make him an integral contributor to the auditing process. Most importantly, he integrates and uniquely configures the Auditel software to meet the functional requirements of any client. www.auditelinc.com www.auditeltraining.com e-mail- auditel@earthlink.net ------------------------------ From: dmckeon@ameritas.com (Dan McKeon) Subject: Re: Private Video Transmission Date: 26 Sep 2003 11:14:22 -0700 Organization: http://groups.google.com/ This story is set in Philadephia which has the 4th largest police force and boasts highly advanced IT architecture. Is anyone familiar enough with the Philadelphia PD to understand how this might play out differently there than in a smaller city? ------------------------------ From: craig.athome@virgin.net (craig) Subject: 'Cross Country' Internet Access Over Leased Line Date: 26 Sep 2003 11:26:26 -0700 Organization: http://groups.google.com/ Hi, Hypothetical question here. Consider two companies connected by a leased line. Company B has an excellent internet access package -- all bells and whistles in for example Germany. Company A is in UK, and can't get similar package for love nor money. IT guy in poor old company A thinks "why not just route our traffic out over their internet connection over the leased line". So, is this allowed? I guess what I'm asking is whether this sort of thing is commonplace, if there are any laws against it, or it is down to the discression of the ISP (in whatever country) Comments welcomed. Craig ------------------------------ From: Al Gillis Subject: Re: A New Kind of Revolution in the Dorms of Dartmouth Date: Fri, 26 Sep 2003 12:01:58 -0700 Organization: http://extra.newsguy.com And before we move on I'd like to point out that Dartmouth College was the place where the programming language BASIC was developed back in 1964. Two guys, J. Kemeny and T. Kurtz, developed the Beginners All-purpose Symbolic Instruction Code to help countless students (including me and, 25 years later, my youngest son!) make their computers do something useful. BASIC also helped a couple of other guys, Paul Allen and Bill Gates, gather up all the loose money in the world by developing a version of BASIC that would run on the Intel 8080. I'm sure most of us have dones something like: 10 PRINT "HELLO" So that Dartmouth must be a pretty neat place! Monty Solomon wrote in message news:telecom22.664.3@telecom-digest.org: > 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] ------------------------------ From: geos@epost.de (Georg Schwarz) Subject: Ireland -> Germany Calling Card Suggestions? Date: Fri, 26 Sep 2003 21:55:22 +0200 Organization: Could you please recommend to me a calling card for making phone calls (fixed line to fixed line) from the Republic of Ireland to Germany (and possibly were to buy it). Thanks. PS: I'd appreciate if you could Cc: me any followups that you post. PS2: there does not seem to be an Irish telecom Usenet group, or is there? Georg Schwarz http://home.pages.de/~schwarz/ geos@epost.de +49 177 8811442 [TELECOM Digest Editor's Note: There is a UK Telecom newsgroup on Usenet which might be of some value to you in your search. PAT] ------------------------------ From: gdebacker@windsweptsoftware.com (Greg DeBacker) Subject: Re: Cable, Phone and Internet in a Single Box Date: 26 Sep 2003 13:11:29 -0700 Organization: http://groups.google.com/ Carl, In my case the attic is an unfinished third floor with a full stair well, plank floors, and 12 foot ceilings. Working up there is not a problem at all. You sort of drifted in to "Greek" for me with the techno babble but at least it gives me keywords for a Google search. I did all of the electrical wiring myself so by now I am an expert and pulling cable through finished walls. My main concern was interference from having cables bunched together. That question was answered. Also, thanks to the other responder for the idea of the mud ring instead of the box. I was not looking forward to cramming 4 to 6 cables in a single box only to find out I've damaged the signal because of kinks. Greg ------------------------------ 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. --------------------------------------------------------------- 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 #670 ****************************** From editor@telecom-digest.org Sat Sep 27 15:13:14 2003 Received: (from ptownson@localhost) by massis.lcs.mit.edu (8.11.6p2/8.11.3) id h8RJDEt20225; Sat, 27 Sep 2003 15:13:14 -0400 (EDT) Date: Sat, 27 Sep 2003 15:13:14 -0400 (EDT) From: editor@telecom-digest.org Message-Id: <200309271913.h8RJDEt20225@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 #671 TELECOM Digest Sat, 27 Sep 2003 15:13:00 EDT Volume 22 : Issue 671 Inside This Issue: Editor: Patrick A. Townson and: Lisa Minter Re: 'Cross Country' Internet Access Over Leased Line (Dave Phelps) Re: 'Cross Country' Internet Access Over Leased Line (Michael Sullivan) Re: 'Cross Country' Internet Access Over Leased Line (Robert Bonomi) Blocked/Private and Unavailable CID, and CID Boxes (Mark J Cuccia) Re: Private Video Transmission (Tony Pelliccio) Canadian Postal Abbreviations (was NANP "Exhaust"?) (Mark Brader) Re: Small PBX For Home/Small Business Use; Where to Find? (Dave Close) The Cell: It's a Selling Machine (Monty Solomon) Wi-Fi Earns Zagat's Blessings (Monty Solomon) Two Federal Courts block "Do-Not-Call" registry (Monty Solomon) Pop-Up Scam Beats AOL Filter (Monty Solomon) No-call Ruling Threatens State List (Monty Solomon) IRS Considers Giving Data to Other Agencies (Monty Solomon) Do-Not-Call Listing Remains Up in Air After Day of Twists (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. ---------------------------------------------------------------------- From: Dave Phelps Subject: Re: 'Cross Country' Internet Access Over Leased Line Date: Fri, 26 Sep 2003 21:39:06 -0500 Organization: www.tippenring.com In article , craig.athome@virgin.net says: > Hi, > Hypothetical question here. Consider two companies connected by a > leased line. Company B has an excellent internet access package -- all > bells and whistles in for example Germany. Company A is in UK, and > can't get similar package for love nor money. IT guy in poor old > company A thinks "why not just route our traffic out over their > internet connection over the leased line". > So, is this allowed? I guess what I'm asking is whether this sort of > thing is commonplace, if there are any laws against it, or it is down > to the discression of the ISP (in whatever country). > Comments welcomed. > Craig It's done all the time. Whether it is legal is up to each jurisdiction, but it's not as if they would ever be able to find out anyway, except maybe from a disgruntled employee, or maybe someone advertising it on an internet newsgroup. :-) Dave Phelps DD Networks www.ddnets.com deadspam=tippenring ------------------------------ From: Michael D. Sullivan Subject: Re: 'Cross Country' Internet Access Over Leased Line Date: Sat, 27 Sep 2003 05:16:50 GMT On 26 Sep 2003 11:26:26 -0700, craig posted the following to comp.dcom.telecom: > Hypothetical question here. Yeah, right. > Consider two companies connected by a > leased line. Company B has an excellent internet access package -- all > bells and whistles in for example Germany. Company A is in UK, and > can't get similar package for love nor money. IT guy in poor old > company A thinks "why not just route our traffic out over their > internet connection over the leased line". > So, is this allowed? I guess what I'm asking is whether this sort of > thing is commonplace, if there are any laws against it, or it is down > to the discression of the ISP (in whatever country) It depends on a number of things. (1) Are there any tariff or contractual restrictions on what the leased line can be connected to? Sometimes, these can't lawfully be connected to the local telephone 2network to provide dial access to someone at the other end of the line, which would bypass the international settlements process. (2) Are there any restrictions imposed by the ISP's contracts or terms of service regarding resale or sharing of the internet connection? Such restrictions are relatively common on residential and small-business internet connections. (3) Are there any statutes or regulatory agency directives (regulations or orders) concerning the types of leased lines that may be used to carry internet traffic in either country? If A and B were two divisions of a single multinational company, there would less likely be a problem than if they are separate companies. What would be intracompany use of an internet connection in the first case becomes sharing or resale of an internet connection with third parties in the second case. (Disclaimer to satisfy the D.C. Bar: This is not intended as a legal opinion and should not be relied upon by anyone, hypothetical or otherwise. Not rendered in anything like an attorney-client relationship, since it's publicly posted. Anyone who is considering anything like this should undoubtedly get advice of local counsel. Etc.) Michael D. Sullivan Bethesda, MD, USA (delete NOSPAM from address to mail me) ------------------------------ Subject: Re: 'Cross Country' Internet Access Over Leased Line Organization: Not Much From: bonomi@c-ns (Robert Bonomi) Date: Sat, 27 Sep 2003 06:24:20 GMT In article , craig wrote: > Hi, > Hypothetical question here. Consider two companies connected by a > leased line. Company B has an excellent internet access package -- all > bells and whistles in for example Germany. Company A is in UK, and > can't get similar package for love nor money. IT guy in poor old > company A thinks "why not just route our traffic out over their > internet connection over the leased line". > So, is this allowed? I guess what I'm asking is whether this sort of > thing is commonplace, if there are any laws against it, or it is down > to the discression of the ISP (in whatever country) Such things are *extremely* common. In the 'old' days, the _only_ way to get connected to the 'net was to "know somebody" who was already connected, and arrange a link THROUGH them. You had to agree to play by _their_ rules, and if there was _any_ question about misbehavior, they'd turn off your connection 'right now' -- rather than having _their_ upstream disconnect *them*. It was not at all uncommon for corporate *internal* point-to-point links between diverse locations to be used for 'net traffic, when they weren't busy with more important stuff. For a long time, the *primary* link between the U.S. and Europe (specifically the U.K.) was a dedicated link via the Trans-Atlantic cable. It was used for co-ordinating _real-time_ analysis of seismic events. When the link was needed, it was needed "right now" -- no time for establishing a "dial up" or other 'switched' connection. So, they had this high-capacity full-time dedicated connection going across the Atlantic. But, when an 'event' was _not_ actually in progress, the line was entirely idle. "Somebody" realized that there was an opportunity to put this under-utilized resource to a "good use" in the non-time-critical periods -- which was the vast majority of the time, Thus, they started shovelling USENET, and e-mail, across it. With priority encoding, so that 'business' could/would preempt the entire capacity when needed. NOTE: _some_ providers have *contract* restrictions that prohibit 'reselling' service. Just like some providers prohibit running 'servers' on residential circuits. These things are always amenable to negotiation, usually involving paying for a 'higher priced' level of service. If the contract doesn't _expressly_ forbid it, the provider has *no* say in what you do on _your_ network. Caveat: there may well be an IP "addressing" issue -- Company "A", in your example may have to use IP addresses that are among those that Company "B"'s ISP allocated to Company "B"; with B granting A permission to use a specified subset of those addresses. ------------------------------ Date: Fri, 26 Sep 2003 15:45:07 CDT From: Mark J Cuccia Subject: Blocked/Private and Unavailable CID, and CID Boxes Dave Phelps wrote: > My understanding is that the CID box is configured to display a > pre-defined message when the private flag is on. I believe the CID > data is still sent. "Fixing" a CID box is one of my 'after I win the > lottery' projects. No I don't think so. All of the Bellcore tech-specs I've seen indicate that either a string of 1's or 0's is sent from the telco c.o. switch serving the called party as modem data over the local loop to the called party's premises and CID box. Some boxes might be misconfigured to display a string of 1's or 0's, when one of those strings is supposed to indicate "Private" or "Blocked", while the other string indicates "Out of Area" or "Unavailable". *IF* the actual data is FSK modem dumped over the line with the privacy bit flagged, yet a CID-box was "expected" to not display that number, you *KNOW* that there would be all *KINDS* of lawsuits and other problems associated: Hackers/Phreakers/Spammers would be posting and spamming us with "get your CID decoding info by clicking here and giving us your credit card number". Or Hackers/Phreakers would be posting this all over their shady websites. And if such were the case, there would even be "how to" posts *HERE* at TELECOM Digest going back fifteen or more years. But NO, that doesn't seem to have been the case. What the telcos relay internally amongst themselves is high-speed packets of SS7 data for thousands of calls being processed. Except for "unavailable" numbers (where the number is not deliverable in SS7), the telephone number is sent, and *IF* default blocked or calling- party flagged as private (11-67 or *67), the telephone number is *STILL* sent but with the privacy "bit" flagged. What is *SUPPOSED* to happen at the distant telco c.o.switch is to "honor" that privacy bit flag, and suppress delivery of the number when 1200 baud FSK modem data is dumped over the called party's loop, and only send the string of 1's or 0's. mjc ------------------------------ From: Tony Pelliccio Subject: Re: Private Video Transmission Organization: The Ace Tomato and Cement Company Date: Fri, 26 Sep 2003 19:13:42 -0500 In article , dmckeon@ameritas.com says: > > This story is set in Philadephia which has the 4th largest police > force and boasts highly advanced IT architecture. Is anyone familiar > enough with the Philadelphia PD to understand how this might play out > differently there than in a smaller city? PA has a system called JNet. Integrated among PD's, AG's, Courts, in other words all the players in the justice community. Information is delivered via wired and wireless connections, with platforms ranging from mid-range systems to PDA's. It is all a custom solution, it doesn't use HTE or IMC. That much I know. Here's the web site for Jnet: http://www.pajnet.state.pa.us/pajnet/site/default.asp ------------------------------ Subject: Canadian Postal Abbreviations (was NANP "Exhaust"?) Date: Fri, 26 Sep 2003 19:23:24 -0400 (EDT) From: msb@vex.net (Mark Brader) Mark Cuccia writes: > 438 to overlay 514, Montreal PQ "itself", presently planned for > Oct. 2005 ... No telecom relevance here, unless the postal service counts as telecom. I'd just like to point out that it's getting close to 10 years since Canada Post changed the abbreviation for Quebec from PQ to QC, and people might like to actually start thinking about updating their usage sometime. Two other Canadian abbreviations have changed more recently, and I might as well mention those as well. NU for the Nunavut territory was split off NT in 2000, reflecting the creation of the territory the previous year; and NF was replaced by NL in 2002, reflecting the renaming of the province to Newfoundland and Labrador, also a year late. -- Mark Brader, Toronto msb@vex.net "Unjustly maligned? I think not." -- Ross Howard My text in this article is in the public domain. ------------------------------ Date: Fri, 26 Sep 2003 21:38:16 -0700 From: Dave Close Subject: Re: Small PBX For Home/Small Business Use; Where to Find? pete@bg.com (Pete Harris) writes: > 15-room house? All ri-i-ight !!! > Or is this a frat house? One phone jack per room? Doesn't seem like anywhere near enough to me. When I built a house about 15 years ago, I put in 27 home runs with two cables each. Obviously, I didn't have 27 rooms. But I did have doorboxes which connected to the phone system, outlets in every bathroom, one near the pool, one in the garage, and several in some of the rooms. When you're building, the cable cost is the least of your concerns. Today, I wouldn't use the same mini PABX I installed back then. In fact, I wouldn't have used it if I'd built about six months later. That was about the time Panasonic came out with their units, and those were so much better. The biggest advantage of the Panasonic was, and I think still is, that it permits you to connect standard 2500-type sets. Not only does this mean you can use your existing phones, it also means you can connect a modem without special wiring. The proprietary systems usually don't send tip and ring to their special phones, so modems and answering machines are useless. But the installation was very cool for it's day. Delivery man comes to front door and rings bell. Every phone in the house rings with a special code. I pick up the nearest set and dial the door extension and the guy is startled when the door box speaks to him. I ask who is there, because I'm in a remote part of the house and can't see. And he is willing to wait when I tell him I'll be there in two minutes. Dave Close, Compata, Costa Mesa CA +1 714 434 7359 dave@compata.com dhclose@alumni.caltech.edu Ralph Waldo Emerson: "A foolish consistency is the hobgoblin of little minds, adored by little statesmen and philosophers and divines. With consistency a great soul has simply nothing to do." ------------------------------ Date: Sat, 27 Sep 2003 11:56:57 -0400 From: Monty Solomon Subject: The Cell: It's a Selling Machine By Randy Dotinga SAN DIEGO -- Beep beep beep! Big Macs are on sale, and McDonald's just sent you a text message on your cell phone with the good news. Should you call the spam police? Complain to your senator? Probably not. If you find an ad on your mobile's screen, chances are good that you asked for it. And the odds are even better that someone paid a bundle to put it there. Hardly any Americans get text-message ads now, except for annoying sales pitches from the cell-phone companies themselves. But entrepreneurs speaking at a conference in San Diego this week said that's changing as customers figure out how their phones work and companies realize the potential rewards of eliminating yet another ad-free space. Marketing boosters predict that plenty of American users will be willing to opt in and even agree to pay standard rates to receive tips about promotions and special events. http://www.wired.com/news/wireless/0,1382,60610,00.html ------------------------------ Date: Sat, 27 Sep 2003 11:58:43 -0400 From: Monty Solomon Subject: Wi-Fi Earns Zagat's Blessings By Daniel Terdiman It was bound to happen. After all, it happens to all great young technologies. Wi-Fi has officially entered the province of the anti-geek. That was made clear last week with the publication of Zagat's 2003 Wi-Fi Hotspots guide. Produced in conjunction with Intel and The New Yorker magazine, and distributed as an insert in the magazine's new style issue, Zagat's Wi-Fi survey presents a list of mostly upscale restaurants and hotels in Chicago, Los Angeles, New York, San Francisco and Seattle that serve up wireless Internet access. In the wake of the Zagat guide landing on newsstands and in mailboxes everywhere -- and previous moves by Starbucks and other retailers to offer Wi-Fi access -- geeks are finding themselves conflicted about the loss of one of their favored technologies' innocence. http://www.wired.com/news/wireless/0,1382,60591,00.html ------------------------------ Date: Sat, 27 Sep 2003 12:15:27 -0400 From: Monty Solomon Subject: Two Federal Courts Block "Do-Not-Call" Registry Opinion (Mainstream Marketing Services v. FTC) (Fed. Court in Colo.) (Sep. 25, 2003) http://news.findlaw.com/hdocs/docs/ftc/mmsftc92503opn.pdf Order (U.S. Security v. FTC) (Fed Court in Okla.) (Sep. 23, 2003) http://news.findlaw.com/hdocs/docs/ftc/donotcall92303ord.pdf ------------------------------ Date: Sat, 27 Sep 2003 12:28:45 -0400 From: Monty Solomon Subject: Pop-Up Scam Beats AOL Filter By Brian McWilliams Advertisers aren't the only ones exploiting the Windows pop-up feature to broadcast messages to Internet users. Crooks have deployed the same technology to launch an identity-theft scheme aimed at America Online users on vulnerable Windows systems. In recent months, advertisers have broadcast a slew of messages to Internet users, many of the ads pitching software to block Windows Messenger spam. Last Thursday a scammer sent what security experts call a "phishing" notice to AOL members through the Messenger service. A gray pop-up window appeared on AOL users' computers, allegedly from "AOL Billing," and instructed them to visit a website -- updatedp.com -- to correct problems with their credit card numbers. According to Natalie Graham, an AOL user in Utah who received the pop-up, the scam site appeared to be "an authentic-looking AOL page." She became suspicious, however, when the site asked for her name, address, credit card number, mother's maiden name, birthday, Social Security number, driver's license number, master screen name and password. ------------------------------ Date: Sat, 27 Sep 2003 12:34:54 -0400 From: Monty Solomon Subject: No-Call Ruling Threatens State List By Lyle Denniston, Globe Correspondent, 9/27/2003 WASHINGTON -- The federal judge's ruling that scuttled the popular national do-not-call list on constitutional grounds threatens similar lists in Massachusetts and 31 other states. The national registry, with 50 million telephone numbers signed up, was to begin blocking over-the-phone sales pitches on Oct. 1. That will not happen, legal and consumer specialists said yesterday. The ruling, which struck down the national list as a violation of the free speech rights of telemarketers, could lead the industry to challenge the state's registry as well. Telemarketers' rights were violated, the judge in Denver ruled, because the government, not the home telephone user, included commercial callers while exempting charitable and political fund-raisers. The Thursday ruling leaves it up to telemarketing companies to decide whether to continue calling consumers whose names are on the federal list, but some lawyers for those firms are advising their clients not to do so. Still, the decision means there is currently no federal penalty for doing so. Massachusetts and other states with their own do-not-call lists will feel no immediate change. However, those registries are now vulnerable to new legal challenges, based on the same constitutional arguments that led to nullification of the national list. http://www.boston.com/news/nation/articles/2003/09/27/no_call_ruling_threatens_state_list/ ------------------------------ Date: Fri, 26 Sep 2003 16:59:09 -0400 From: Monty Solomon Subject: IRS Considers Giving Data to Other Agencies By Stephen J. Glain, Globe Staff, 9/25/2003 WASHINGTON -- The Internal Revenue Service is exploring ways to share names, addresses, birth dates, employee records, and other taxpayer information with law-enforcement agencies, particularly the Immigration and Naturalization Service, according to legislative aides and senior tax attorneys. Aides said any such move, though taken in the name of national security, could violate the spirit if not the letter of US nondisclosure laws. These privacy rules were first established in the mid-1970s as part of an overhaul of the tax code after the Nixon White House used IRS records to intimidate its enemies. http://www.boston.com/news/nation/washington/articles/2003/09/25/irs_considers_giving_data_to_other_agencies/ ------------------------------ Date: Sat, 27 Sep 2003 14:35:19 -0400 From: Monty Solomon Subject: Do-Not-Call Listing Remains Up in Air After Day of Twists By SHERYL GAY STOLBERG with MATT RICHTEL WASHINGTON, Sept. 25 - In a swift display of bipartisan unity, Congress overwhelmingly passed legislation today aimed at allowing a national do-not-call registry against unwanted telemarketing to take effect next week as planned. But hours after the vote, which effectively rendered moot a federal judge's injunction against the registry, a second judge declared the program a violation of free speech. The new ruling was the latest twist in a confusing off-again-on-again drama involving the federal effort to prevent unwanted telephone solicitation. Unless it is overturned by a higher court, the latest judicial decision would block the government from going ahead on schedule with the hugely popular federal program; almost 50 million American households have signed up for the list. Today's Congressional measure was drafted in haste on Wednesday after lawmakers learned of the first decision, issued by a federal judge in Oklahoma who ruled on the fairly narrow grounds that the registry could not go forward because Congress had not specifically authorized the right agency to run it. The bill passed 95 to 0 in the Senate and 412 to 8 in the House. "Perhaps we should call this bill the `This Time We Really Mean It Act,' " declared Representative Billy Tauzin, the Louisiana Republican and chief House sponsor of the bill, "to cure any misunderstanding in the judicial branch." President Bush said he would sign the measure. It gives the Federal Trade Commission the power to create and enforce the do-not-call list, something that lawmakers thought they had already done but that the judge, Lee R. West, said they had not. The second ruling, issued today by Judge Edward W. Nottingham of Federal District Court in Denver, threw a more effective obstacle in the way of the list on the ground that it discriminates against for-profit businesses; the registry program still allows political and charitable solicitation calls to be made. Judge Nottingham ruled that by exempting the nonprofit solicitors from the registry, the F.T.C. "has imposed a content-based limitation on what the consumer may ban from his home." He added that "the mechanism purportedly created by the F.T.C. to effectuate consumer choice instead influences consumer choice, thereby entangling the government in deciding what speech consumers may hear." The burden on commercial speech was significant enough, the judge ruled, "to amount to a government restriction implicating the First Amendment." Because the ruling came on broad constitutional grounds the program's future will probably not be settled in Congress, but in the courts. http://www.nytimes.com/2003/09/26/business/26CALL.html [Lisa Minter note: Readers of NY Times online are invited to use our group username 'telecomdigest1' and group password 'telecomdigest1' to avoid spam from NY Times advertisers, etc. Lisa M.] ------------------------------ 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. --------------------------------------------------------------- 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 #671 ****************************** From editor@telecom-digest.org Sun Sep 28 00:44:01 2003 Received: (from ptownson@localhost) by massis.lcs.mit.edu (8.11.6p2/8.11.3) id h8S4i1s23448; Sun, 28 Sep 2003 00:44:01 -0400 (EDT) Date: Sun, 28 Sep 2003 00:44:01 -0400 (EDT) From: editor@telecom-digest.org Message-Id: <200309280444.h8S4i1s23448@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 #672 TELECOM Digest Sun, 28 Sep 2003 00:44:00 EDT Volume 22 : Issue 672 Inside This Issue: Editor: Patrick A. Townson and: Lisa Minter Automated Search Ads Can Boomerang (Monty Solomon) Suit Filed Over VeriSign Domain Redirect (Monty Solomon) IE Holes Lead toAIM, Dial-Up Attacks (Monty Solomon) Confessions of a Spam King (Monty Solomon) Judge's Number Found on List (Monty Solomon) Group Buys Romney Data to Show Ease of ID Theft (Monty Solomon) Mass. Senate Passes Bill to Fight 'Spam' (Monty Solomon) Telco "Standards" and Canadian Postal Abbreviations (Mark J Cuccia) Re: 'Cross Country' Internet Access Over Leased Line (Major Shaffer) "Do-Not-Call" Registry (Dale Neiburg) Motorola's Christmas Hang-Up (Eric Friedebach) Re: Caller ID vs. *69 (John David Galt) Re: Two Federal Courts Block "Do-Not-Call" Registry (AES/newspost) How to Integrate Caller ID Data Into Ordering system? (Yasuki Izaki) Re: Blocked/Private and Unavailable CID, and CID Boxes (Gary Breuckman) All contents here are copyrighted by Patrick Townson and the individual writers/correspondents. Articles may be used in other journals or newsgroups, provided the writer's name and the Digest are included in the fair use quote. By using -any name or email address- included herein for -any- reason other than responding to an article herein, you agree to pay a hundred dollars to the recipients of the email. WE DO NOT PERMIT NAME/EMAIL ADDRESS HARVESTING FROM THIS JOURNAL. 'SALTED' EMAIL ADDRESSES APPEAR HEREIN TO VERIFY THIS. YOU GET SUED IN SMALL CLAIMS COURT IF YOU GET CAUGHT SPAMMING OR SENDING VIRUSES. DON'T DO IT. See the bottom of this issue for subscription and archive details and the name of our lawyer; other stuff of interest. ---------------------------------------------------------------------- Date: Sat, 27 Sep 2003 15:36:13 -0400 From: Monty Solomon Subject: Automated Search Ads Can Boomerang By Stefanie Olsen Staff Writer, CNET News.com Free speech advocate Joan Bertin says she was surprised when she recently typed the words "child pornography" into a search engine and two advertisements appeared. The ads -- one selling services for a criminal defense attorney and the other for an adult Web site -- came courtesy of Google, whose free software powers searches on the National Coalition Against Censorship's (NCAC) Web site. NCAC Executive Director Bertin suddenly found herself in a rare position, urging self-censorship on Google in a letter sent to CEO Eric Schmidt on Monday: Either the ads had to go from the site, or Google. http://news.com.com/2100-1024-5083067.html ------------------------------ Date: Sat, 27 Sep 2003 15:31:24 -0400 From: Monty Solomon Subject: Suit Filed Over VeriSign Domain Redirect By John Borland Staff Writer, CNET News.com VeriSign is facing a new class-action lawsuit over its controversial "SiteFinder" service, which redirects all misspelled or unassigned .com domain names to a search page managed by the domain name registrar. The service appeared on the Web as a surprise last week, replacing the familiar error pages typically found when a Web surfer mistypes an Internet address. Criticism has been harsh and bitter from competitors and many broad Internet technical circles which say the action interferes with other Net applications. http://news.com.com/2100-1038-5083161.html ------------------------------ Date: Sat, 27 Sep 2003 15:33:29 -0400 From: Monty Solomon Subject: IE Holes Lead to AIM, Dial-Up Attacks Security holes in Microsoft's Internet Explorer have been exploited by hackers to hijack AOL instant messaging accounts and force unsuspecting Web surfers to run up massive phone bills, computer experts cautioned on Friday. Some Internet Explorer users are also finding that malicious Web sites are secretly slipping Trojan programs onto their computers, which could prove an even more dangerous exploit, said Drew Copley, a research engineer at Aliso Viejo, Calif.-based eEye Digital Security, who discovered the original security vulnerability. Such stealth programs can include keystroke loggers that record everything a person types or software to erase the hard drive, among other things, he said. Microsoft has released a patch for the original hole, which was reported about a month ago, said Stephen Toulouse, security program manager for Microsoft's Security Response Center. The company is looking into what it says are variations of the original hole that have been discovered since then that the patch does not fix, Toulouse said. http://news.com.com/2100-7349-5083234.html ------------------------------ From: Monty Solomon Subject: Confessions of a Spam King Date: Sat, 27 Sep 2003 19:56:19 -0400 By JACK HITT 1. MEET THE SPAMMER "Click here," says my spamming mentor. Hovering over my chair, he points to the computer screen. "Now click on that file of e-mail addresses there." I have been invited by a master for an education in spamming, the practice of blasting millions of unsolicited e-mail messages into the Internet in order to advertise everything from loans with easy terms to women of easy virtue. "Let's go online and download some software," says my guide. His name is Richard Colbert. On the Rokso, or Register of Known Spam Operations (a kind of Most Wanted List for the Internet posted on an antispam Web site called spamhaus.org), Colbert is described plainly: 'Nonstop scam spammer, kicked off so many hosts and I.S.P.s' -- or Internet service providers -- "it's hard to count." Dressed in blue shorts and a purple T-shirt, Colbert, 31, has blondish hair stuffed under a baseball cap, a prominent diamond earring and a mild twang that betrays his Atlanta origin. He lights up a Monarch menthol as he shows me his computer room, an intimate homemade space built off the side of an aging two-tone mobile home -- robin's-egg blue and white -- which sits among hundreds of Airstreams and Miami Deco single-wides in the Sunset Colony Mobile Home Park in Fort Lauderdale, Fla. Colbert claims that he's now on a sabbatical from spamming, but he's watching current events and weighing a return. During this interlude, he has agreed to help me learn how the avalanche of solicitations I receive winds up in my online mailbox every day. Who are these guys? Who hires them? How do they get legitimate e-mail addresses? And finally, can federal legislation currently under consideration actually stop them? http://www.nytimes.com/2003/09/28/magazine/28SPAMLT.html [Lisa Minter note: I think this NY Times article is a *must read* and you may do so with our group username 'telecomdigest1' and our group password 'telecomdigest1'. Lisa M.] ------------------------------ Date: Sat, 27 Sep 2003 23:13:38 -0400 From: Monty Solomon Subject: Judge's Number Found on List By Bill Dedman, Globe Correspondent, 9/27/2003 The telephone number of a federal judge in Denver who blocked a national do-not-call registry this week had been added to the list in July, blocking telemarketers from calling him. On Thursday, US District Judge Edward W. Nottingham stopped the Federal Trade Commission from implementing the registry, ruling that it is an unconstitutional infringement on free speech. On July 28, the judge's phone number had been added to the registry, the Globe confirmed by checking the registry online. The number is listed in Nottingham's name in the residential phone listings in Denver, but is in fact the number for the judge's chambers. The FTC website, at www.donotcall.gov, allows anyone to register a number, remove one, or to verify whether one was registered. According to an automated response, Nottingham's number "was registered in the National Do Not Call Registry on 7/28/2003. Most telemarketers will be required to stop calling you three months from your registration date. Your registration will ... expire on 9/27/2008." http://www.boston.com/news/nation/articles/2003/09/27/judges_number_found_on_list_boston_globe/ ------------------------------ Date: Sat, 27 Sep 2003 23:50:30 -0400 From: Monty Solomon Subject: Group Buys Romney Data to Show Ease of ID Theft Watchdog group highlights ease of access to personal data By Bruce Mohl, Globe Staff, 9/26/2003 A San Francisco-based consumer watchdog group yesterday highlighted the vulnerability of personal financial data by saying it had obtained Governor Mitt Romney's Social Security number for $30, but even more detailed information was available for the right price. For an extra $125, the Globe purchased Romney's Trans Union credit report, with a listing of all his credit card accounts, credit card numbers, credit limits, auto leases, and payment history going back more than a year. The credit card numbers alone were enough for someone to purchase virtually anything on the Internet. The company the Globe dealt with, Goldshield Inc., said it could also provide a listing of the governor's recent purchases on those credit cards for an additional $225. http://www.boston.com/dailyglobe2/269/business/Group_buys_Romney_data_to_show_ease_of_ID_theft+.shtml ------------------------------ Date: Sat, 27 Sep 2003 23:54:02 -0400 From: Monty Solomon Subject: Mass. Senate Passes Bill to Fight 'Spam' By Associated Press, 9/26/2003 Massachusetts Internet users may get a chance to fight back against unwanted e-mail, better known as spam. http://www.boston.com/dailyglobe2/269/business/Mass_Senate_passes_bill_to_fight_spam_+.shtml ------------------------------ Date: Sat, 27 Sep 2003 14:44:49 CDT From: Mark J Cuccia Subject: Telco "Standards" and Canadian Postal Abbreviations Mark Brader replied: > No telecom relevance here, unless the postal service counts as > telecom. I'd just like to point out that it's getting close to > 10 years since Canada Post changed the abbreviation for Quebec from > PQ to QC, and people might like to actually start thinking about > updating their usage sometime. > Two other Canadian abbreviations have changed more recently, and I > might as well mention those as well. NU for the Nunavut territory > was split off NT in 2000, reflecting the creation of the territory > the previous year; and NF was replaced by NL in 2002, reflecting the > renaming of the province to Newfoundland and Labrador, also a year > late. I was following the Bellcore/Telcordia "Common Language" department's standards on the two-letter abbreviations for geo-political areas and jurisdictions, which doesn't necessarily follow the "official" Postal abbreviations in that area. All US states/territories, all Candian provinces/territories, all other countries/colonies/misc.regions of the world, and various (but not all) other countries' internal divisions (Mexico's states, Venezuela's internal divisions, and a few others, those countries being licensees of Telcordia's Common Language Standards' products) have been assigned 2-letter codes for use in NANP-telco industry databases, forms, etc. including things like the LERG, the TPM, the NNAG, the OTCNPG, etc. from Telcordia TRA (Traffic Routing Administration). One telco "standard" which uses these two-letter abbreviations are the CLLI codes (Common Language Location Identifiers), those eleven character code-strings used to identify telco c.o.switches, and other telco network elements, mostly used by the NANP-based telco industry, but extendable to any telco function worldwide. Here is a simple overview of the breakdown of the CLLI code structure. This is oversimplified, because the "rules" for coding a valid CLLI are quite involved and extensive though! The first four characters identify the town/city. The second two characters identify the state/province/country/island (5th and 6th positions). The next two characters identify the "building" where the switch or network element is located (7th and 8th positions). The final three characters identify the actual switching unit or other network element (9th, 10th, 11th positions). In Telcordia's "Common Language Standards" list of 2-letter geo-political codes, the following still seem to be in "force": PQ for Quebec (QC was already assigned to Carabobo, a province or state in Venezuela, some time back) VU for Nunavut (and the NANP-based telco including Bellcore-TRA was already renaming the CLLI code "state" positions of 867's switches that were now in Nunavut, instead of NT for Northwest Territories. VU was "created" for Nunavut by Bellcore Common Language Standards *BEFORE* Nunavut got NU instead of continuing to "share" from NT Northwest Territories. NU might still be "unassigned" by Telcordia's CL standards dept., but then again they might be planning to switch over to NU. But I don't have any internal contacts to verify this directly though. NF for Newfoundland (NL was already assigned to the Netherlands some time back) (even Labrador itself couldn't use LB for telco identification of items because LB is assigned to Lara, a province or state in Venezuela). There are always going to be inconsistancies between various code lists to abbreviate geopolitical locations -- telco (NANP-based), individual local/national post offices, Internet domains, etc. Mark J. Cuccia mcuccia (at) tulane (dot) edu New Orleans LA USA ------------------------------ From: dave@ymb1.mail.vip.sc5.yahoo.com (Major Shaffer) Subject: Re: 'Cross Country' Internet Access Over Leased Line Date: Sat, 27 Sep 2003 20:12:12 -0000 Organization: Posted via Supernews, http://www.supernews.com In article , craig wrote: > So, is this allowed? I guess what I'm asking is whether this sort of > thing is commonplace, if there are any laws against it, or it is down > to the discression of the ISP (in whatever country). For legal advice, consult a lawyer. European differ enough from American that anything you hear in this forum unlikely to be correct. That said, if you run NAT how could they tell where the packets come from? ------------------------------ From: Dale Neiburg Subject: "Do-Not-Call" Registry Date: Sat, 27 Sep 2003 17:18:54 -0400 Maybe somebody can help me see what I'm missing, in the efforts of the telemarketing industry to avoid having a "do-not-call" list imposed on them. Suppose I'm a telemarketer. I employ a number of operators to do the actual dirty work for me. Let's further suppose that, say, Lisa Minter is one of them. I'm paying Lisa the barest pittance, but, being a Compassionate Conservative, I still begrudge every penny. And, in fact, paying the peons who work for me is still far and away the biggest expense I have. My staying in business depends on making a profit. That means that I want Lisa and her colleagues to make as many productive (sale-producing) calls as possible. That is to say, it's in my interest to minimize the time spent on non-productive calls. Now, if some organization, governmental or otherwise, offers to give me **FREE** an opt-out list of 50 million households who have made known that they don't want to receive telemarketing calls, why would I not jump at the chance to take advantage of it? The odds of a call to anyone on the list being productive are vanishingly small, and by observing the list I can increase the percentage of calls that are productive, and thereby increase my profits. This is a serious question. The obvious cheap answer is that telemarketing slime will go out of their way to be obnoxious for the fun of it. But why would any businessman -- however slimy -- not embrace a tool that practically guarantees him higher profits? Dale Neiburg ** NPR Satellite Operations ** 202-513-2640 "Security is mostly a superstition. It does not exist in nature.... Avoiding danger is no safer in the long run than outright exposure. Life is either a daring adventure or nothing." --Helen Keller [TELECOM Digest Editor's Note: Its interesting you bring up this point. On Family Radio news Saturday, they were interviewing a fellow who is some big shot executive with the national industry association representing telemarketers. He said that whether or not the Do Not Call list actually gets into law -- apparently there are still more last minute legal glitches despite an overwhelming bi-partisen vote in both houses of congress on Friday correcting what the original judge said were defeciencies (did FTC have the authority to implement, etc); congress then rammed it through to show their displeasure with the judge; now a *second* judge has said there may be a free speech issue as well -- if in fact it eventually fails, this guy claims that most major telemarker organizations already have their copies of it and will 'probably' observe it anyway. He said, and I quote, "most of our member organizations have better things to do than call people who obviously are going to hang up on them angrily. They will observe the intentions of the people who signed up." It will be interesting to see if in fact the telemarketers take the hint and not waste their telecom money on 'obvious non-sales'. This fellow also warned however that if the national list fails on cons- titutional issues or otherwise, the various state lists will probably also be in jeopardy. PAT] ------------------------------ From: Eric Friedebach Subject: Motorola's Christmas Hang-Up Date: Sat, 27 Sep 2003 17:30:44 -0500 Organization: LeAnn Rimes/Busta Rhymes; Know the Difference Mark Tatge, 09.27.03, Forbes.com CHICAGO - Motorola's failure to ship part of its new cell-phone lineup in time to capture Christmas sales could cost the handset maker $234 million to $260 million in sales in the all-important fourth quarter. Motorola derives as much as 30% of its cell-phones sales in the final quarter. Its 2003 estimated sales for the division are $10.7 billion. The delays of just the high-end camera phones alone could cost the company 1.3 million units at $180 to $200 per phone, said JP Morgan analyst Ehud Gelblum. The news hit Motorola's shares hard Friday, but after the company released a statement assuring it was on track for Christmas, the shares rose and ended flat at $12.48. Motorola is expected to earn 17 cents per share for 2003, up from 14 cents a year ago. Fourth-quarter consensus EPS is 12 cents, compared with a loss of 20 cents a year ago. "This is obviously going to have a significant impact. It is going to open door to competitors," said Bryan J. Prohm, analyst with Gartner Dataquest. http://www.forbes.com/2003/09/27/cx_mt_0926mot.html Eric Friedebach ------------------------------ From: John David Galt Subject: Re: Caller ID vs. *69 Date: Sat, 27 Sep 2003 15:29:08 -0700 Organization: Diogenes the Cynic Hot-Tubbing Society > John David Galt wrote: >> *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. Allston Parking Refugee wrote: > So if someone blocks caller ID info when making a call (by dialing *67 > or subscribing to all-call blocking), you're implying that his number > gets sent but the receiving caller ID box is configured not to receive > it? The CID info is still sent from caller's switch to callee's switch, but with a privacy flag that prohibits it from being sent to callee. This is what allows services such as *69 and *66 to work. > If I dial a OneSuite (prepaid calling card) local-access number (i.e. > a 7-digit number, not a toll-free number) and I block caller ID, they > can still identify my account automatically when I'm calling from my > home phone. How is this possible? If callee's switch is a PBX, the CID info can be captured there even if the privacy flag is set. I had the impression this was illegal, but it is technically possible. ------------------------------ From: AES/newspost Subject: Re: Two Federal Courts Block "Do-Not-Call" Registry Date: Sat, 27 Sep 2003 15:54:33 -0700 In article , Monty Solomon wrote: > Opinion (Mainstream Marketing Services v. FTC) (Fed. Court in Colo.) > (Sep. 25, 2003) > http://news.findlaw.com/hdocs/docs/ftc/mmsftc92503opn.pdf > Order (U.S. Security v. FTC) (Fed Court in Okla.) (Sep. 23, 2003) > http://news.findlaw.com/hdocs/docs/ftc/donotcall92303ord.pdf I continue to totally not understand why, instead of the obviously messy, expensive, and worst of all ineffective "do not call" approach, we don't work instead for legislation implicitly allowing telemarketers to call anyone, but simply requiring that all telemarketing calls be made with CID turned on and carrying some distinctive unique area code. Maybe after the Supreme Court rules that do not call lists _do_ violate freedom of speech -- which could happen, after a couple of years of delay and futzing around, and wouldn't be a totally ridiculous proposition -- we can try a more sensible solution. ------------------------------ From: yizaki@yacan.com (Yasuki Izaki) Subject: How to Integrate Caller ID Data Into Ordering system? Date: 27 Sep 2003 16:55:45 -0700 Organization: http://groups.google.com/ Hello, I looking for a system (software and hardware) to retrieve a caller ID from incoming call and feed the number (caller ID) into our existing ordering system. The ordering system is written in VB, running on NT. Could anybody recommend caller ID hardware and software to accomplish this? Thanks a lots in advance. Yasuki ------------------------------ From: Gary Breuckman Subject: Re: Blocked/Private and Unavailable CID, and CID Boxes Date: Sat, 27 Sep 2003 20:55:05 -0500 Organization: Puma's Lair - catbox.com In article , Mark J Cuccia wrote: > Dave Phelps wrote: >> My understanding is that the CID box is configured to display a >> pre-defined message when the private flag is on. I believe the CID data >> is still sent. "Fixing" a CID box is one of my 'after I win the >> lottery' projects. > No I don't think so. All of the Bellcore tech-specs I've seen indicate > that either a string of 1's or 0's is sent from the telco c.o. switch > serving the called party as modem data over the local loop to the called > party's premises and CID box. > Some boxes might be misconfigured to display a string of 1's or 0's, > when one of those strings is supposed to indicate "Private" or > "Blocked", while the other string indicates "Out of Area" or > "Unavailable". Mark is correct, the number is NOT in there when private is set. There are several different modems out there that will display callerID. Most will display the raw data, or formatted, as you wish. I've written several programs that decode the raw data to use with pagers, etc., and it's definitely not there. -- Gary Breuckman ------------------------------ 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. --------------------------------------------------------------- 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 #672 ****************************** From editor@telecom-digest.org Sun Sep 28 15:28:07 2003 Received: (from ptownson@localhost) by massis.lcs.mit.edu (8.11.6p2/8.11.3) id h8SJS7u28959; Sun, 28 Sep 2003 15:28:07 -0400 (EDT) Date: Sun, 28 Sep 2003 15:28:07 -0400 (EDT) From: editor@telecom-digest.org Message-Id: <200309281928.h8SJS7u28959@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 #673 TELECOM Digest Sun, 28 Sep 2003 15:28:00 EDT Volume 22 : Issue 673 Inside This Issue: Editor: Patrick A. Townson and: Lisa Minter JetBlue Privacy -- Under Federal Wings? (Monty Solomon) Concerns About Citizen Privacy Grow as States Create 'Matrix' (Solomon) No-Call List: Constitutional Doubt on Hot Political Issue (M Solomon) Verizon and Creative Billing (paulsnx2) Re: 'Cross Country' Internet Access Over Leased Line (Craig) Re: Two Federal Courts Block "Do-Not-Call" Registry (Linc Madison) Re: Two Federal Courts Block "Do-Not-Call" Registry (Group Special) Re: Two Federal Courts Block "Do-Not-Call" Registry (John Levine) Server Based PBX vs. Standard PBX (Jamie) Re: Telco "Standards" and Canadian Postal Abbreviations (obsidian) News From Munich Palmsource (ppcdev) Contact Information Wanted For Telcordia (Sharif Shahrier) Seeking Recruiters For Wi-Fi Positions (Sharif Shahrier) All contents here are copyrighted by Patrick Townson and the individual writers/correspondents. Articles may be used in other journals or newsgroups, provided the writer's name and the Digest are included in the fair use quote. By using -any name or email address- included herein for -any- reason other than responding to an article herein, you agree to pay a hundred dollars to the recipients of the email. WE DO NOT PERMIT NAME/EMAIL ADDRESS HARVESTING FROM THIS JOURNAL. 'SALTED' EMAIL ADDRESSES APPEAR HEREIN TO VERIFY THIS. YOU GET SUED IN SMALL CLAIMS COURT IF YOU GET CAUGHT SPAMMING OR SENDING VIRUSES. DON'T DO IT. See the bottom of this issue for subscription and archive details and the name of our lawyer; other stuff of interest. ---------------------------------------------------------------------- Date: Sun, 28 Sep 2003 01:37:00 -0400 From: Monty Solomon Subject: JetBlue Privacy -- Under Federal Wings? By Declan McCullagh Ever since its launch, I've been an unabashed fan of JetBlue Airways, the brash start-up that offers comfortable seats, satellite-linked TVs and beat-the-competition prices. Until last week, that is, when I found out that JetBlue secretly turned over my personal information and details on some 5 million other passengers to a private contractor that's working on a data-mining project for the Bush administration. A presentation prepared by contractor, Torch Concepts of Huntsville, Ala., describes how it merged the JetBlue database with U.S. Social Security numbers, home addresses, income levels and vehicle ownership information it purchased from Acxiom, a company that sells consumer data. Not all the details are clear, but the presentation discusses how Torch, on behalf of Uncle Sam, tried to rate each passenger's security risk level by analyzing the merged databases. That kind of disgraceful privacy intrusion demonstrates that it's high time to amend the Privacy Act of 1974, which restricts databases that the U.S. government compiles but does not regulate how agencies access databases the private sector runs. http://news.com.com/2010-1029-5080339.html ------------------------------ Date: Sun, 28 Sep 2003 01:56:25 -0400 From: Monty Solomon Subject: Concerns About Citizen Privacy Grow as States Create 'Matrix' By Jim Krane, Associated Press, 9/24/2003 NEW YORK -- While privacy worries are frustrating the Pentagon's plans for a far-reaching database to combat terrorism, a similar project is quietly taking shape with the participation of more than a dozen states -- and $12 million in federal funds. The database project, created so states and local authorities can track would-be terrorists as well as criminal fugitives, is being built and housed in the offices of a private company but will be open to some federal law enforcers and perhaps even US intelligence agencies. Dubbed Matrix, the database has been in use for a year and a half in Florida, where police praise the crime-fighting tool as nimble and exhaustive. It cross-references the state's driving records and restricted police files with billions of pieces of public and private data, including credit and property records. But privacy advocates, officials in two states, and a competing data vendor have branded Matrix as playing fast and loose with Americans' private details. http://www.boston.com/news/nation/articles/2003/09/24/concerns_about_citizen_privacy_grow_as_states_create_matrix_database/ ------------------------------ Date: Sun, 28 Sep 2003 02:05:45 -0400 From: Monty Solomon Subject: No-Call List: Constitutional Doubt on Hot Political Issue By ADAM LIPTAK The court decision late Thursday forbidding the government from carrying out a national do-not-call registry on First Amendment grounds will force appeals courts and lawmakers to make some excruciating choices. The registry, and indeed all measures to combat telemarketers, are enormously popular with the public. Already, Americans have listed 50 million phone numbers that they had hoped telephone solicitors would stop calling after Oct. 1, when the program was scheduled to go into effect. But the decision, by Judge Edward W. Nottingham of the Federal District Court in Denver, made what may legal experts say is a good case that regulators had engaged in unconstitutional discrimination in allowing people to block commercial calls but not calls from charities, political parties, religious institutions and polling organizations. http://www.nytimes.com/2003/09/27/business/27CALL.html [TELECOM Digest Editor's Note: Readers of the Digest who also wish to read NY Times articles are invited to use our group user name 'telecomdigest1' and our group password 'telecomdigest1'. PAT] ------------------------------ From: paulsn@urx.com (paulsnx2) Subject: Verizon and Creative Billing Date: 28 Sep 2003 10:42:21 -0700 Organization: http://groups.google.com/ Just thought people who use a "family share plan" with Verizon should be aware ... I buy 2500 minutes a month to cover 3 phones. Last month I went over the 2500 minutes by about 700 minutes. (I was moving, it took a long time to get my land line set up, my daughter was living on the cell, etc.) Now as you might imagine, my main line pays .25 cents a minute for overage. You usually get better rates when you buy so many minutes per month. But the other lines have .45 cents per minute overages. About half the usage was on the main line, and half on a secondary line. Well, guess what I was told to pay? .45 cents per minute! I was amazed, I called, and I was told I should have read the contract!!! So I got off the phone, and I read the contract. Nothing in the contract said that overage would be assigned to the more expensive rate. So I call back. This time, they admit: The only mention of this policy is in a *brochure*!!!! No where in my contract is there any mention of this policy! We discuss this for about an hour. Then they started giving ground: First they claim they would half the difference, and I held that wasn't good enough. So they charged the the lower rate. Then they made a point of documenting that I have now been informed of the policy, and would have to pay the higher rate in the future. I made a point that I would do no such thing until I received an update to my contract stating such a policy. This they will not do, for whatever reason. I am tempted to go over by a few minutes and argue this further. Only 2500 minutes is *really, really* hard for me to use up in most months. -Paul ------------------------------ From: craig.athome@virgin.net (craig) Subject: Re: 'Cross Country' Internet Access Over Leased Line Date: 28 Sep 2003 00:39:14 -0700 Organization: http://groups.google.com/ bonomi@c-ns (Robert Bonomi) wrote in message news:: > In article , craig > wrote: >> Hypothetical question here. Consider two companies connected by a >> leased line. Company B has an excellent internet access package -- all >> bells and whistles in for example Germany. Company A is in UK, and >> can't get similar package for love nor money. IT guy in poor old >> company A thinks "why not just route our traffic out over their >> internet connection over the leased line". >> So, is this allowed? I guess what I'm asking is whether this sort >> of thing is commonplace, if there are any laws against it, or it is >> down to the discression of the ISP (in whatever country). > Such things are *extremely* common. In the 'old' days, the _only_ > way to get connected to the 'net was to "know somebody" who was > already connected, and arrange a link THROUGH them. > You had to agree to play by _their_ rules, and if there was _any_ > question about misbehavior, they'd turn off your connection 'right > now' -- rather than having _their_ upstream disconnect *them*. > It was not at all uncommon for corporate *internal* point-to-point > links between diverse locations to be used for 'net traffic, when > they weren't busy with more important stuff. > For a long time, the *primary* link between the U.S. and Europe > (specifically the U.K.) was a dedicated link via the Trans-Atlantic > cable. It was used for co-ordinating _real-time_ analysis of > seismic events. When the link was needed, it was needed "right now" > -- no time for establishing a "dial up" or other 'switched' > connection. So, they had this high-capacity full-time dedicated > connection going across the Atlantic. But, when an 'event' was > _not_ actually in progress, the line was entirely idle. "Somebody" > realized that there was an opportunity to put this under-utilized > resource to a "good use" in the non-time-critical periods -- which > was the vast majority of the time, Thus, they started shovelling > USENET, and e-mail, across it. With priority encoding, so that > 'business' could/would preempt the entire capacity when needed. > NOTE: _some_ providers have *contract* restrictions that prohibit > 'reselling' service. Just like some providers prohibit running > 'servers' on residential circuits. These things are always amenable > to negotiation, usually involving paying for a 'higher priced' level > of service. If the contract doesn't __expressly_ forbid it, the > provider has *no* say in what you do on _your_ network. Caveat: > there may well be an IP "addressing" issue -- Company "A", in your > example may have to use IP addresses that are among those that > Company "B"'s ISP allocated to Company "B"; with B granting A > permission to use a specified subset of those addresses. Thanks for all the feedback folks. And just to quosh suspicion ;-), it IS a hypothetical question -- i.e. I am not currently doing this, and this is actually a pretty unlikely route for us to even consider. However, when discussing such subjects with money people, it it the sort of suggestion that may well get chucked in. I ain't looking for a cheaters route to connectivity which is why I asked. Cheers, Craig ------------------------------ Subject: Re: Two Federal Courts Block "Do-Not-Call" Registry From: Linc Madison Reply-To: Telecom@LincMad.com Organization: LincMad.com Consulting Date: Sun, 28 Sep 2003 08:35:20 GMT In article , AES/newspost wrote: > Maybe after the Supreme Court rules that do not call lists _do_ > violate freedom of speech -- which could happen, after a couple of > years of delay and futzing around, and wouldn't be a totally > ridiculous proposition -- we can try a more sensible solution. Your freedom of speech does NOT include the right to speak on MY telephone line, PERIOD. I do not even have an obligation to give you the opportunity to convince me that your speech is worthy of my attention. My right to block an entire class of speech from my private property does not in any way infringe on anyone's right to freedom of speech: the telemarketers are free to speak elsewhere. However, I do agree that there is a Constitutional issue in the unreasonable distinction between commercial speech and political or charitable speech. There is a painfully obvious (but politically impossible) solution right at hand: create a Do Not Call registry with three different check boxes: [X] I do not wish to receive COMMERCIAL telephone solicitations [X] I do not wish to receive CHARITABLE telephone solicitations [X] I do not wish to receive POLITICAL telephone solicitations I got a call from a political group the other day, asking me to contribute to their current fundraising efforts. I told the woman very politely that I prefer not to conduct such business by the telephoe, and asked her to place me on their do-not-call list. She agreed, but then had the audacity to say, "But while I have you on the phone ..." I did not contribute, and I will not contribute, at least not before the September 30th cutoff for the current quarter. www dot LincMad dot com / Telecom at LincMad dot com Linc Madison * San Francisco, California ------------------------------ From: Group Special Mobile Subject: Re: Two Federal Courts Block "Do-Not-Call" Registry Date: Sun, 28 Sep 2003 06:22:26 -0700 Organization: Posted via Supernews, http://www.supernews.com Reply-To: look@signature_for_reply_instructions On Sat, 27 Sep 2003 15:54:33 -0700, AES/newspost wrote: > I continue to totally not understand why, instead of the obviously > messy, expensive, and worst of all ineffective "do not call" approach, > we don't work instead for legislation implicitly allowing telemarketers > to call anyone, but simply requiring that all telemarketing calls be > made with CID turned on and carrying some distinctive unique area code. But with your scheme you *force* me to get a CID box. Why should I be forced to buy equipment to shield me from something I have made know that I do not want? To send an email reply send to GSMthemobilestandard (@) yahoo.com [TELECOM Digest Editor's Note: Then I suppose they could put all tele- marketers, politicians, and other fund raisers into a special 'area code' of their own (let's call it '666', and oblige telco to do the dirty work. When someone subscribes to telephone service, the reps would have to ask 'do you want to receive phone calls from '666' numbers or not? And the various privacy blocking services on your phone such as *60/*82 (?) could be adjusted to automatically decline all those numbers. PAT] ------------------------------ From: johnl@iecc.com (John R. Levine) Subject: Re: Two Federal Courts Block "Do-Not-Call" Registry Date: 28 Sep 2003 14:38:54 -0400 Organization: I.E.C.C., Trumansburg NY USA > I continue to totally not understand why, instead of the obviously > messy, expensive, and worst of all ineffective "do not call" approach, Do not call lists work very well, and their cost is borne by the telemarketers, not by the people who don't want to be called. We've had it here in New York for a couple of years, and I get maybe one telemarketing call a month if that. Do you have experience with DNC lists that demonstrates otherwise? > we don't work instead for legislation implicitly allowing telemarketers > to call anyone, but simply requiring that all telemarketing calls be > made with CID turned on and carrying some distinctive unique area code. Well, one good reason is that the phone system isn't set up for a non-geographic telemarketer overlay code, and it would cost a lot of money to implement one. Who do you think should pay for that? Why should I pay the phone company $4/mo to hide from telemarketers? Why should I still have to hop up from dinner when the phone rings to see if it's telemarketer call? (Or else buy all new phones to keep them from ringing?) And, of course, if you think that telemarketers won't obey a DNC law, why do you think they'd obey a law that requires them to use extra cost special phone numbers? Regards, John Levine johnl@iecc.com Primary Perpetrator: "The Internet for Dummies", Information Superhighwayman wanna-be, http://iecc.com/johnl Sewer Commissioner "More Wiener schnitzel, please", said Tom, revealingly. ------------------------------ From: mandrew4@tampabay.rr.com (Jamie) Subject: Server Based PBX vs. Standard PBX Date: 28 Sep 2003 07:20:59 -0700 Organization: http://groups.google.com/ Our company is looking into the possibility of purchasing a server based PBX for our small call center. Without getting brand specific, is there any reason not to go with a server based PBX? There seem to be many reasons for going with one, I would like to know the reasons not to. Thanks for your input. ------------------------------ From: obsidian Subject: Re: Telco "Standards" and Canadian Postal Abbreviations Date: Sun, 28 Sep 2003 10:38:29 +0200 Organization: BEL Belgacom Usenet Service An interesting insight. You mentioned that NL was assigned for the Netherlands. NL is also the asignment by ISO 3166-1 alpha-2 element for the Netherlands. A question here, does the CLLI code follow the ISO 3166 list or merely borrow from it? Perhaps the NL was just a conicidence? obsidian Mark J Cuccia wrote in message news:telecom22.672.8@telecom-digest.org: > Mark Brader replied: >> No telecom relevance here, unless the postal service counts as >> telecom. I'd just like to point out that it's getting close to >> years since Canada Post changed the abbreviation for Quebec from PQ >> to QC, and people might like to actually start thinking about >> updating their usage sometime. >> Two other Canadian abbreviations have changed more recently, and I >> might as well mention those as well. NU for the Nunavut territory >> was split off NT in 2000, reflecting the creation of the territory >> the previous year; and NF was replaced by NL in 2002, reflecting >> the renaming of the province to Newfoundland and Labrador, also a >> year late. > I was following the Bellcore/Telcordia "Common Language" > department's standards on the two-letter abbreviations for > geo-political areas and jurisdictions, which doesn't necessarily > follow the "official" Postal abbreviations in that area. > All US states/territories, all Candian provinces/territories, all > other countries/colonies/misc.regions of the world, and various (but > not all) other countries' internal divisions (Mexico's states, > Venezuela's internal divisions, and a few others, those countries > being licensees of Telcordia's Common Language Standards' products) > have been assigned 2-letter codes for use in NANP-telco industry > databases, forms, etc. including things like the LERG, the TPM, the > NNAG, the OTCNPG, etc. from Telcordia TRA (Traffic Routing > Administration). > One telco "standard" which uses these two-letter abbreviations are > the CLLI codes (Common Language Location Identifiers), those eleven > character code-strings used to identify telco c.o.switches, and > other telco network elements, mostly used by the NANP-based telco > industry, but extendable to any telco function worldwide. > Mark J. Cuccia > mcuccia (at) tulane (dot) edu > New Orleans LA USA ------------------------------ From: ppcdev@hotmail.com (ppcdev) Subject: News From Munich Palmsource Date: 28 Sep 2003 05:39:47 -0700 Organization: http://groups.google.com/ The Samsung Smartphones really seem to be good platforms in the future, but actual releases bug quickly (10 seconds are enough to make them bug). We hope that future releases will implement Palm OS 5 or 6, with hi resolution screens. Actual samsungs have got big pixels, and compared to nokia phones, they seem pretty poor. Tapwave products are the revolution of this century; just see them to see functions. ------------------------------ From: sharif_shahrier@yahoo.com (sharif shahrier) Subject: Contact Information Wanted For Telcordia Date: 28 Sep 2003 10:01:01 -0700 Organization: http://groups.google.com/ I noticed that there may be vacancies in Telcordia'a Computer Networking Research Group. Could someone send me contact info. (directly) of the dept. head/hiring manager in that research group. This information is not listed on Telcordia's home page. Thanks in advance. Sharif. ------------------------------ From: sharif_shahrier@yahoo.com (sharif shahrier) Subject: Seeking Recruiters For Wi-Fi Positions Date: 28 Sep 2003 10:06:17 -0700 Organization: http://groups.google.com/ If there are recruiters for Wi-Fi and other wireless networking positions, please contact me. I have worked in these areas, and am looking for a position. Thanks in advance. Sharif. ------------------------------ 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. --------------------------------------------------------------- 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 #673 ****************************** From editor@telecom-digest.org Sun Sep 28 17:33:56 2003 Received: (from ptownson@localhost) by massis.lcs.mit.edu (8.11.6p2/8.11.3) id h8SLXuE00660; Sun, 28 Sep 2003 17:33:56 -0400 (EDT) Date: Sun, 28 Sep 2003 17:33:56 -0400 (EDT) From: editor@telecom-digest.org Message-Id: <200309282133.h8SLXuE00660@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 #674 TELECOM Digest Sun, 28 Sep 2003 17:34:00 EDT Volume 22 : Issue 674 Inside This Issue: Editor: Patrick A. Townson and: Lisa Minter Taditional Phones Gain New Respect (Marcus Didius Falco) Do-Not-Call Case Spotlights Vagueness (Marcus Didius Falco) Re: Two Federal Courts Block "Do-Not-Call" Registry (AES/newspost) Re: Two Federal Courts Block "Do-Not-Call" Registry (Herb Stein) Re: "Do-Not-Call" Registry (Geoffrey Welsh) All contents here are copyrighted by Patrick Townson and the individual writers/correspondents. Articles may be used in other journals or newsgroups, provided the writer's name and the Digest are included in the fair use quote. By using -any name or email address- included herein for -any- reason other than responding to an article herein, you agree to pay a hundred dollars to the recipients of the email. WE DO NOT PERMIT NAME/EMAIL ADDRESS HARVESTING FROM THIS JOURNAL. 'SALTED' EMAIL ADDRESSES APPEAR HEREIN TO VERIFY THIS. YOU GET SUED IN SMALL CLAIMS COURT IF YOU GET CAUGHT SPAMMING OR SENDING VIRUSES. DON'T DO IT. See the bottom of this issue for subscription and archive details and the name of our lawyer; other stuff of interest. ---------------------------------------------------------------------- Date: Sun, 28 Sep 2003 15:40:56 -0400 From: Marcus Didius Falco Subject: washingtonpost.com: Traditional Phones Gain New Respect http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/articles/A37299-2003Sep19.html http://www.washingtonpost.com/ac2/wp-dyn/A37299-2003Sep19?language=printer washingtonpost.com Traditional Phones Gain New Respect Power Failures Cut Cell Signals By Christopher Stern and Yuki Noguchi Washington Post Staff Writers Saturday, September 20, 2003; Page E01 It wasn't until yesterday morning that Margaret L. Sullivan began to have second thoughts about getting rid of her old plug-in-the-wall telephone and becoming completely dependent on her mobile phone at her Falls Church apartment. That was when she woke after the remnants of Hurricane Isabel had passed through the area and discovered her wireless Sprint PCS phone could not pick up a signal. Cell phone towers need electricity and when the local power goes down, the towers switch to backup batteries and generators. But with so many towers affected by the storm, mobile phone companies yesterday found themselves struggling to keep generators fueled and batteries charged. It was not just cell phone owners who had trouble. Families that had bought newer cordless phones also had trouble getting dial tones after the power went out. So did businesses that had invested in fancy internal networks. Traditional handsets, which plug into jacks in the wall, do not rely on the power company the same way that other household electrical gadgets do. They are powered by electricity that flows over the telephone network. The phones work even if the power company's electricity is cut off. Sprint spokesman Charles Fleckenstein said about 15 percent of the company's towers in North Carolina and Virginia were affected by Hurricane Isabel and its aftermath. "We have lots of power outages, and we are trying to recover from that hurricane. We have lots of sites that are down," Fleckenstein said. Sullivan, 32, said she had gotten rid of her traditional phone because she liked the convenience of a mobile handset. But after this week's hurricane, "it makes you think, if it had been an emergency, I would not have had access" to the telephone network, Sullivan said. For the past week, telephone companies had been warning customers to make sure that they have a corded phone in the house in case of a power failure. Troy Turner, senior store manager of a downtown Radio Shack, said his shop recently experienced a surge in customers coming in for corded phones. "It's something you have to have for emergency preparedness," Turner said. Verizon Wireless spokesman John Johnson said there also has been a run at retail stores on extra batteries and cell phone chargers that work off car batteries. "We have been advising customers to make sure batteries are fully charged and to have vehicle adapters standing by," Johnson said. Depending on the model, some cell phones can stay powered for several days if they are in standby mode. Cell-phone batteries generally only last for a few hours when they are in steady use. Verizon Communications Inc., the main local phone provider in the mid-Atlantic region, reported few phone service failures. In some areas, phone service was knocked out by a downed tree or a piece of equipment failed because of water damage, said Eric Rabe, a Verizon spokesman. There could be more damage in flooded areas, but "a lot of these places were evacuated and so we won't know [the damage] until we can go back in," Rabe said. Verizon said it was able to maintain service for the vast majority of its customers by using its own source of emergency power in 200 regional central offices. In Virginia, 116 central offices used Verizon's bus-sized generators to power the network, while another 25 central offices in Maryland, and seven in Washington were on generators. Copyright 2003 The Washington Post Company *** FAIR USE NOTICE. This message contains copyrighted material the use of which has not been specifically authorized by the copyright owner. This Internet discussion group is making it available without profit to group members who have expressed a prior interest in receiving the included information in their efforts to advance the understanding of literary, educational, political, and economic issues, for non-profit research and educational purposes only. I believe that this constitutes a 'fair use' of the copyrighted material as provided for in section 107 of the U.S. Copyright Law. If you wish to use this copyrighted material for purposes of your own that go beyond 'fair use,' you must obtain permission from the copyright owner. For more information go to: http://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/17/107.shtml ------------------------------ Date: Sun, 28 Sep 2003 16:22:35 -0400 From: Marcus Didius Falco Subject: washingtonpost.com: Do-Not-Call Case Spotlights Vagueness Judge Nottingham's decision in the do-not-call case is not based on an open-and-shut reading of the law of commercial speech. The FTC had taken the view that Supreme Court decisions had granted commercial speech fewer rights than charitable or political speech. Judge Nottingham read other decisions to get the opposite conclusion. It is by no means a foregone conclusion that Judge Nottingham is right, but it is a foregone conclusion that there will be no final decision until the Supreme Court rules on the case. As for the common suggestion that customers be allowed to separately opt-out of charitable and political calls, it appears that the FTC may have to revisit its rejection of that option. Congress (politicians) will not be happy, but they will be even more unhappy if 50,000,000 voting households are unhappy! http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/articles/A7593-2003Sep26.html http://www.washingtonpost.com/ac2/wp-dyn/A7593-2003Sep26?language=printer washingtonpost.com Do-Not-Call Case Spotlights Vagueness of Commercial Speech Law By Charles Lane Washington Post Staff Writer Saturday, September 27, 2003; Page E01 For the Federal Trade Commission, Judge Edward W. Nottingham's ruling invalidating the nationwide do-not-call registry illustrates the adage that no good deed goes unpunished. Nottingham voided the FTC registry because it offered consumers the option of banning unwanted calls from for-profit businesses but not calls from charitable organizations, which, the judge reasoned, are just as intrusive. This "content-based" discrimination between two otherwise indistinguishable forms of speech, Nottingham ruled, violated the First Amendment. Yet the FTC created the exemption for charitable calls in the first place because it believed that the First Amendment required it to do so. "This approach fulfills the commission's intention that the [registry] be consistent with First Amendment principles, whereby a higher degree of protection is extended to charitable solicitation than to commercial solicitation," the commission said in announcing the rule in the Jan. 29 edition of the Federal Register. Such is the legal hall of mirrors known as commercial-speech doctrine, the body of Supreme Court precedent that has perplexed judges, lawyers and academics for years and has now emerged to frustrate the hopes of 50 million Americans who signed up for the registry and thought they were only days away from reducing the nightly annoyance of telemarketing calls. The Supreme Court has long recognized a distinction between political and artistic speech, which are entitled to the highest degree of protection from government regulation, and commercial speech, defined as statements about the price and quality of goods or services. Commercial speech is given less protection because the government needs to protect consumers from false advertising and other forms of fraud. But that seemingly clear distinction has proved increasingly fuzzy in an age of socially aware corporate communications, such as a recent campaign by clothing retailer Benetton that called attention to the plight of prisoners on death row. "Commercial-speech doctrine is really in flux," said Stuart Banner, a professor of constitutional law at UCLA. "At this point, a majority of [Supreme Court] justices are on record across a bunch of cases having expressed doubts about the current standard. Everyone expects if the right case comes along there might be some change." There were some expectations of change earlier this year, when the court heard arguments in a dispute over whether Nike Inc.'s public responses to critics of its labor practices in Third World countries should be considered a form of advertising, for which it could be sued, or political speech, which would be protected by the First Amendment. But the justices dismissed the case without deciding that issue. In setting up its distinction between commercial and charitable solicitations, the FTC -- in the face of objections by major charities such as the Red Cross and the March of Dimes -- declared that its approach was consistent with Supreme Court rulings. The FTC's Jan. 29 Federal Register announcement cited a 1969 case upholding the right of consumers to ask the Postal Service to cut off ad mail from certain vendors. "No one has a right to press even 'good' ideas on an unwilling recipient," the court thundered on that occasion. Yet, the FTC said, the principle was tempered in later cases in which the court limited some state efforts to regulate charitable telemarketing, on the ground that phone calls from nonprofits often convey information and ideas about a social issue along with pleas for donations. Still later, in 2002, the court invalidated a local ordinance, aimed at Jehovah's Witnesses, that required anyone who wanted to engage in door-to-door canvassing or soliciting to obtain a permit first -- but, the FTC pointed out, the court also observed that the ordinance might have been constitutional if it were limited to commercial speech. Nottingham, a U.S. district judge in Colorado, did not dispute the FTC's assertion that protecting individual privacy is an important government objective. But, he ruled, the FTC registry ran afoul of a 1993 Supreme Court ruling. In that case, the court ruled that the city of Cincinnati unfairly discriminated between commercial and other forms of speech when it tried to enact a city beautification ordinance that banned curbside news racks that contained advertising leaflets, while exempting a much larger number of equally unsightly racks that contained newspapers. Although most telemarketing calls are commercial calls, Nottingham noted, the FTC registry, like the Cincinnati ordinance, was discriminatory because, in terms of invading privacy, there is no difference between a charitable or other noncommercial call and a profit-making one. "For government to decide that people who don't want to be disturbed by political or charitable calls have less worthy interests than people who don't want to be disturbed by commercial interests is the worst kind of line drawing," said Laurence H. Tribe, a professor of constitutional law at Harvard University. Several legal analysts said the problem might have been avoided if the FTC had permitted consumers to choose for themselves between banning only commercial calls, or both commercial and noncommercial calls. That way, any content-based discrimination would have been a function of individual choice, not government action. The FTC considered that option, but rejected it. "The commission believes that such an approach may be impractical because of cost considerations and because of the difficulty for consumers to understand and deal with the complications of such a system," the FTC said in the Federal Register. "Thus, these factors may render a bifurcated registry an insufficient or excessively cumbersome response." Copyright 2003 The Washington Post Company *** FAIR USE NOTICE. This message contains copyrighted material the use of which has not been specifically authorized by the copyright owner. This Internet discussion group is making it available without profit to group members who have expressed a prior interest in receiving the included information in their efforts to advance the understanding of literary, educational, political, and economic issues, for non-profit research and educational purposes only. I believe that this constitutes a 'fair use' of the copyrighted material as provided for in section 107 of the U.S. Copyright Law. If you wish to use this copyrighted material for purposes of your own that go beyond 'fair use,' you must obtain permission from the copyright owner. For more information go to: http://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/17/107.shtml ------------------------------ From: AES/newspost Subject: Re: Two Federal Courts Block "Do-Not-Call" Registry Date: Sun, 28 Sep 2003 13:50:56 -0700 In article , Group Special Mobile wrote: > On Sat, 27 Sep 2003 15:54:33 -0700, AES/newspost > wrote: >> I continue to totally not understand why, instead of the obviously >> messy, expensive, and worst of all ineffective "do not call" approach, >> we don't work instead for legislation implicitly allowing telemarketers >> to call anyone, but simply requiring that all telemarketing calls be >> made with CID turned on and carrying some distinctive unique area code. > But with your scheme you *force* me to get a CID box. Why should I be > forced to buy equipment to shield me from something I have made know > that I do not want? > [TELECOM Digest Editor's Note: Then I suppose they could put all tele- > marketers, politicians, and other fund raisers into a special 'area > code' of their own (let's call it '666', and oblige telco to do the > dirty work. When someone subscribes to telephone service, the reps > would have to ask 'do you want to receive phone calls from '666' > numbers or not? And the various privacy blocking services on your > phone such as *60/*82 (?) could be adjusted to automatically decline all > those numbers. PAT] Since this and other replies have made similar points, let me reply as to why I think the '666' scheme might be (likely would be) preferable: 1) My understanding (??) is that it's neither illegal, technically difficult, nor particularly expensive to attach a special area code such '666' to outgoing calls -- I believe some kinds of PBXs can do it, certainly the telco can do it. In any event the cost would be on the telemarketer as part of his/her initial setup costs. 2) If this became mandatory, each of us could then protect ourselves, instantly and effectively by adding a Caller ID gadget that blocked 666 (and maybe other numbers) at the entrance line to our residence. What would a gadget like that cost at Radio Shack? -- maybe $10? (I can buy a sophisticated weather radio from RS for $12). No need to have to identify yourself in order to put your number on a do not call list (with some possible privacy and other risks in doing so); no need to have to have prove you did add your name if you ever want to challenge a telemarketer; no need to change it if you move or change service; and no monthly charge from your telco. Phones might starting coming with this as built in feature. 3) The "free speech" arguments made by telemarketers may be totally cynical and I don't support them, but they still have something of an arguable point, along the lines of, "Hey, you've got a phone; anyone else in the world can call it from anywhere in the world; you can't make it illegal for me to call your number also". (Could you make it illegal just to _mail_ a letter to someone through the U.S. mail?). In any event, like it or not, the Supreme Court might buy their arguments; but might also accept an argument that, even though they have a right to call, they have to _identify_ the nature of their call by using 666, so you have to opportunity to not answer if you don't want to. In short, I just think the 666 scheme would be simpler and easier, more likely to be workable and effective, and less likely to run into First Amendment opposition. [And, pace John Levine, would make it easier to really get back at a telemarketer if they chose to call you anyway -- in fact, block 666 and all non Caller ID calls, and they can't get at you at all.] Over and out ... ------------------------------ From: Herb Stein Subject: Re: Two Federal Courts Block "Do-Not-Call" Registry Date: Sun, 28 Sep 2003 14:56:35 -0500 AES/newspost wrote in message news:telecom22.672.13@telecom-digest.org: > In article , Monty Solomon > wrote: >> Opinion (Mainstream Marketing Services v. FTC) (Fed. Court in Colo.) >> (Sep. 25, 2003) >> http://news.findlaw.com/hdocs/docs/ftc/mmsftc92503opn.pdf >> Order (U.S. Security v. FTC) (Fed Court in Okla.) (Sep. 23, 2003) >> http://news.findlaw.com/hdocs/docs/ftc/donotcall92303ord.pdf > I continue to totally not understand why, instead of the obviously > messy, expensive, and worst of all ineffective "do not call" approach, > we don't work instead for legislation implicitly allowing telemarketers > to call anyone, but simply requiring that all telemarketing calls be > made with CID turned on and carrying some distinctive unique area code. > Maybe after the Supreme Court rules that do not call lists _do_ > violate freedom of speech -- which could happen, after a couple of > years of delay and futzing around, and wouldn't be a totally > ridiculous proposition -- we can try a more sensible solution. I fail to see how the "do not call" list violates free speech. Unfair, perhaps. Telemarketers certainly have the right to say whatever they want. They do not, however, the right to use my equipment to say it. Herb Stein The Herb Stein Group www.herbstein.com herb@herbstein.com 314 952-4601 ------------------------------ From: Geoffrey Welsh Subject: Re: "Do-Not-Call" Registry Date: Sun, 28 Sep 2003 14:24:05 -0400 Organization: Bell Sympatico Dale Neiburg wrote: > Suppose I'm a telemarketer. [...] > but, being a Compassionate Conservative, You're out of character already! As a telemarketer, you are the lowest species of salesvermin, willing to do almost anything (let me be clear: it's not a matter of "if", it's a matter of degree) to make a sale. You're extraordinarily thick-skinned to be in this business, and if you weren't a a self-absorbed jerk when you started in this business, you certainly have become one or you couldn't continue in this job once you learned what people think of people like you. You don't like being told what to do in any form, and you're such a selfish hypocrite that you cry "first amendment right to free speech" but you have no repsect for people's right not to participate. Now that my bias is fully disclosed ... > [...]That is to say, it's in my interest to > minimize the time spent on non-productive calls. Why would a spammer send the very same message to a single address every day -- often more than once a day? Might it be because today is the day I decide that I was too hasty the last 872 times I chose not to look into that product, or because today is the day my significant other dumps me and admits that they really had no alternative because of the unacceptable size of my penis or breasts?!? Why would spammers -- who almost certainly take a moment to remove president@whitehouse.gov and probably their ISP's executives from their distribution lists -- send spam to @spamcop.net addresses, where they are certain to be reported almost immediately?!? You're assuming that every call made to someone who registered for the "do not call" list will be non-productive. You ignore the fact that telemarketers deal with very low response rates every day and that, given enough volume, even a fraction of a per cent of a chance each time is all that's needed to make a (good) living. You ignore the fact that most telemarketing pitches are fast and high-pressure, aimed towards the impulse buy because someone who has time to think about it probably wouldn't buy. You ignore the fact that your call may be answered by someone else in the house, possibly a child or trusting senior, who could be persuaded to listen. You ignore the fact that the sales pitch may be misleading or even an outright scam. You ignore the fact that these people just don't give a flying fig about anyone but themselves. Telemarketers are the single largest cesspool of people so antisocial who, in simpler times, would have been chased out of every village they came across at the point of a pitchfork. > The obvious cheap answer is that telemarketing slime will go out of > their way to be obnoxious for the fun of it. There's that, too -- I've heard all sorts of unconfirmed stories about what telemarketers do to exact revenge on rude customers. It's tempting to dismiss them as myths, but I have received at my @spamcop.net address messages containing nothing but profanity, copied exclusively to @spamcop.net addresses. Where's the profit in that? That's just the kind of people we're talking about and the way that they conduct themselves. Organizations like the DMA would like you to believe that telemarketing, like just about everything else in the world, has its good and bad, and that the profession on the whole is an honorable one whose reputation suffers from the misdeeds of a few. However, the fact that these people are challenging for the right to ignore your declared choice not to be disturbed has convinced me that the industry is primarily slime, merely clothed in varying degrees of the illusion of legitimacy and hiding behind well-intentionaed and naive laws designed to protect legitimate commerce. Telemarketing is as hostile to an honest, considerate businessman as deep space is to an unprotected oxygen breather. By process of elimination, the entire industry is reduced to the stereotype that the DMA says is not representative of their members. For an example of the kind of people we're talking about here, please read "Fundraising king takes 80% slice" at: Geoffrey Welsh This address is not to be added to any mailing list, nor to be sold or given away without explicit written consent. Unsolicited bulk mail is spam, no matter what regulations (real or imagined) it complies with! FIGHT SPAM AND SCAMS: DISCONNECT CHINA FROM THE INTERNET! ------------------------------ 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. --------------------------------------------------------------- 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 #674 ****************************** From editor@telecom-digest.org Mon Sep 29 01:38:56 2003 Received: (from ptownson@localhost) by massis.lcs.mit.edu (8.11.6p2/8.11.3) id h8T5cuo03041; Mon, 29 Sep 2003 01:38:56 -0400 (EDT) Date: Mon, 29 Sep 2003 01:38:56 -0400 (EDT) From: editor@telecom-digest.org Message-Id: <200309290538.h8T5cuo03041@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 #675 TELECOM Digest Mon, 29 Sep 2003 01:39:00 EDT Volume 22 : Issue 675 Inside This Issue: Editor: Patrick A. Townson and: Lisa Minter Swen Identification and Response (Rob Slade) Re: How to Integrate Caller ID Data Into Ordering System (Paul Robinson) Re: Two Federal Courts Block "Do-Not-Call" Registry (AES/newspost) Re: Two Federal Courts Block "Do-Not-Call" Registry (johna@onevista.com) Re: Two Federal Courts Block "Do-Not-Call" Registry (Paul Robinson) Re: "Do-Not-Call" Registry (Lawrence Jones) 'To Cord, or Not to Cord' (Mark J. Cuccia) NorVergence SOHO Matrix is Fraudulent (Satchel Paige) Re: Judge's Number Found on List (socks) Re: Verizon and Creative Billing (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: Rob Slade Organization: Vancouver Institute for Research into User Date: Sun, 28 Sep 2003 21:21:41 -0800 Subject: Swen Identification and Response It is time, and past time, for the network community to start taking serious action to clean up the flood of Swen that has been going on for over a week. Typical server-based virus scanning tools may respond to the existence of an infected message, but likely respond to the FROM line in the header, which is spoofed in the case of Swen (and many others). However, Swen does seem to provide for identification of the infected user. Swen is difficult to identify from the sender or subject information. Swen can be identified by most virus scanners. The quickest and easiest way to identify Swen may be by the size of the messages. Swen has two very distinct forms. One generates a message roughly 143K in size, and the other roughly 156K in size. You will usually receive one of each form from an infected machine, generally in close proximity. The 156K version always contains a message body that starts out with: Microsoft Customer this is the latest version of security update, the "September 2003, Cumulative Patch" update which fixes all known security vulnerabilities affecting MS Internet Explorer, MS Outlook and MS Outlook Express. Install now to protect your computer from these vulnerabilities, the most serious of which could allow an attacker to run executable on your computer. This update includes the functionality of all previously released patches. The message contains two gif attachments, and one executable, which uses the msdownload vulnerability, and so the message body contains the string: Content-Type: application/x-msdownload; name="[variable].exe" The subject almost universally ends with "upgrade" "Update" "Upgrade" "Patch" or "Pack". The sender name field is polymorphically generated frequently using the words Internet, Microsoft, or MS, and often Security, Corporation, Customer, Bulletin, Assistance, Division, Program, Department, Section, or Technical. The sender address uses a randomly generated username, sometimes a generic domain (ywbclobaqneqbh@advisor.com), sometimes a random domain (rdarqmllhdedqx_zyyywtd@jxuzz.com), but frequently names that appear to be associated with Microsoft (cuwuybvvcyx_dcnrm@advisor.msn.com, uiumod_levqwe@technet.msn.com, yvgsclw_hmxgz@news.msdn.net, pafwzupfy@news.microsoft.net) Except for the fact that it uses the iframe vulnerability, the 143K version may be more difficult to identify automatically. Many mail systems do not recognize messages formatted to use the iframe vulnerability as having an attachment, and so these messages may not be completely scanned for viruses by some server based scanners. The subjects used are those normally used for bounced or rejected messages, as well as some such as "Bug report." The sender names used are also very common, such as Admin and Administrator. Sender addresses are polymorphically generated. giving results like mailengine, mailerform, mailerroutine, mailrobot, webroutine, imailprogram, postform, amailbot, smtprobot, masterdaemon, postautomat, or webautomat at various common mail domain names. Message headers (somewhat edited for brevity) typically contain: Return-Path: Received: from mail00.svc.cra.dublin.eircom.net ([159.134.118.16]) [...] Received: from p145-175.as1.mvw.galway.eircom.net (HELO lgonmo) (159.134.145.175) by mail00.svc.cra.dublin.eircom.net (qp 83441) with SMTP; 27 Sep 2003 14:04:13 -0000 FROM: "Microsoft Security Assistance" Message-Id: <20030927140445.NZGN3218.berlinr.sprint.ca@mail00.svc.cra.dublin.eircom.net or Return-Path: Received: from smtp.austarmetro.com.au ([203.166.224.2]) by orval.sprint.ca [...] Received: from tyhsbtop (dialup-89.52.194.203.acc03-dryb- mel.comindico.com.au [203.194.52.89]) by smtp.austarmetro.com.au (8.12.6/pre1.0-MySQL/8.12.6) with SMTP id h8QNvqpg017712; Sat, 27 Sep 2003 09:58:22 +1000 Date: Sat, 27 Sep 2003 09:58:22 +1000 Message-Id: <200309262358.h8QNvqpg017712@smtp.austarmetro.com.au> FROM: "Net Mail Storage Service" Note that the Return-Path line does not agree with the FROM line (which fact can, itself, be used as a partial identifier), but *does* generally agree with the Received lines and the Message-Id. Therefore, it is likely that the Return-Path does identify the infected user or machine. (When IP addresses are checked, they also generally agree with the domain found.) Therefore, when infected messages are detected, a message should be returned to the user, using the Return-Path identification, alerting them to the existence of the infected messages. Given that the user may not be aware of actions to take in regard to a virus infection, copies of the message should probably be sent to the postmaster, abuse, and/or support accounts at the same domain. (If the IP address is checked and returns a slightly different domain, that abuse account should probably be copied as well.) If we can start *properly* alerting users to infections, we may be able to reduce the virus load much more quickly than simply letting the infection run its course. (Letting delinquent ISPs know may also help. Charter.net seem to have cleaned up their act, but BTConnect, BTInternet, and BTOpenWorld, a number of Italian, and not a few Australian ISPs seem to be well represented in the samples I've found.) ====================== (quote inserted randomly by Pegasus Mailer) rslade@vcn.bc.ca slade@victoria.tc.ca rslade@sun.soci.niu.edu The sun, with all those planets revolving around it and dependent upon it, can still ripen a bunch of grapes as if it had nothing else in the universe to do. - Galileo Galilei http://victoria.tc.ca/techrev or http://sun.soci.niu.edu/~rslade ------------------------------ From: Paul Robinson Organization: Elusive-Butterfly.net Subject: Re: How to Integrate Caller ID Data Into Ordering System Date: Mon, 29 Sep 2003 04:50:51 GMT Yasuki Izaki wrote: > Hello, > I looking for a system (software and hardware) to retrieve a caller ID > from incoming call and feed the number (caller ID) into our existing > ordering system. The ordering system is written in VB, running on NT. > Could anybody recommend caller ID hardware and software to accomplish > this? Any recently made (within the last 5 years) $75 external modem that can return data on a serial port, which, of course, is all of them. Just send the modem the initialization string to tell it to enable return of Caller ID, it's usually something like AT #CID=1 (the exact command may vary according to chipset) at which point, when the modem receives a call, it will do something like RING RING DATE=09/28/2003 TIME=22:30 NMBR=2027621401 NAME=USNO MASTR CLOK DATE=09/28/2003 TIME=22:35 NMBR=PRIVATE NAME= Depending on whether you order CID from your local telco with or without name. All modems made these days include CID as part of the chipset. Be advised some older modems can only handle CID without name; the two are not the same. Any modem that can handle CID with name can handle the older CID without name format, but the reverse is not true. The information comes in after the second ring, and a test call to your number will tell you exactly how your modem will send it to you. To read the data, you can either use the serial port component in the VB toolbox or you can use the Windows API to interrogate the port. I did something similar to this a few years ago when I was writing a piece of software in VB to retrieve stored address points from a GPS receiver via the receiver's serial port. I'd send the GPS receiver the NMEA command sequence to return the information and it would send back Latitude and Longitude entries which had been recorded. The reason I recommend an external modem is that you mention you are using NT. Some cheap "Winmodems" use software drivers to allow them to work and may not be compatible with NT. An external modem is always compatible with any computer and operating system as long as it can read and write a serial port. 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." ------------------------------ From: AES/newspost Subject: Re: Two Federal Courts Block "Do-Not-Call" Registry Date: Sun, 28 Sep 2003 15:14:05 -0700 In article , Herb Stein wrote: > I fail to see how the "do not call" list violates free speech. Unfair, > perhaps. Telemarketers certainly have the right to say whatever they > want. They do not, however, the right to use my equipment to say it. Not trying at all to defend the TMs (telemarketers), just understand their possible arguments. As a start the wires up to your demarc aren't your equipment; they're the telco's, and the telco is a public utility. The TMs, like anybody else, can -- or at least should be able to -- send a legitimate signal over the public part of the system, up to your demarc. Up to you -- and entirely under your control, not the telcos -- to decide what you do with the signals beyond that point. ------------------------------ From: johna@onevista.com Subject: Re: Two Federal Courts Block "Do-Not-Call" Registry Date: Mon, 29 Sep 2003 01:04:57 GMT In article , AES/newspost wrote: > In article , Group Special Mobile > wrote: >> On Sat, 27 Sep 2003 15:54:33 -0700, AES/newspost >> wrote: >>> I continue to totally not understand why, instead of the obviously >>> messy, expensive, and worst of all ineffective "do not call" approach, >>> we don't work instead for legislation implicitly allowing telemarketers >>> to call anyone, but simply requiring that all telemarketing calls be >>> made with CID turned on and carrying some distinctive unique area code. >> But with your scheme you *force* me to get a CID box. Why should I be >> forced to buy equipment to shield me from something I have made know >> that I do not want? >> [TELECOM Digest Editor's Note: Then I suppose they could put all tele- >> marketers, politicians, and other fund raisers into a special 'area >> code' of their own (let's call it '666', and oblige telco to do the >> dirty work. When someone subscribes to telephone service, the reps >> would have to ask 'do you want to receive phone calls from '666' >> numbers or not? And the various privacy blocking services on your >> phone such as *60/*82 (?) could be adjusted to automatically decline all >> those numbers. PAT] I really like a scheme that I heard from a FOAF. We should be able to setup a 900 number in parallel with our regular number. When we get a telemarketer call, we press #900 and the caller is charged per minute. Maybe we could give the phone company 20%. This certainly seems like a win/win for all except the telemarketers who may have to go out of business due to their costs rising to market levels. johna ------------------------------ From: Paul Robinson Organization: Elusive-Butterfly.net Subject: Re: Two Federal Courts Block "Do-Not-Call" Registry Date: Mon, 29 Sep 2003 04:20:02 GMT I thought this was rather cute: In an editorial on page A22 of the Washington (DC) Times, it said: "... Judge Lee West's ruling... found at fault was a... law to ban... speech...." "Readers who want to share their opinions about unsolicited phone calls with Judge West can contact his chambers at (phone) 405-609-5140; (fax) 405-609-5151" ------------------------------ From: lawrence.jones@eds.com Subject: Re: "Do-Not-Call" Registry Date: Sun, 28 Sep 2003 22:13:01 GMT Organization: Road Runner High Speed Online http://www.rr.com Dale Neiburg wrote: > Now, if some organization, governmental or otherwise, offers to give > me **FREE** an opt-out list of 50 million households who have made > known that they don't want to receive telemarketing calls, why would I > not jump at the chance to take advantage of it? The odds of a call to > anyone on the list being productive are vanishingly small, and by > observing the list I can increase the percentage of calls that are > productive, and thereby increase my profits. First, it's not (necessarily) free -- there's an annual fee based on the number of area codes you call (the first five are free, after that it's $25/area code up to a maximum of $7375). Second, the odds of a call to someone on the list being productive are probably not much worse than the odds of a call to someone not on the list. The odds of a productive call are very small anyway, and just because someone doesn't want to be pestered doesn't mean they won't succumb to a sales pitch. -Larry Jones I told her to expect you to deny everything. -- Calvin ------------------------------ Date: Sun, 28 Sep 2003 17:42:59 CDT From: Mark J Cuccia Subject: 'To Cord, or Not to Cord' I read the recent post here about cellular phones, landline-based "cordless" phones, and traditional corded phones on landline service, w/r/t natural disasters and power outages, etc. All of these phone services and consumer-end equipment each have their advantages and disadvantages when it comes to power outages and other disasters. The individual cellsites *do* need power but then again so do each and every individual (landline or wireless-service) telephone central office. The wireless telcos/providers are going to have to realize and prepare *JUST* like the landline telcos have, to make certain that all elements of their network have power, and backup, and some form of restoration of battery or generator fuel, in the event of a somewhat prolonged power outage. Even landline telcos now have to power various "nodes" in their networks' local distribution loops outside of the individual central office buildings. Some of these are various digial-to-analog converters, but I don't know if all the power for them is distributed directly by the telco, or on "commercial" AC power at the site. Also, with a plain-jane old relaible 500 set (or 2500 set), on a landline loop from old Maw Bell, true you don't need to supply any of your own additional (external) power, but in a disaster, what about when the lines (loops) are blown down in wind or an earthquake, or a tree falls on those loops. You lose your dialtone/service, but maybe your cellular phone *DOES* continue to work all along if the wireless provider keeps everything properly maintained, and also you keep your own extra batteries charged up (as long as there's commercial AC power to do so). There's no perfect solution, and there are plusses and minusses to each type of CPE and/or telco service. As for cordless phones (on a "landline-based" loop), I also fail to see why manufacturers really haven't come out with affordable *battery powered BASE units* which will allow one to continue to "talk" on the cordless handset (via landline loop service) when there's no commercial AC power. I think that there are some units like that, but there should be MORE! Dittos for (digital) answering machines. They have batteries in there to "store" the digitally recorded outgoing greetings, time/day clock info, incoming messages digitally recorded, etc. in case the AC power goes out, but most of the ones I've seen won't "take" messages when the AC power is out. Does actual operation of a *no moving parts DIGITAL* answering machine *really* draw down on a battery *THAT* much??? I can understand that batteries to supply (operational) backup power to a *MOTOR* driven *cassette tape* machine will draw down on the batteries (when AC is not up) in a relatively short period of time. But even *THAT* should be an *option* for the consumer, to be able to buy the necessary amount of batteries, so that they can actually *use* their answering machine (tape *or* digital) in the event of an AC power outage! Sometimes, I wonder what all of these marketers, developers, executives, ad-men, and so forth are smoking!? And it ain't just telco or consumer electronics in general -- these days it's EVERYTHING and ANYTHING... They just don't have their priorities set right. They just don't seem to know their ... from a... well, y'know. The "Luddite" philopsophy/lifestyle looks more and more appealing each and every day! mjc ------------------------------ From: dor@writeme.com (Satchel Paige) Subject: NorVergence SOHO Matrix is Fraudulent Date: 28 Sep 2003 17:18:23 -0700 Organization: http://groups.google.com/ If you were sold or have been pitched the Matrix SOHO product from NorVergence, you have been defrauded. Here is why: 1. You sign a five year Equipment Rental Agreement for a Matrix Box but you do not get a Matrix Box. You get Internet access either via DSL or cable, and, if you had the Internet access before, it is likely the same service provider only taken over by NorVergence (and they can afford it because they get paid for the five years of the deal up front). Then, when installed, NorVergence tells you that your Matrix Box is either the DSL modem or the cable modem they installed. This is something you can buy at Best Buy for about $70. 2. You only really get a 20% discount. This is how to calculate how much NorVergence got paid: Let's say the price of your Matrix Box is $250 per month. Divide that $250 by .0218, that totals $11,467.89. That is how much NorVergence was paid for up front by one of many banks that may have funded the five year deal. Then you pay the bank $250 for 60 months, or $15,000. The bank makes $3,532.11 above the amount they paid to NorVergence. With the NorVergence SOHO product your telephone lines are simply switched to Qwest for toll (local-long-distance) and long distance. How they offer you the zero cents per minute is that the NorVergence proposal when they sold you was simply a twenty percent discount on the cost of all of your services combined (cellular, toll-free, interent access, toll and long distance) and the costs were built into the non-existing SOHO "Matrix Box" or hidden costs. In other words, say you have $50 of Toll and Long Distance usage on 4 lines, $100 of usage for one toll-free number, $300 average for 3 months of cellular usage for 2 cellular phones and DSL for $50 per month. That totals to $500 in monthly costs. NorVergence will simply take twenty percent off of that $500 (they may use 19.1 to 19.6% to throw you off). Twenty percent off of $500 is $100. Your new monthly costs are now $400. Then they subtract from the $400 the SOHO circuit price of $9.99. Your Matrix Box cost is now $390.01. Then they subtract $24.95 for unlimited toll-free usage. Your Matrix Box cost is now $365.06. Then they subtract about $19 for the two cell phones. Your Matrix Box cost is now $346.06. If there is nothing left to subtract, your SOHO Matrix Box (which does not exist) price is the $346.06. That is what you pay back to the bank for 60 months which totals to $20,763.60. Yet, NorVergence gets paid up front from the bank the $346.06 divided by .0218 or $15,874.31. Remember, all you got was a twenty percent discount and either a DSL modem or a cable modem, yet over five years you pay $20,763.60. At $15,874.31 NorVergence got from the bank, they can afford to pay Qwest the discount bulk rates it gets from them and deceive you into thinking your getting "Voice as Unlimited Data" at zero cents per minute through the non-existent "Matrix Box". Their Price and Savings Gaurantee is worthless because it has to be compared with other companies for identical services. What other companies are out there that offer the same services and some kind of magic box? None. Some more NorVergence facts. The Chairman and CEO of NorVergence is Peter Salzano. However, he is just a front man for his brother Thomas N. Salzano (Tom Salzano) who is the true decision maker at NorVergence. Tom Salzano was the former CEO of Minimum Rate Pricing, Inc. which was fined the highest penalty ever by the FCC for Slamming -which is changing your long distance provider without your authorization. The FCC also barred him from ever running a telecommunications company again. So at NorVergence, he is only a "consultant" and is not in any literature. He is, however, in the same building that NorVergence resides at in Newark, New Jersey. Feel free to go to www.fcc.gov and look up "Salzano" or "Minimum Rate Pricing". You may also find information on USENET. What you should do if you have been sold or have been pitched by NorVergence, especially the SOHO product. Call the Federal Trade Commission (FTC)and file a report with their Fraud Department. The FTC's toll-free number is 877-382-4357. You will be asked to provide personal information such as your address, telephone numbers and e-mail address, but this organization will do something to stop this fraud. Remember to write down the reference number they give you. Feel free to reference an existing reference number regarding this matter. It is "3377569". How do I know about all of this? I went throught the NorVergence training program. Do your best to warn others about this fraud. ------------------------------ From: agent01413@my-deja.com (socks) Subject: Re: Judge's Number Found on List Date: 28 Sep 2003 18:05:25 -0700 Organization: http://groups.google.com/ Monty Solomon wrote in message news:: By Bill Dedman, Globe Correspondent, 9/27/2003 > The telephone number of a federal judge in Denver who blocked a > national do-not-call registry this week had been added to the list in > July, blocking telemarketers from calling him. > On Thursday, US District Judge Edward W. Nottingham stopped the > Federal Trade Commission from implementing the registry, ruling that > it is an unconstitutional infringement on free speech. The equal protection clause of the constitution says that we're all equal. Ought his court clerk, Greg Langham, whose home phone number is 303-979- 6328, be any more deserving of privacy protections for his phone number than I am for my home phone number? If telemarketers can harass me at home, should Nottingham's staffers somehow be exempt? ------------------------------ From: Group Special Mobile Subject: Re: Verizon and Creative Billing Date: Sun, 28 Sep 2003 18:28:43 -0700 Organization: Posted via Supernews, http://www.supernews.com Reply-To: look@signature_for_reply_instructions On 28 Sep 2003 10:42:21 -0700, paulsn@urx.com (paulsnx2) wrote: > We discuss this for about an hour. Then they started giving ground: > First they claim they would half the difference, and I held that > wasn't good enough. So they charged the the lower rate. Then they > made a point of documenting that I have now been informed of the > policy, and would have to pay the higher rate in the future. > I made a point that I would do no such thing until I received an > update to my contract stating such a policy. This they will not do, > for whatever reason. Maybe the next time you have a chat with Verizon you might remind them that after 11-24-2003 Verizon won't be the only fishey in the pond and you can just as easily pick up your toys and go to somebody else. Verizon isn't the only game in town and perhaps wireless number portability will drive this little detail home to them. 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. --------------------------------------------------------------- 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 #675 ****************************** From editor@telecom-digest.org Mon Sep 29 14:33:09 2003 Received: (from ptownson@localhost) by massis.lcs.mit.edu (8.11.6p2/8.11.3) id h8TIX9107478; Mon, 29 Sep 2003 14:33:09 -0400 (EDT) Date: Mon, 29 Sep 2003 14:33:09 -0400 (EDT) From: editor@telecom-digest.org Message-Id: <200309291833.h8TIX9107478@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 #676 TELECOM Digest Mon, 29 Sep 2003 14:33:00 EDT Volume 22 : Issue 676 Inside This Issue: Editor: Patrick A. Townson and: Lisa Minter Re: How to Integrate Caller ID Data Into Ordering System? (Carl Navarro) Re: Server Based PBX vs. Standard PBX (Paul Robinson) Evading the Do Not Call List (Paul Robinson) Re: What Happened to 951 Area Code? (Paul Robinson) Avoiding Service Charges on Long Distance (Paul Robinson) Calling Judges Without Getting Busted For "Harassment" (Marcus D. Falco) Wireless (and Landline) Portability (Mark J Cuccia) (NANP-Based) Telco "Naming Standards", etc. (Mark J Cuccia) Re: 'To Cord, or Not to Cord' (Dale Farmer) Re: 'To Cord, or Not to Cord' (AES/newspost) Fall Share Day (TELECOM Digest Editor) All contents here are copyrighted by Patrick Townson and the individual writers/correspondents. Articles may be used in other journals or newsgroups, provided the writer's name and the Digest are included in the fair use quote. By using -any name or email address- included herein for -any- reason other than responding to an article herein, you agree to pay a hundred dollars to the recipients of the email. WE DO NOT PERMIT NAME/EMAIL ADDRESS HARVESTING FROM THIS JOURNAL. 'SALTED' EMAIL ADDRESSES APPEAR HEREIN TO VERIFY THIS. YOU GET SUED IN SMALL CLAIMS COURT IF YOU GET CAUGHT SPAMMING OR SENDING VIRUSES. DON'T DO IT. See the bottom of this issue for subscription and archive details and the name of our lawyer; other stuff of interest. ---------------------------------------------------------------------- From: Carl Navarro Subject: Re: How to Integrate Caller ID Data Into Ordering System? Date: Mon, 29 Sep 2003 02:09:45 -0700 Organization: Airnews.net! at Internet America On 27 Sep 2003 16:55:45 -0700, yizaki@yacan.com (Yasuki Izaki) wrote: > Hello, > I looking for a system (software and hardware) to retrieve a caller ID > from incoming call and feed the number (caller ID) into our existing > ordering system. The ordering system is written in VB, running on NT. > Could anybody recommend caller ID hardware and software to accomplish > this? > Thanks a lots in advance. I don't know if this will fit or not, but try www.callerid.com and start with the Whozz Calling box. There will be links to commercial software that integrate CID into the computer. I have used the Identafone(www.identafone.com) software and it pops the CID into a new or existing Microsoft Outlook contact file. Other vendors may be able to give you what you want. Carl Navarro ------------------------------ From: Paul Robinson Organization: Elusive-Butterfly.net Subject: Re: Server Based PBX vs. Standard PBX Date: Mon, 29 Sep 2003 06:16:28 GMT Jamie wrote: > Our company is looking into the possibility of purchasing a server > based PBX for our small call center. Without getting brand specific, > is there any reason not to go with a server based PBX? There seem to > be many reasons for going with one, I would like to know the reasons > not to. Thanks for your input. I'll give you at least one reason: Microsoft Windows. The second is the magic phrase "three nines". I do not want to go into Microsoft bashing. I happen to like most of their software. The problem is reliability. Reject any server that runs Microsoft because there is no way they can guarantee you "telco class" reliability, that is "three nines" or 99.9% uptime. That's a maximum downtime of 3 1/2 hours a year. No matter what I might dislike about Verizon, they claim their reliability is 99.97% and I would seriously agree with that figure, that over the years they have averaged less than 1 hour of downtime per year. Even when we had no electricity because of last week's hurricane, we still had dial tone and never lost it once. If someone wants to offer you a solution using Microsoft software and is willing to guarantee *with contractual cash rebates for failure* a reliability of 99.9% then I would accept it. You'll never get such a commitment, no serious business could ever do such a thing, so it's not worth worrying about. Microsoft Windows is fine for running desktop computers and does an excellent job. But it's not reliable enough for anything requiring critical uptime. Some of their EULAs indicate their software is not to be used for critical applications. 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." ------------------------------ From: Paul Robinson Organization: Elusive-Butterfly.net Subject: Evading the Do Not Call List Date: Mon, 29 Sep 2003 06:36:37 GMT There is a very reasonable argument that banning commercial speech but permitting non-commercial speech via a do-not-call list is unconstitutional because the system is saying that the ability to communicate one's ideas is then dependent upon the content of them, and content-based discrimination of ideas has long been held to be unconstitutional under the 1st Amendment. But all I have to do is change the way I write a commercial announcement and I can slip under the rules. For example, one form of communication which was not banned was surveys. So let's try this one: RING! "Hello?" "Ma'am, I'm calling with a survey, could I have a moment of your time to ask your opinion on a political issue?" "Well, okay." "I'm calling on behalf of Ajax Aluminum Siding Company, who wants to know if you support or oppose laws imposing the death penalty on people who refuse to pay parking tickets." Or imposing mandatory prison terms for speeding one mile over the limit. And later in the call they could say that if you wanted to contact them you could call their phone number. How do you distinguish this from a survey done by some political focus group? You can't. This would be a legitimate survey even if the question is bogus and there is no way you could write a constitutionally valid law that would prohibit it unless you prohibited all forms of surveying over the phone. The courts have long held that private corporations have just as much right to do public interest advertising as non-profits. Witness Mobil Oil's [now Exxon Mobil] editorials it runs in various magazines. 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." [TELECOM Digest Editor's Note: What you say about private corporations is true *except* in the case of cigarette companies. Whenever their name is attached to any public message -- either commercial advertising for their products *or* public service advertising, i.e. poll-taking or similar they are required by law to include one of those health warnings even if they do not talk about cigarettes as such, or attempt to promote their use. For instance, in yesterday's Sunday Independence Reporter newspaper, the RJ Reynolds Company had an ad saying, 'we support restrictions against smoking by underage persons. If you agree with our postition, please sign your name and address below and mail us this message which we will forward to your congress person', along with their address and a phone number if you wanted to sign the petition by phone. Not a word promoting the sale and use of cigarettes -- in fact the opposite -- but at the top of the page was the traditional Surgeon General's Warning Notice. You may say yes, but it still in a thinly disguised way was promoting cigarette smoking. Well, the same company's public service ad in the Sunday paper two weeks ago dealt with the war in Iraq asking what people thought about President Bush's various mis-statements to date on the matter. It encouraged everyone to call the White House switchboard and their congress person to express themselves, or write to RJ Reynolds and we will forward your letter. This time at the top of the page the Surgeon General told us about pregnant women and smoking. Why are they obligated to do that? Isn't an imposition on their free speech? PAT] ------------------------------ From: Paul Robinson Organization: Elusive-Butterfly.net Subject: Re: What Happened to 951 Area Code? Date: Mon, 29 Sep 2003 07:11:08 GMT Michael D. Sullivan wote: > 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. And that's not what I'm talking about. I'm talking about the method required to dial an INTRASTATE, same area code telephone call. Not how area codes are assigned. Not how prefixes are assigned. Not how Canada or Mexico (or anyone) has its numbers assigned. Not how one dials interstate or international calls. I am referring to the method required for dialing a local or possibly inter-LATA call within the same state and same area code, an operation which is clearly intrastate in nature. > The numbers at issue would be dialable from other states But that's not the issue at hand. The issue at hand is how the person within the same state dials a number which is within, for example, the same area code and quite possibly the same city or county and definitely same state. This is clearly an intrastate matter. > 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 I would first ask how you claim that a requirement for all same-area-code calls be 7-digits means some entities are required to make their customers dial 10 digits on local calls and some are not? My statement was that a state could require allowing 7-digit dialing for all same area code dialed calls. If you call some other area code that's not applicable. In no case did I ever claim that there could be some kind of system where some carriers are allowed to offer 7-digit intra-area-code calls and others did not. That some people someone wants to call are in a different area code and they have to dial another area code to reach people who had gotten phone lines at an earlier time is not relevant and would still be an issue that would probably come up if you had area code splits instead of overlays. > skews competition among such carriers, with economic effects that > go well beyond California's borders Except that in the case I am referring to, the call does not. Just because something might, in some theoretical manner have some potential effect upon interstate commerce does not necessarily mean that it does so. Presuming it does so in the first place. 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." ------------------------------ From: Paul Robinson Organization: Elusive-Butterfly.net Subject: Avoiding service charges on long distance Date: Mon, 29 Sep 2003 07:48:15 GMT Generally, I got around the problem of paying a monthly fee to a particular long distance company by blocking my number so 1+ calls don't go through, and using a calling card. An associate of mine buys AT&T long distance cards from Sam's Club and I pay him for them. Under 3c per minute all of the time. Surcharge for use at a pay phone is around 25c. No monthly service charges or "regulatory fees." I never pay monthly fees, I only pay for calls I make. The minor inconvenience of having to dial an 800 number and a pin code first is made up for by saving $60 or more a year in charges that would be imposed if I was taking some long distance company as my regular carrier, AND paying more per minute on top of that 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: Mon, 29 Sep 2003 04:01:09 -0400 From: Marcus Didius Falco Subject: Calling Judges Without Getting Busted for "Harassment" At 01:38 AM 9/29/03, editor@telecom-digest.org wrote: > TELECOM Digest Mon, 29 Sep 2003 01:39:00 EDT Volume 22 : Issue 675 > From: Paul Robinson > Organization: Elusive-Butterfly.net > Subject: Re: Two Federal Courts Block "Do-Not-Call" Registry > Date: Mon, 29 Sep 2003 04:20:02 GMT > I thought this was rather cute: > In an editorial on page A22 of the Washington (DC) Times, it said: > "... Judge Lee West's ruling... found at fault was a... law to > ban... speech...." > "Readers who want to share their opinions about unsolicited phone > calls with Judge West can contact his chambers at (phone) > 405-609-5140; (fax) 405-609-5151" > ------------------------------ > From: agent01413@my-deja.com (socks) > Subject: Re: Judge's Number Found on List > Date: 28 Sep 2003 18:05:25 -0700 > Organization: http://groups.google.com/ > Monty Solomon wrote in message > news:: > By Bill Dedman, Globe Correspondent, 9/27/2003 >> The telephone number of a federal judge in Denver who blocked a >> national do-not-call registry this week had been added to the list in >> July, blocking telemarketers from calling him. >> On Thursday, US District Judge Edward W. Nottingham stopped the >> Federal Trade Commission from implementing the registry, ruling that >> it is an unconstitutional infringement on free speech. > The equal protection clause of the constitution says that we're all equal. > Ought his court clerk, Greg Langham, whose home phone number is 303-979- > 6328, be any more deserving of privacy protections for his phone number > than I am for my home phone number? If telemarketers can harass me at > home, should Nottingham's staffers somehow be exempt? Pat, Pat, how'd you ever let these through without a reminder NEVER to harass anyone by making repeated calls? There are serious fines for doing so. It is reasonable to make ONE phone call to express your views. It might POSSIBLY be reasonable to make a second -- perhaps from a different telephone -- to verify that your views have been understood. But you NEVER, NEVER want to make repeated calls. Making repeated calls is defined as harassment, and is a major no-no. And harassing a judge is a really bad no-no. Anyhow, if every one on this list -- or even a significant fraction of us -- were to call the judges in question we'd never be able to make repeated calls because we'd never get through the constant busy signals. :-) [Lisa Minter note: You can blame me for that one. I was told by His Royal Highness the Moderator Emeritus to never print a phone number in this Digest without including a disclaimer message on how to use the number, and not to abuse it, but I did not do it. Just a reminder now, however. Phone numbers are to be used, not abused. There now, is that better? Lisa M.] ------------------------------ Date: Mon, 29 Sep 2003 05:02:54 CDT From: Mark J Cuccia Subject: Wireless (and Landline) Portability It finally looks like *THIS* November, 2003, will be when portability betwen wireless providers will start to become available. I've heard two different opinions on how this will work with landline porting of your number -- one is that wireless number portability will *only* apply to all wireless providers serving a ratecenter/exchange area, and that you won't necessarily be able to actually *port* a land-based number over to (new) wireless service or vice-versa, that landline number portability and wireless number portability will be "similar" but handled completely *separately* (and maybe at some point in the future will the two be "merged"); the other is that from *day one*, wireless number portability will be an "extension" and an "integrated" extension of existing landline number portabilty. If the first case is true, I *have* heard that some individual telcos/ service providers will allow porting between their *own* landline service with their *own* wireless service -- i.e., you could port a VeriZon/GTE/BA/NYNEX landline number to a VeriZon Wireless number in that market, or the other way, from VeriZon Wirless to VeriZon landline LEC, but *only* "within* the VeriZon "community" in that market. But if the second case is true, regarding the slimy telemarketers ... right now, if I'm not mistaken, telemarketers are prohibited by law from calling "known" wireless numbers, usually baed on c.o.code prefix (NPA-NXX), or sometimes down to the "thousdans" level, the NPA-NXX-'T' part of the ten-digit number (NPA-NXX-Txxx). Telcordia-TRA sells a product (a *subset* of the LERG) which identifies wireless numbering ranges, specifically intended for telemarketers, so that they can identify only those NPA-NXX-(T) ranges as wireless so as "not to call numbers starting off that way". But if at some point, wireless and landline numbers become "inter-portable" (which they will at some point, either now in November, or some time in the future), then telemarketers won't be able to identify wireless numbers "up front". They "could" still (in theory) be held liable for placing calls *to* cellular phones even though they might not "know" in advance that the number *is* cellular. Conversely, if I have a landline-based phone that was ported from wireless, I might be "blessed" with not getting *any* (or at least "fewer") harrassing calls from telemarketers because they don't "know" that this number is now really a landline! :) And also, even with being able to port wireless numbers amongs wireless providers (whether or not this will initially be consolidated with existing landline number porting), it still isn't going to be easy and perfect when one does want to port. Don't many cellular telcos require that your handset/wireless device be one "approved by them" (i.e., purchased from them)? Some of this non-compatability has to do with the type of wireless service technology in use by that company (GSM, TDMA, CDMA, etc). But even with compatable technology, some wireless providers still *demand* (require) that your mobile phone be "approved" by them. They can "lock out" your use of their network from your phone (that you now "own" but acquired under a different provider previously) so that you "have" to now get *another* phone (at cost) from *them*. IMO, *THIS* type of anti-competitive / monopolisitc practice *AS WELL* should be addressed by the FCC/FTC/DOJ/Congress/etc. I can understand phones that are not capable of switching between different technologies where if your phone is analog only, or TDMA-only, and your new wireless provider is GSM-only, you'll have to get a new GSM-type phone. But if you *have* an existing phone (from someone else) that *IS* capable of working on that new provider's network/technology, then there should be *NO* reason for them to require/demand that you get yet *another* cellular handset/phone! mjc [TELECOM Digest Editor's Note: What about in cases like mine where my home phone is 'delay call forwarded' (after three or four rings) to my cellular phone. I suppose after three or four rings when the caller hears the slightest pause in the ringing while the call is taken away from my landline number and handed over to my cell phone am intelligent person would realize he was being transferred to some other number. But whoever accused telemarketers of having any brains? PAT] ------------------------------ Date: Mon, 29 Sep 2003 05:30:11 -0500 (CDT) From: Mark J Cuccia Subject: (NANP-based) Telco "Naming Standards", etc. obsidian wrote: > You mentioned that NL was assigned for the Netherlands. NL is also the > asignment by ISO 3166-1 alpha-2 element for the Netherlands. > A question here, does the CLLI code follow the ISO 3166 list or merely > borrow from it? Perhaps the NL was just a conicidence? I've heard of the ISO 3166 standards, but I'm not all that familiar with them on a "day-to-day basis". But in the US/Canada (NANP), our "naming" standards for telco functions date back 35+ years. The CLLI code format (Common Language Location Identifier), the eleven-character string to identify telco switches and other network elements, dates back to around 1967, developed by Bell Labs, back then, all part of the *one* AT&T Bell System. And other telco naming standards as well were all developed by AT&T or one of its Bell System members, *OR* if developed by a non-Bell "independent" telco, it was co-ordinated with AT&T/Bell via the USITA. How long has the ISO-3166 standard been around? I do know that back in the "old" days, Bell/AT&T did its *own* standards for use within the US/Canada and within its *own* network/industry, even if there were other "standards" being developed in places outside the US/Canada, or outside the telco industry (but still related to other telecommunications or technology issues). AT&T "more or less" did what it wanted or felt like doing. And back then, it really didn't matter all that much *anyhow*! What went on in Europe, or Japan, or Australia, didn't necessarily (at that time) affect what happened in the US/Canada. Although now, some thirty-plus years later, these inconsistancies are becoming more and more apparant. Many *generic* standards" regarding the telco industry "as a whole" and not specifically AT&T "itself", were handed over to the newly created Bellcore organization (itself being carved out of the old Bell System) at the time of divestiture (the breakup of the AT&T Bell System), in the 1983/84 timeframe. General industry-wide routing and network info was put under Bellcore TRA (Traffic Routing Administration). Numbering was put under Bellcore NANPA (North American Numbering Plan Administration). NANPA was spun out of Bellcore in 1997/98, because Bellcore was still "owned" at that time by the regional Bell telcos, and that was considered an anti-competitive, conflict-of-interest. Generic industry-wide, intercompany billing issues was also co-ordinated by Bellcore as a "clearinghouse" -- i.e., RAO codes and billing under CMDS (Centralized Message Distribution System). And "naming" standards that were "generic" and "industry-wide" that were previously handled by AT&T or Bell Labs were now placed under Bellcore's Common Language Standards department. By 1999, the (remaing) regional Bell telcos sold their interests in Bellcore over to SAIC (Scientific Applications International Corp) and the name of Bellcore was changed to Telcordia Technologies. I do know that the 2-letter (alpha) "geopolitical" abbreviation standard from Bellcore/Telcordia, these 2-letter alpha codes used to identify states, provinces, etc. draws from a "common pool" -- i.e., countries are considered equally along with many internal divisions (states of the US, provinces of Canada, Mexico's internal divisions, etc). This can limit things and cause apparant "conflicts". I also know that Bellcore Common Language Standards does recognize the fact that there are many "embedded" or "legacy" assignments of these 2-letter geopolitical codes that do *not* comply with what was already assigned in the ISO-3166 format. HOWEVER, I think that current/future assignments (when needed) are "co-ordinated" as much as possible with the ISO-3166 format standard. Mark J. Cuccia ------------------------------ From: Dale Farmer Organization: Furry green fuzz in the back of the refrigerator Subject: Re: 'To Cord, or Not to Cord' Date: Mon, 29 Sep 2003 13:51:27 GMT Mark J Cuccia wrote: > There's no perfect solution, and there are plusses and minusses to each > type of CPE and/or telco service. Exactly so! > As for cordless phones (on a "landline-based" loop), I also fail to see > why manufacturers really haven't come out with affordable *battery powered > BASE units* which will allow one to continue to "talk" on the cordless > handset (via landline loop service) when there's no commercial AC power. > I think that there are some units like that, but there should be MORE! One I bought a couple years ago had a battery slot in the base unit that recharged the battery and during a power failure, kept the base unit on the air. You had to buy the extra battery, which was not cheap, and cutting a PO for it was too much trouble at that place. 8shrugs* They are around, but not common. --Dale ------------------------------ From: AES/newspost Subject: Re: 'To Cord, or Not to Cord' Date: Mon, 29 Sep 2003 08:49:14 -0700 In article , Mark J Cuccia wrote: > I read the recent post here about cellular phones, landline-based > "cordless" phones, and traditional corded phones on landline service, > w/r/t natural disasters and power outages, etc. > All of these phone services and consumer-end equipment each have their > advantages and disadvantages when it comes to power outages and other > disasters. > -----(remainder snipped) ----- This is a good and timelymessage, and I'd just like to add: 1) We (society in general) have a major need for good communications especially in and after disasters. 2) We won't get this from a pure free market. 3) We have to use the power of government to require that our communications services prepare, plan and build to provide reliable service after disasters, and to punish them in a meaningful way if they don't. (We also, of course, have to be prepared to pay the additional costs of doing this -- though they're generally minor overall.) ------------------------------ Date: Mon, 29 Sep 2003 12:01:45 EDT From: TELECOM Digest Editor Subject: Fall Share Day We are coming out of our summer vacation period and returning to our schools or jobs in earnest for another year. I need to hear from those of you who have not yet (or not recently) given financially to help keep this newsgroup going, spam and virus free for another year. The viruses keep rolling in heavily here; most days at least 100-200 of the 'Microsoft latest patch' things arrive, and I keep on shoveling them into the garbage bucket, along with the now seemingly innocuous and innocent (while still extremely ignorant and pornographic) spams which we *used to* complain about. The net has changed so much in the past couple years has it not? I am *hardly* the only person working to keep the net cleaned up and useful; there are lots of guys out there doing the very same thing in their own areas of expertise, many of whom make more valuable contributions than myself. There are many newsgroups and computer resources being devoted entirely to the several problems we face on the net these days. This note, the monthly Share Day message for October is intended for those of you who could do a little more more to help, financially. Maybe you do not have the expertise needed to write software, but you do have employment and can afford to give financially to help those of us who are sort of on the front lines in the battle to preserve the net. Please, sometime in the next day or three, please select your favorite newsgroup moderator and send a note of appreciation for what they are doing. If some or most of the readers of telecom choose *me* I will be greatly appreciative. If you can help with a financial gift that will be also appreciated. For gifts of fifty dollars or more, I will send you by return mail the two-CD set of the entire Telecom Archives. You can make your donation via credit card through PayPal if you desire using the donation template on the very bottom of our home page at http://telecom-digest.org or transfer money from any source through the same format. If you prefer to write using snailmail you can do that also by writing to Patrick Townson, Post Office Box 50, Independence, Kansas 67301-0050, and making any checks you wish to enclose payable to Patrick Townson/Telecom Digest. Thanks *very much* for your continued support and caring. 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. --------------------------------------------------------------- Finally, the Digest is funded by gifts from generous readers such as yourself who provide funding in amounts deemed appropriate. Your help is important and appreciated. A suggested donation of fifty dollars per year per reader is considered appropriate. See our address above. Please make at least a single donation to cover the cost of processing your name to the mailing list. If you donate at least fifty dollars per year we will send you our two-CD set of the entire Telecom Archives; this is every word published in this Digest since our beginning in 1981. All opinions expressed herein are deemed to be those of the author. Any organizations listed are for identification purposes only and messages should not be considered any official expression by the organization. End of TELECOM Digest V22 #676 ****************************** From editor@telecom-digest.org Tue Sep 30 00:53:57 2003 Received: (from ptownson@localhost) by massis.lcs.mit.edu (8.11.6p2/8.11.3) id h8U4ruK10485; Tue, 30 Sep 2003 00:53:57 -0400 (EDT) Date: Tue, 30 Sep 2003 00:53:57 -0400 (EDT) From: editor@telecom-digest.org Message-Id: <200309300453.h8U4ruK10485@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 #677 TELECOM Digest Tue, 30 Sep 2003 00:54:00 EDT Volume 22 : Issue 677 Inside This Issue: Editor: Patrick A. Townson and: Lisa Minter Re: Two Federal Courts Block "Do-Not-Call" (Charles Cryderman) Re: News From Munich Palmsource (yeltrabnhoj@email.com) Nokia Shakeup Raises Questions About CEO's Future (Eric Friedebach) Phone Companies in RI??? (Kaputnik) Re: ANI vs. CNID and "Privacy", was Re: Caller ID vs. *69 (Ken) Re: Evading the Do Not Call List (Thomas A. Horsley) Re: Evading the Do Not Call List (Geoffrey Welsh) Re: Avoiding Service Charges on Long Distance (Carl Navarro) Re: What Happened to 951 Area Code? (Michael D. Sullivan) L2TP Error 791 Connecting From Outside (Paul Friedman) Disney's Pirate Fight (Monty Solomon) Fall Share Day is Here (TELECOM Digest Editor) All contents here are copyrighted by Patrick Townson and the individual writers/correspondents. Articles may be used in other journals or newsgroups, provided the writer's name and the Digest are included in the fair use quote. By using -any name or email address- included herein for -any- reason other than responding to an article herein, you agree to pay a hundred dollars to the recipients of the email. WE DO NOT PERMIT NAME/EMAIL ADDRESS HARVESTING FROM THIS JOURNAL. 'SALTED' EMAIL ADDRESSES APPEAR HEREIN TO VERIFY THIS. YOU GET SUED IN SMALL CLAIMS COURT IF YOU GET CAUGHT SPAMMING OR SENDING VIRUSES. DON'T DO IT. See the bottom of this issue for subscription and archive details and the name of our lawyer; other stuff of interest. ---------------------------------------------------------------------- From: Cryderman, Charles Subject: Re: Two Federal Courts Block "Do-Not-Call" Date: Mon, 29 Sep 2003 14:36:57 -0400 siegman@stanford.edu stated: > As a start the wires up to your demarc aren't your equipment; > they're the telco's, and the telco is a public utility. The TMs, > like anybody else, can -- or at least should be able to -- send a > legitimate signal over the public part of the system, up to your > demarc. Up to you -- and entirely under your control, not the > telcos -- to decide what you do with the signals beyond that point." I can not agree with this statement. Now it is true that the LEC owns this equipment and it is part of the public switching network. That is all that is correct. Teleslime still has no right to call me. I say this because I am paying to rent this line. What you claim is like my leasing a car from Ford, but seeing as Ford still owns the car they can come over and use it whenever I'm not. Sorry to shoot a hole it your opinion. Chip Cryderman ------------------------------ From: yeltrabnhoj@email.com Subject: Re: News From Munich Palmsource Date: Mon, 29 Sep 2003 19:15:51 GMT Organization: (reverse to reply) (John Bartley, K7AAY, Portland OR) Doesn't this belong in comp.sys.palmtops.pilot? On 28 Sep 2003 05:39:47 -0700, ppcdev@hotmail.com (ppcdev) wrote: > The Samsung Smartphones really seem to be good platforms in the > future, but actual releases bug quickly (10 seconds are enough to make > them bug). We hope that future releases will implement Palm OS 5 or 6, > with hi resolution screens. Actual samsungs have got big pixels, and > compared to nokia phones, they seem pretty poor. > Tapwave products are the revolution of this century; just see them > to see functions. Nobody but a fool goes into a federal counterrorism operation without duct tape - Richard Preston, THE COBRA EVENT. ------------------------------ From: Eric Friedebach Subject: Nokia Shakeup Raises Questions About CEO's Future Date: Mon, 29 Sep 2003 14:25:41 -0500 Organization: LeAnn Rimes/Busta Rhymes; Know the Difference As it struggles for growth in the no-holds-barred mobile-phone market, the Finnish company Nokia, the world's biggest cellphone manufacturer, shook up its top management on Friday, spurring speculation that it might be preparing to change its chief executive. Nokia said its chief financial officer, Olli-Pekka Kallasvuo, 50, would now lead its mobile-phones unit, which has in the past accounted for the biggest share of the company's sales. Taking his place will be Rick Simonson, 45, who has worked at Nokia since 2001 as head of vendor financing. He is the first non-Finn to reach the company's highest management echelon. Simonson was previously with Bank of America for 15 years. Matti Alahuhta, 51, the current head of Nokia's mobile-phones unit, will become the company's chief strategy officer. The shake-up is the first in five years and comes as the company seeks to reposition itself in the consumer mobile-phone industry, particularly as the West becomes saturated with cellphone ownership. http://www.forbes.com/2003/09/29/0929nokiapinnacor.html Eric Friedebach ------------------------------ From: johnkaputnik@yahoo.com (Kaputnik) Subject: Phone Companies in RI??? Date: 29 Sep 2003 13:59:34 -0700 Organization: http://groups.google.com/ Does anyone know what phone companies provide residential and/or business service in RI?? I need to know. Or maybe someone can tell me how to find out. Thanks. ------------------------------ From: Ken Subject: Re: ANI vs. CNID and "Privacy", was Re: Caller ID vs. *69 Date: Mon, 29 Sep 2003 21:05:45 GMT Organization: AT&T Worldnet Interestingly, OneSuite does not pass this caller ID through to the call recipient. MCI, on the other hand, at least with the Costco MCI calling card, passes the caller's ID through to the call recipient, even if the caller used *67. This is a little scary. Danny Burstein wrote in message news:telecom22.669.15@telecom-digest.org: > In > AllstonParkingRefugee@hotmail.com (Allston Parking Refugee) writes: >> John David Galt wrote: >>> *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. >> So if someone blocks caller ID info when making a call (by dialing *67 >> or subscribing to all-call blocking), you're implying that his number >> gets sent but the receiving caller ID box is configured not to receive >> it? >> If I dial a OneSuite (prepaid calling card) local-access number (i.e. >> a 7-digit number, not a toll-free number) and I block caller ID, they >> can still identify my account automatically when I'm calling from my >> home phone. How is this possible? > There are two different methods for your number to get to, for want of a > better term, "there". > In the standard situation where your mother in law is calling your phone, > the local central office near her sends a caller-id identifier to your > local central office. The one near you then does one of two things: > a) if there's no "privacy" flag (*67 or a fulltime block), > then the central office near you sends the number > the rest of the way to your phone. > b) if there IS a privacy flag, then the central office > near you, which, remember, DOES get the number, does NOT > send it that last mile to your home > There is ANOTHER method, though, for the number to get across, and > that's with Automatic Number Identification (ANI). This was the > original method and is used internally by the telcos for *billing* > purposes. > So, for example, when you make a long distance call, the > inter-exchange-carrier gets your number so it knows how to bill. > (In the majority of cases CNID has the same digits as ANI, but most > assuredly not quite always). > The other best known case of this sort is when you call a (largish) > company with a 1-800 number. They get your calling number, via ANI, > regardless of whether you try blocking it or not. Reason is that they > pay for the call so have the right to do so -- the same way that > Sprint, for example, gets your number in a regular long distance call. > This is used by them in, for example, phone orders. When you call them > the salesrep's computer screen gets your number -- which then pulls up > their database on you with your order history, etc. They may not tell > you this. > (Smaller companies and individuals also get your phone number, but > won't have the computer interface.) > Anyway, when you call OneSuite, your local telco is either providing > them with ANI under the inter-telco-billing arrangements (don't let > that seven digit number fool you) *or* OneSuite has convinced them to > kick over all the caller id info using the same reasons, even if you > try blocking. > Knowledge may be power, but communications is the key > dannyb@panix.com > [to foil spammers, my address has been double rot-13 encoded] ------------------------------ Subject: Re: Evading the Do Not Call List From: tom.horsley@att.net (Thomas A. Horsley) Organization: AT&T Worldnet Date: Mon, 29 Sep 2003 22:44:47 GMT > There is a very reasonable argument that banning commercial speech but > permitting non-commercial speech via a do-not-call list is > unconstitutional because the system is saying that the ability to > communicate one's ideas is then dependent upon the content of them, > and content-based discrimination of ideas has long been held to be > unconstitutional under the 1st Amendment. But there is a very simple solution for this as well: Re-write the law so it bans pollsters, political fundraisers, and charities as well as everything else. What you want to bet Congress will leap into action and do another re-write overnight to include those features? :-). >>==>> The *Best* political site >>==+ email: Tom.Horsley@worldnet.att.net icbm: Delray Beach, FL | Free Software and Politics <<==+ ------------------------------ From: Geoffrey Welsh Subject: Re: Evading the Do Not Call List Date: Mon, 29 Sep 2003 22:49:57 -0400 Organization: Bell Sympatico Paul Robinson wrote: > There is a very reasonable argument that banning commercial speech but > permitting non-commercial speech via a do-not-call list is > unconstitutional because the system is saying that the ability to > communicate one's ideas is then dependent upon the content of them, > and content-based discrimination of ideas has long been held to be > unconstitutional under the 1st Amendment. [Following which Patrick brought up a very valid point about restricting commercial speech when it applies to tobacco companies.] Don't kid yourselves: the right to free commercial speech is absolutely not absolute! Never mind the conditions put on tobacco and alcohol advertising, try placing an ad for child pornography and defend it as protected as a commercial operation! Speech is regulated by content every day. I leave it to those who have sworn allegiance to the Constitution of the United States of America to sort out why some kinds of speech are outlawed, while others are upheld as examples of how the Constitution protects even the unpopular. Geoffrey Welsh This address is not to be added to any mailing list, nor to be sold or given away without explicit written consent. Unsolicited bulk mail is spam, no matter what regulations (real or imagined) it complies with! FIGHT SPAM AND SCAMS: DISCONNECT CHINA FROM THE INTERNET! ------------------------------ From: Carl Navarro Subject: Re: Avoiding Service Charges on Long Distance Date: Mon, 29 Sep 2003 23:54:39 -0700 Organization: Airnews.net! at Internet America On Mon, 29 Sep 2003 07:48:15 GMT, Paul Robinson wrote: > Generally, I got around the problem of paying a monthly fee to a > particular long distance company by blocking my number so 1+ calls > don't go through, and using a calling card. > An associate of mine buys AT&T long distance cards from Sam's Club > and I pay him for them. Under 3c per minute all of the time. > Surcharge for use at a pay phone is around 25c. No monthly service > charges or "regulatory fees." I never pay monthly fees, I only pay > for calls I make. The minor inconvenience of having to dial an 800 > number and a pin code first is made up for by saving $60 or more a > year in charges that would be imposed if I was taking some long > distance company as my regular carrier, AND paying more per minute > on top of that In my last big fight with an AT&T reseller, I went to a Qwest reseller that has a 4.25 cent/minute rate and absolutely no "regulatory" fees. However, I still have to pay a percentage for the poor and downtrodden or some such on my Interstate calls. Luckily, I make about 50 cents a month worth of Interstate LD. Carl "yep I'll give you a name via e-mail if you want" Navarro ------------------------------ From: Michael D. Sullivan Subject: Re: What Happened to 951 Area Code? Date: Tue, 30 Sep 2003 03:52:58 GMT On Mon, 29 Sep 2003 07:11:08 GMT, Paul Robinson posted the following to comp.dcom.telecom: > I'm talking about the method > required to dial an INTRASTATE, same area code telephone call. Not > how area codes are assigned. Not how prefixes are assigned. Not how > Canada or Mexico (or anyone) has its numbers assigned. Not how one > dials interstate or international calls. I am referring to the method > required for dialing a local or possibly inter-LATA call within the > same state and same area code, an operation which is clearly > intrastate in nature. I understand that the individual call from one number in NPA XXX to another in NPA XXX is intrastate, as you say. However, the opening of NPA XXX for assignments, via an overlay, is an intrastate event because it is part of the administration of the North American Numbering Plan. Under 47 USC 251(e)(1), The FCC is charged with administering the NANP and making numbers available "on an equitable basis." Given the "equitable basis" language, the FCC has determined that it would be anticompetitive (i.e., not equitable) for incumbent LECs to be able to offer their customers preferential dialing (7 digits) over what their competitors would be able to offer their customers (10 or 1+10 digits) for dialing most local calls. If CLEC customers would have to dial 11 digits to order a pizza from a local pizzeria, while ILEC customers in the same area would still be able to dial 7 digits to call the same pizzeria, that wouldn't help to foster local telephone competition, as Congress intended, would it? And local telephone competition, even though it occurs within a single area code at a time and is thus technically "intrastate," is a national policy that greatly affects interstate commerce. The switches and fiber used by "local" CLECs come from interstate and foreign commerce. The businesses using numbers obtained from "local" CLECs engage to one or another degree in interstate and foreign commerce. Facilitating local telco competition, even though the competition occurs within a state at a time, is nevertheless part of interstate competition. Now the FCC, as noted above, found that it would be more "equitable" if the competing local telcos had the same dialing rules for local numbers, for reasons that relate to interstate commerce and pursuant to a Congressional delegation of exclusive authority over the administration of the NANP. Accordingly, the FCC, in a valid exercise of this authority, adopted a rule saying that when a state performs its function of area code relief planning, exercising authority delegated to it by the FCC, the state must ensure that in both the old and the new NPAs in an overlay situation, subscribers dial 10 (or 1+10) digits. Why is this needed to put the ILEC and the CLEC on an equitable footing, while allowing 7-digit dialing within each NPA would be inequitable? It's because when an overlay is opened, the vast majority of subscribers are customers of the ILEC. If, say, 80% of the local numbers, prior to the overlay, are served by the ILEC, and there are very few NXX codes available in the old NPA, then a CLEC or wireless carrier entering the market will very likely have most of its customers in the new NPA, while virtually all of the people who can be called locally will be in the old NPA. Accordingly, many of the new carrier's customers would have to dial 10 or 1+10 digits for the majority of local calls, such as to the pizzeria, the neighbors, the county government, or the electrician, because the odds are overwhelming that these would be numbers in the old NPA. The ILEC's customers, on the other hand, would be able to call 7 digits for all of these same local numbers, because both the caller and the called party would be in the old NPA. Yes, the ILEC's customers in the old NPA would have to use 10 or 1+10 digits when they call numbers in the new NPA, but there would be few of these to call, since it's an overlay area code that starts out with no assigned numbers, and a large proportion of the numbers in the new NPA could be expected to be CLEC or wireless customers. >> The numbers at issue would be dialable from other states > But that's not the issue at hand. The issue at hand is how the person > within the same state dials a number which is within, for example, the > same area code and quite possibly the same city or county and > definitely same state. This is clearly an intrastate matter. The economic viability of local wireline-vs.-wireline and wireline-vs.- wireless competition is most assuredly not an intrastate matter. How local calls are dialed directly affects the viability of such competition and therefore is a matter of interstate concern, even if each such call is an intrastate matter. > I would first ask how you claim that a requirement for all > same-area-code calls be 7-digits means some entities are required to > make their customers dial 10 digits on local calls and some are not? > My statement was that a state could require allowing 7-digit dialing > for all same area code dialed calls. If you call some other area code > that's not applicable. In no case did I ever claim that there could > be some kind of system where some carriers are allowed to offer > 7-digit intra-area-code calls and others did not. That some people > someone wants to call are in a different area code and they have to > dial another area code to reach people who had gotten phone lines at > an earlier time is not relevant and would still be an issue that would > probably come up if you had area code splits instead of overlays. Under a "7 digits in the same NPA" rule, the new entrant's customers would have two disadvantages: (1) the new entrant's customers would have to dial more digits for most local calls (i.e., when calling the many assigned numbers in the old NPA, vs. the relatively few assigned numbers in the new NPA) than the ILEC's customers (in the old NPA) would have to dial; and (2) most local callers dialing the new entrant's customers (in the new NPA) would have to dial more digits than if they were calling numbers in the old NPA, because the majority of potential callers are ILEC customers in the old NPA. It would be much more difficult for a new entrant to attract customers under this scenario than if all competitors' customers in an area had to dial the same number of digits for all local calls. >> skews competition among such carriers, with economic effects that >> go well beyond California's borders > Except that in the case I am referring to, the call does not. Agreed. So what? > Just because something might, in some theoretical manner have some > potential effect upon interstate commerce does not necessarily mean > that it does so. Presuming it does so in the first place. It ain't theoretical. It's obvious from what you have written that many people (such as you) would greatly prefer to dial 7 digits than 10 for local calls. If you were choosing between two telcos for your service, would you pick one that lets you dial most local numbers with 7 digits, and that lets most of your friends and business associates dial you with 7 digits, or one that requires you and your local callers to use 10 digits? Given the obvious preference that many subscribers would have for a company offering the easier dialing plan, why would a national company like AT&T, MCI, or Covad (to name a few) even try to compete in your market, given the 7-digit-dialing rule in overlay areas? Such companies would face fewer obstacles to competitive entry and a greater potential for recovering costs (and eventually making a profit) elsewhere. For what it's worth, the area I live in (suburban MD) has had an overlay code for several years. We have to dial 10 digits for all local calls to either the old or the new code, as well as to local numbers in several surrounding area codes (such as DC and Northern VA). It's actually much less confusing than having to dial 7 for some and 10 for others, especially since DC permits dialing 10 or 1+10 digits for intra- NPA, local, intraLATA calls, even though there is no overlay there. I don't have to think about where a number in the local area is in relationship to where I'm calling from; I just dial 10 digits for most everything, even from work in DC. Also for what it's worth: Even though the overlay here has been in place for a few years, the ONLY numbers I have ever seen that are taken from the new NPA (240) that is overlaid on the 301 NPA here are for the county government and for Verizon employees' direct dial Centrex lines, even though both Verizon and competing companies are using NXX codes from 240. The VAST majority of numbers are still in the 301 code. If we had retained 7-digit dialing for local intra-NPA calls, any new entrant that could offer customers only numbers from the 240 NPA would die on the vine because of the differential in dialing. Michael D. Sullivan Bethesda, MD, USA (delete NOSPAM from address to mail me) ------------------------------ From: paulf@alum.mit.edu (Paul Friedman) Subject: L2TP Error 791 Connecting From Outside Date: 29 Sep 2003 17:35:42 -0700 Organization: http://groups.google.com/ We're trying to use L2TP/IPSec to get remote access for our users (it's more compatible with firewalls than PPTP seems to be), and are running to a bit of trouble connecting. Our setup: Win2003 server with RRAS configured to listen for L2TP connections (using SharedKey instead of certificates). WinXP clients with L2TP and the secret configured in their VPN connector. Firewall is a Linksys forwarding ports 500, 1701, 4500 (both TCP+UDP) The VPN connection works fine when the client is on the lan, but when it's outside the firewall I get "Error 791: The L2TP connection attempt failed because security policy for the connection was not found". From the logs, I can see that the IPSec tunnel is being created fine (the IKE works, etc.) Anyone out there seen this before? (or have an idea which security policy is missing?) Thanks greatly in advance. Paul ------------------------------ Date: Mon, 29 Sep 2003 23:07:12 -0400 From: Monty Solomon Subject: Disney's Pirate Fight Aliya Sternstein, 09.29.03, 5:15 PM ET NEW YORK - Movie piracy has scared the mouse house into beaming video rentals through the air. This week, The Walt Disney Co. (nyse: DIS - news - people ) launches MovieBeam, a new on-demand movie-rental service that transmits videos to the home television via a digital wireless signal and the existing broadcast spectrum. The technology streams new releases and classics from most major studios, minus Paramount, to the TV, independent of cable service. Current fare, such as Phone Booth and Gangs of New York, cost $4, plus a $7 monthly service fee and $30 activation fee in some markets. MovieBeam works like a malleable pay-per-view service. Subscribers choose from among 100 selections, hit play, get charged and then have 24 hours to stop, rewind, pause and fast-forward as much as they like. The movies are stored on a 160-gigabyte hard drive, which connects to the back of the TV and phone line. Present plans call for the limited service to reach homes in Jacksonville, Fla., Salt Lake City, and Spokane, Wash. A Disney representative says new markets will open by early 2004. MovieBeam is operated by Buena Vista Datacasting, a wholly owned Disney subsidiary. - http://finance.lycos.com/home/news/story.asp?story=35849615 ------------------------------ Date: Mon, 29 Sep 2003 12:01:45 EDT From: TELECOM Digest Editor Subject: Fall Share Day We are coming out of our summer vacation period and returning to our schools or jobs in earnest for another year. I need to hear from those of you who have not yet (or not recently) given financially to help keep this newsgroup going, spam and virus free for another year. The viruses keep rolling in heavily here; most days at least 100-200 of the 'Microsoft latest patch' things arrive, and I keep on shoveling them into the garbage bucket, along with the now seemingly innocuous and innocent (while still extremely ignorant and pornographic) spams which we *used to* complain about. The net has changed so much in the past couple years has it not? I am *hardly* the only person working to keep the net cleaned up and useful; there are lots of guys out there doing the very same thing in their own areas of expertise, many of whom make more valuable contributions than myself. There are many newsgroups and computer resources being devoted entirely to the several problems we face on the net these days. This note, the monthly Share Day message for October is intended for those of you who could do a little more more to help, financially. Maybe you do not have the expertise needed to write software, but you do have employment and can afford to give financially to help those of us who are sort of on the front lines in the battle to preserve the net. Please, sometime in the next day or three, please select your favorite newsgroup moderator and send a note of appreciation for what they are doing. If some or most of the readers of telecom choose *me* I will be greatly appreciative. If you can help with a financial gift that will be also appreciated. For gifts of fifty dollars or more, I will send you by return mail the two-CD set of the entire Telecom Archives. You can make your donation via credit card through PayPal if you desire using the donation template on the very bottom of our home page at http://telecom-digest.org or transfer money from any source through the same format. If you prefer to write using snailmail you can do that also by writing to Patrick Townson, Post Office Box 50, Independence, Kansas 67301-0050, and making any checks you wish to enclose payable to Patrick Townson/Telecom Digest. Thanks *very much* for your continued support and caring. 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. --------------------------------------------------------------- Finally, the Digest is funded by gifts from generous readers such as yourself who provide funding in amounts deemed appropriate. Your help is important and appreciated. A suggested donation of fifty dollars per year per reader is considered appropriate. See our address above. Please make at least a single donation to cover the cost of processing your name to the mailing list. If you donate at least fifty dollars per year we will send you our two-CD set of the entire Telecom Archives; this is every word published in this Digest since our beginning in 1981. All opinions expressed herein are deemed to be those of the author. Any organizations listed are for identification purposes only and messages should not be considered any official expression by the organization. End of TELECOM Digest V22 #677 ****************************** From editor@telecom-digest.org Tue Sep 30 13:09:54 2003 Received: (from ptownson@localhost) by massis.lcs.mit.edu (8.11.6p2/8.11.3) id h8UH9s114716; Tue, 30 Sep 2003 13:09:54 -0400 (EDT) Date: Tue, 30 Sep 2003 13:09:54 -0400 (EDT) From: editor@telecom-digest.org Message-Id: <200309301709.h8UH9s114716@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 #678 TELECOM Digest Tue, 30 Sep 2003 13:10:00 EDT Volume 22 : Issue 678 Inside This Issue: Editor: Patrick A. Townson and: Lisa Minter Editorial: Is Your Company Overlooking Errors On Phone Bills? (Auditel) Trienniel Review Order (Kaputnik) Verizon Starts Speedy Wireless Web Access (Monty Solomon) Tobacco & Free Speech? (temp7@thewolfden.org) Re: Disney's Pirate Fight (AES/newspost) Re: Evading the Do Not Call List (AES/newspost) Re: Two Federal Courts Block "Do-Not-Call" Registry (jmeissen) Re: Nokia Shakeup Raises Questions About CEO's Future (Henry) Re: Phone Companies in RI??? (COTTP) Re: Phone Companies in RI??? (Marcus Didius Falco) Re: F.C.C. Chief Talks of Frustration and Surprise (Sandeep) Re: ANI vs. CNID and "Privacy" (Mark J Cuccia) Re: News From Munich Palmsource (ppcdev) Re: 'To Cord, or Not to Cord' (Herb Stein) Re: What Happened to 951 Area Code? (Marcus Didius Falco) Fall Share Day; Can You Help? (TELECOM Digest Editor) All contents here are copyrighted by Patrick Townson and the individual writers/correspondents. Articles may be used in other journals or newsgroups, provided the writer's name and the Digest are included in the fair use quote. By using -any name or email address- included herein for -any- reason other than responding to an article herein, you agree to pay a hundred dollars to the recipients of the email. WE DO NOT PERMIT NAME/EMAIL ADDRESS HARVESTING FROM THIS JOURNAL. 'SALTED' EMAIL ADDRESSES APPEAR HEREIN TO VERIFY THIS. YOU GET SUED IN SMALL CLAIMS COURT IF YOU GET CAUGHT SPAMMING OR SENDING VIRUSES. DON'T DO IT. See the bottom of this issue for subscription and archive details and the name of our lawyer; other stuff of interest. ---------------------------------------------------------------------- Reply-To: From: auditel Subject: Editorial: Is Your Company Overlooking Errors On Phone Bills? Date: Fri, 26 Sep 2003 13:49:09 -0400 Orlando, Florida -- On July 31, 2003 USA Today published an article stating that telephone companies billing complaints jumped 65% over the past year, and most were from billing over charges and confusing invoices. Are you overwhelmed by telephone bills and contracts? Do you feel certain all telecom bills are correct? Do you have an accurate inventory of all your lines? Have your advertised lines been tested lately? Having late fees might mean that your AP Dept. is extremely busy and can't pay all the bills prior to the due date. Some bills may be set aside for review, and others may be held while the AP Rep. is trying to determine a bill's accuracy. They really can't identify tariff billing errors (through no fault of their own). Most corporations have a telecom department concentrating on service. Without them the telecom equipment failure and service outages would play havoc on the entire company. Auditel has found that many large corporations have a telecom department, but very few have a telecom billing department. Having a complete audit is like having a car washed versus having the car totally detailed. While the corner gas station can wash the outside of your car, to thoroughly clean it the way you would like it done, you either need to do it yourself, or consult a car detail professional. The same is true of an audit. While it may be more convenient to scan the "top" of the bills, the devil is in the details. Most companies don't take the extra time to do a complete and total audit, eliminating all the wastes. It is time consuming to consolidate bills, and to correct every billing error and tariff, but to do a thorough audit the entire process needs to be completed. Every mistake needs to be corrected. In our experience there have been very few firms with tariff trained auditors reviewing the telecom bills on a monthly basis. We recommend that every company have a telecom bill audit to review their telecom services and ensure each vendor's accuracy. An audit can be primarily based on telephone bills, or expanded to include the entire telecom department's billings, including frame relay, data, and wireless, etc. Don't forget your contracts need to be reviewed as well. If you have never had a telecom audit performed, or if you thought that all telecom audits were centered on long distance, you need to re-consider a tariff based analysis of all your telecom bills. Every company can benefit from having all their telecom contracts reviewed on an annual basis. Does your telephone company provide you with an updated inventory of all your phone lines? The detail information outlining your existing services is given to you by your phone company through a Customer Service Record (CSR). Some of these CSRs look like hieroglyphics. With a large corporation gaining information from all the phone companies is time consuming and can be a headache. If you need a detailed inventory which will encompass all of your locations this can be provided by full service auditing firm. Why the need for a detailed inventory? Your company needs to know what fees are associated with each line you own, and pay for monthly. Most importantly your customers need to be able to reach you! How often have you had each line tested for accuracy? Have you ever had your advertised lines tested to verify correct forwarding is in place? Checking where your lines are routing is very important since your customers can't reach you if your lines aren't working, or if your lines are forwarding to the wrong place. We want to make the industry aware that the telephone companies aren't out to intentionally overcharge them. Most companies don't have a trained billing auditor, and many have never had a detailed telecom audit. Why do your bills get overcharged? It normally happens by human error, or can occur when many people are placing orders and some are unsure of the correct way to place orders. Do you keep accurate records for all your telecom orders? If you don't keep detailed records then it will be difficult to prove any billing discrepancies. Let's say you cancel a phone line today. Tomorrow you dial the number and it gives a disconnect message. Do you go to the next bill and check it for accuracy? Does anyone in your company have time to monitor each and every bill that comes into your office on a monthly basis, and check for every order that was placed? Having the correct documentation equals a refund. What companies offer these auditing services? Most firms advertise on the internet, or in the local phone book. Many audit companies around the world perform telecom audits and each has their own spin. Some just audit the low hanging items and conduct an overview, while others do a deep cleaning audit. As with any business there are many who do a great job, and some that do as little as possible. It is up to you to do the research and find the company that best fits your individual needs. Choose a company that fits your budget. Some firms offer fee structures based on contingency fee basis, splitting the future savings and credits and refunds with you. While others, charge a fee based on the size of your audit. No matter which company you choose, make sure to contact their references, along with the Better Business Bureau for their area. If companies have had complaints they aren't likely to inform you. Are you interested in learning how to audit your own bills? If so we highly recommend a telecom workshop based training. These workshops are not seminars and these courses teach you how to actually audit telecom bills. Though there are many seminars available on the market today, most don't provide a process. You may leave the seminar with a wealth of information, but will throw your hands in the air when you actually try to conduct an audit. Locate a company with experience and contact references for the firm to fit your needs. Make sure the instructor has actual auditing experience. The experience you will get from a workshop will outweigh any seminar you may attend, saving you time and money in the long run. Make sure you are given auditing software to help you track your telecom inventory and to log all of your orders submitted to the various vendors. After you have completed a telecom audit you need to determine how to maintain your audit savings. If you don't have the time to learn tariff, and if you don't have the staff to audit your bills on a monthly basis, perhaps you should consider outsourcing your telecom project. Many companies provide outsourcing to those in need of a telecom project completed, or a monthly audit to maintain their telecom bills. The size of your billings will determine how often you will need to have your bills reviewed. If your company spends more than $150,000 on a monthly basis, you should consider a monthly audit. If your company has mergers or acquisitions on a regular basis you will need a telecom audit to keep track of the inventory and an experienced auditor can pay for their services 20 times over. Would you like to have a lot of months where you could say "we are below budget?" The choice is yours. Telecom audit, outsourcing, or training each may be what your company needs to get a handle on your telecom spending. Auditel Inc. of Florida provides auditing for many corporations and government entities. Auditel provides telecom audits, training, and consulting. Learn the solutions to better control your companies telecom budget both now and for the future. Our training offers a long term solution to maintaining the quality of our audits for years to come. We tailor the courses to suit the needs of the individual. Whether a company wants to start their own telecommunications auditing business or just use our training to maintain an audit, Auditel Inc. of Florida has the training course to suit each training need. Auditel Telecom Workshops are now available to the Entrepreneur. For Additional Information, Please Contact: Barbara Clements Auditel Inc. Of Florida www.auditelinc.com 800-473-5655 auditel@earthlink.net ------------------------------ From: johnkaputnik@yahoo.com (Kaputnik) Subject: Trienniel Review Order Date: 30 Sep 2003 05:32:14 -0700 Organization: http://groups.google.com Can someone give me a primer, or point me in the direction of one, on the FCC's Trienniel Review Order? I am looking for a basic understanding of what it does and what it means for competition in the local market. Thanks. ------------------------------ Date: Tue, 30 Sep 2003 08:28:39 -0400 From: Monty Solomon Subject: Verizon Starts Speedy Wireless Web Access By BRUCE MEYERSON AP Business Writer NEW YORK (AP) -- Verizon Wireless is launching a faster generation of wireless Internet access in two cities, Washington and San Diego, promising download speeds between five and 10 times quicker than dial-up service and the typical cellular-based data connections currently available. The new service, which costs $79.99 per month and requires a special laptop card, is not as fast as a wireless data connection using the popular Wi-Fi technology. But it can provide coverage over a much wider area than Wi-Fi, whose current range is limited to about 300 feet. - http://finance.lycos.com/home/news/story.asp?story=35849225 ------------------------------ Date: Tue, 30 Sep 2003 09:13:54 -0500 From: temp7@thewolfden.org Subject: Tobacco & Free Speech? > ...the same company's public service ad in the > Sunday paper two weeks ago ... [had] at the top of the page the Surgeon > General told us about pregnant women and smoking. Why are they obligated > to do that? Isn't an imposition on their free speech? PAT] Because that's what they "agreed" to do (that word a simplification of a complex process involving court cases, arguments, forged research, lies, payoffs and medical issues) instead of having their product completely removed from the market. ------------------------------ From: AES/newspost Subject: Re: Disney's Pirate Fight Date: Tue, 30 Sep 2003 07:15:16 -0700 > NEW YORK - Movie piracy has scared the mouse house into beaming video > rentals through the air. This week, The Walt Disney Co. (nyse: DIS - > news - people ) launches MovieBeam, a new on-demand movie-rental > service that transmits videos to the home television via a digital > wireless signal and the existing broadcast spectrum. The technology > streams new releases and classics from most major studios, minus > Paramount, to the TV, independent of cable service. Current fare, such > as Phone Booth and Gangs of New York, cost $4, plus a $7 monthly > service fee and $30 activation fee in some markets. > MovieBeam works like a malleable pay-per-view service. Subscribers > choose from among 100 selections, hit play, get charged and then have > 24 hours to stop, rewind, pause and fast-forward as much as they > like. The movies are stored on a 160-gigabyte hard drive, which > connects to the back of the TV and phone line. Present plans call for > the limited service to reach homes in Jacksonville, Fla., Salt Lake > City, and Spokane, Wash. A Disney representative says new markets will > open by early 2004. MovieBeam is operated by Buena Vista Datacasting, > a wholly owned Disney subsidiary. Sounds like a pretty good service, but for several reasons my household thinks NetFlix is better, and will stick with it. ------------------------------ From: AES/newspost Subject: Re: Evading the Do Not Call List Date: Tue, 30 Sep 2003 07:21:51 -0700 In article , tom.horsley@att.net (Thomas A. Horsley) wrote: >> There is a very reasonable argument that banning commercial speech but >> permitting non-commercial speech via a do-not-call list is >> unconstitutional because the system is saying that the ability to > But there is a very simple solution for this as well: Re-write the law > so it bans pollsters, political fundraisers, and charities as well as > everything else. > What you want to bet Congress will leap into action and do another > re-write overnight to include those features? :-). Wouldn't want to bet on what Congress _will_ do in this case -- but would certainly make a bet that if they did ban religious, political and/or charitable calls, the Supremes would (and should) find this ban to be unconstitutional (not to mention unworkable). Requiring that any of these callers _identify_ themselves as such before you answer your phone, on the other hand -- the "666" idea -- might be much more constitutionally acceptable. ------------------------------ From: jmeissen@aracnet.com Subject: Re: Two Federal Courts Block "Do-Not-Call" Registry Date: 30 Sep 2003 15:46:45 GMT Organization: http://extra.newsguy.com In article , AES/newspost wrote: > In article , Herb Stein > wrote: >> ..... They do not, however, the right to use my equipment to say it. > Not trying at all to defend the TMs (telemarketers), just understand > their possible arguments. > As a start the wires up to your demarc aren't your equipment; they're > the telco's, and the telco is a public utility. The TMs, like anybody > else, can -- or at least should be able to -- send a legitimate signal > over the public part of the system, up to your demarc. Up to you -- > and entirely under your control, not the telcos -- to decide what you > do with the signals beyond that point. Wrong. The lines may be owned by the public utility, but I am paying for the use of those lines. The phone company charges me for the lines coming to the house, and their use, and not for anything inside the house. Since I'm paying for it, the telemarketer's use of it comes at MY expense. John Meissen jmeissen@aracnet.com ------------------------------ From: henry999@eircom.net (Henry) Subject: Re: Nokia Shakeup Raises Questions About CEO's Future Date: Tue, 30 Sep 2003 08:39:26 +0300 Organization: Elisa Internet customer Eric Friedebach wrote: > As it struggles for growth in the no-holds-barred mobile-phone market, > the Finnish company Nokia, the world's biggest cellphone manufacturer, > shook up its top management on Friday, spurring speculation that it > might be preparing to change its chief executive. > Nokia said its chief financial officer, Olli-Pekka Kallasvuo, 50, > would now lead its mobile-phones unit, which has in the past accounted > for the biggest share of the company's sales. Taking his place will be > Rick Simonson, 45, who has worked at Nokia since 2001 as head of > vendor financing. He is the first non-Finn to reach the company's > highest management echelon. Simonson was previously with Bank of > America for 15 years. Matti Alahuhta, 51, the current head of Nokia's > mobile-phones unit, will become the company's chief strategy officer. > The shake-up is the first in five years and comes as the company seeks > to reposition itself in the consumer mobile-phone industry, > particularly as the West becomes saturated with cellphone ownership. > http://www.forbes.com/2003/09/29/0929nokiapinnacor.html I'm not interested enough in this to go to the Forbes article, but I was struck by the 'spin' in the title of this posting. Jorma Ollila's future seems pretty clear -- he has already announced that he will be leaving within three years. Readers might want to look at the way the Helsinki Sanomat, Finland's most important newspaper, has reported these changes. (It's in English.) http://www.helsinki-hs.net/news.asp?id=20030929IE1 'Restructuring', or 'shakeup'? Or is it only semantics? Cheers, Henry ------------------------------ From: COTTP Subject: Re: Phone Companies in RI??? Organization: Children of the Tea Party Date: Tue, 30 Sep 2003 01:28:25 -0500 In article , johnkaputnik@yahoo.com says: > Does anyone know what phone companies provide residential and/or > business service in RI?? I need to know. Or maybe someone can tell > me how to find out. Thanks. Your choices (list includes wire and wireless carriers) are: Company: VERIZON NEW ENGLAND INC. OCN: 9102 Company: SPRINT SPECTRUM L.P. OCN: 6664 Company: GLOBAL NAPS, INC. - RI OCN: 4357 Company: NETWORK SERVICES LLC (TSR) OCN: 6483 Company: OMNIPOINT COMMUNICATIONS MB OPERATIONS, LLC OCN: 6889 Company: COX RHODE ISLAND TELCOM INC OCN: 8778 Company: NECLEC, LLC OCN: 4580 Company: AT&T LOCAL OCN: 7421 Company: NET2000 COMMUNICATION SERVICES, INC. - RI OCN: 3780 Company: CONVERSENT COMMUNICATIOS OF RHODE ISLAND, LLC OCN: 4054 Company: ARCH WIRELESS HOLDINGS, INC. OCN: 6630 Company: CHOICE ONE COMMUNICATIONS OF RHODE ISLAND, INC. OCN: 4957 Company: AT&T WIRELESS SERVICES, INC. OCN: 6010 Company: KMC TELECOM V, INC.-RI OCN: 3123 Company: BROOKS FIBER COMMUNICATIONS - RHODE ISLAND OCN: 7231 Company: BROADVIEW NETWORKS, INC. - RI OCN: 9248 Company: TELEPORT COMMUNICATIONS GROUP - RI OCN: 7351 Company: SPRINT COMMUNICATIONS COMPANY, L.P. - RI OCN: 8740 Company: NEXTEL COMMUNICATIONS OCN: 6232 Company: CTC COMMUNICATIONS - RI OCN: 3460 Company: CELLCO PARTNERSHIP DBA VERIZON WIRELESS - RI OCN: 6389 Company: SOUTHWESTERN BELL MOBILE SYSTEMS, LLC - IL OCN: 6534 Company: RNK, INC. DBA RNK TELECOM - RI OCN: 2994 Company: CCCRI, INC. DBA TOTAL CONNECT! - RI OCN: 4159 Company: RNK, INC. OCN: 8700 Company: LEVEL 3 COMMUNICATIONS - RI OCN: 4016 Company: ICG TELECOM GROUP, INC. - RI OCN: 227A Company: PAETEC COMMUNICATIONS, INC. - RI OCN: 4029 Company: PREFERRED NETWORKS, INC. OCN: 6539 Company: BROADVIEW NP ACQUISITION CORP. RI OCN: 4176 These can be found at: http://www.telcodata.us/index.html ------------------------------ Date: Tue, 30 Sep 2003 03:01:24 -0400 From: Marcus Didius Falco Subject: Re: Phone Companies in RI??? johnkaputnik@yahoo.com (Kaputnik) asked about Phone Companies in RI??? > Does anyone know what phone companies provide residential and/or > business service in RI?? I need to know. Or maybe someone can tell > me how to find out. > Thanks. There are on-line resources that let you look up this stuff (try a Google they're now near the airport). They know who is registered to provide service in the state. They may not know how active any particular company is in your area. ------------------------------ From: eventhelix@yahoo.com (Sandeep) Subject: Re: F.C.C. Chief Talks of Frustration and Surprise Date: 30 Sep 2003 03:37:41 -0700 Organization: http://groups.google.com Too bad. He was one person who was really trying to change things and maybe would have got the telecom industry out of its current state. Sandeep http://www.EventHelix.com/EventStudio EventStudio 2.0 - Generate Message Sequence Charts in PDF ------------------------------ Date: Tue, 30 Sep 2003 06:04:57 CDT From: Mark J Cuccia Subject: Re: ANI vs. CNID and "Privacy" Ken wrote: (snip) > MCI, on the other hand, at least with the Costco MCI calling card, > passes the caller's ID through to the call recipient, even if the > caller used *67. This is a little scary. What I think is happening here is that MCI is sending the ANI along and using *that* on the distant end as "Caller-ID". ANI can *not* be suppressed with 11-67 (*67). And I assume that to use this MCI/Costco prepaid calling-card, one first dials-up an 800 (or other toll-free '8yy') number to access the MCI prepaid card "platform". Since an 800 (8yy) number is involved, ANI is most certainly present. MCI unfortunately has things improperly configured to where non-suppressable with *67 ANI takes precedance over CID. I don't know about AT&T prepaid cards, if one attempts to use *67 before dialing the 800/8yy platform access number, but I know that most people who receive calls placed with most AT&T prepaid cards get a "generic" number with the area code being that of where the "platform" was located to handle the call, not the area code of where the caller was located. With *regular* AT&T OSPS-based (post-paid) calling card service, used with 800-CALL-ATT, or 800-321-0ATT, or 800-957-9000, or the foreign language 800 dialups, etc., *IF* SS7-based CID is present "end-to-end" (and there are cases where SS7 is not available between the originating switch and the AT&T 5E-OSPS platform, thus no CID available, "Out-of- Area") ... AT&T *IS* properly configured to allow/disallow final delivery of the calling number as CID data, based on whetehr or not one dialed *67 before dialing the 800-access number. However, when one dials *67 and then (say) 800-CALL-ATT, *ALL* calls placed during that "session" with 800-CALL-ATT will potentially be flagged as "private" or "blocked" on the called party's CID unit. You can *NOT* "switch-back-and-forth" between suprressed and available CID to the distant end on such "SEQUENCE CALLS" on that calling card session. If you have "mixed" formats of calls, you'll have to hang-up after each individual call attempt and redial the (say) 800-CALL-ATT number, with or without the *67 (11-67) prefix (or if the line is "default outgoing privacy suppression, with or without the *82 / 11-82 prefix to *ALLOW* delivery via CID), depending on what your choice is for each particular destination number. Offhand, I don't know how "regular" MCI (800-888-8000 and other 800 dialups) is configured, nor US-Sprint-LD (800-877-8000, 800-210-CARD, 800-FON-CALL, 800-2-SPRINT; Sprint-Canada 800-859-8888), nor how Bell Canada/etc. (800-555-1111) nor Telus-Canada/etc. (800-646-0000) configure their networks on whether or not one dialed *67 (or *82) before dialing the 800 card access number, as to whether or not all calls placed during that "session" (initial call and sequence calls) will allow or suppress delivery of the calling number. Mark J. Cuccia ------------------------------ From: ppcdev@hotmail.com (ppcdev) Subject: Re: News From Munich Palmsource Date: 30 Sep 2003 02:55:43 -0700 Organization: http://groups.google.com ppcdev@hotmail.com (ppcdev) wrote in message news:: > The Samsung Smartphones really seem to be good platforms in the > future, but actual releases bug quickly (10 seconds are enough to make > them bug). We hope that future releases will implement Palm OS 5 or 6, > with hi resolution screens. Actual samsungs have got big pixels, and > compared to nokia phones, they seem pretty poor. > Tapwave products are the revolution of this century; just see them > to see functions. ;) Sorry, at the time I wrote that, I didn't have time enough to go on ... here I continue :) So ... let's go on the news ... Samsung products seem to be a little bugged, but when their firmware will be fully well coded then seeing a small palmos powered smartphone will be a revolution for us all! let's wait for this time. Anyway, I think that the experience of a great company as Samsung is required for implementing palmos 4.x into smartphones. The Fossil watch is really a revolution! Palmos on your arm ;) the greatest thing I saw these last months! I had only seen this watch in magazines ... the only problem is the battery life that is approximately 3 or 4 hours. Navigating through menus with the 4 little buttons is funny. The screen is black & white. The icons are exactly the same as on all palmos powered platforms. Tapwave ... Tapwave ... The gaming revolution! I dont say that because I know them or whatever ... but it's really an objective view ;) I first saw this gaming platform on some papers around internet and there in munich palmsource. I must say that the graphics are really amazing : We can know have a Playstation 2 in our hands! Yes, I know, there's no DVD player, but it's got enough to make a little kid crazier than he already is about games ;) Tapwave menu is a 3D menu. You can go to left, to right, to up, to down, and one level under or one level upper ... The games are like on a bigger console, with pure graphics (16M colors) and a high resolution. It's PalmOS 5.x powered. Animating is amazing. It has also modules that can read videos. I saw Matrix on Tapwave (a little scene) and it's great! Just see it to like it and get it ;) It'll be sold in Europe at approximatively 2004. PalmOS 6 ! Very soon out ... But many informations are confidential. I'll wait for them to be not confidential anymore to make a newsletter about it ... do you think it's a good idea ? See ya! Ppcdev@Hotmail.Com ------------------------------ From: Herb Stein Subject: Re: 'To Cord, or Not to Cord' Date: Mon, 29 Sep 2003 23:49:17 -0500 AES/newspost wrote in message news:telecom22.676.10@telecom-digest.org: > In article , Mark J Cuccia > wrote: >> I read the recent post here about cellular phones, landline-based >> "cordless" phones, and traditional corded phones on landline service, >> w/r/t natural disasters and power outages, etc. >> All of these phone services and consumer-end equipment each have their >> advantages and disadvantages when it comes to power outages and other >> disasters. >> -----(remainder snipped) ----- > This is a good and timelymessage, and I'd just like to add: > > 1) We (society in general) have a major need for good communications > especially in and after disasters. > 2) We won't get this from a pure free market. > 3) We have to use the power of government to require that our > communications services prepare, plan and build to provide reliable > service after disasters, and to punish them in a meaningful way if > they don't. (We also, of course, have to be prepared to pay the > additional costs of doing this -- though they're generally minor > overall.) And just what, exactly, has the Federal Government ever improved. I'll take my chances with free enterprise. Herb Stein The Herb Stein Group www.herbstein.com herb@herbstein.com 314 952-4601 ------------------------------ Date: Tue, 30 Sep 2003 03:11:20 -0400 From: Marcus Didius Falco Subject: Re: What Happened to 951 Area Code? Michael D. Sullivan wrote to ask Re: What Happened to 951 Area Code? > Also for what it's worth: Even though the overlay here has been in > place for a few years, the ONLY numbers I have ever seen that are > taken from the new NPA (240) that is overlaid on the 301 NPA here are > for the county government and for Verizon employees' direct dial > Centrex lines, even though both Verizon and competing companies are > using NXX codes from 240. The VAST majority of numbers are still in > the 301 code. If we had retained 7-digit dialing for local intra-NPA > calls, any new entrant that could offer customers only numbers from > the 240 NPA would die on the vine because of the differential in > dialing. In fact, within the last year I've had non-Verizon cell phones from two different carriers. Both had 240 area codes, and 301 was unavailable. On the other hand I've had two Verizon cell phones, both in the 301 area code (though 240 was available -- or 202 [DC} or any other reasonably local area code, but not 617 (Boston). > Michael D. Sullivan > Bethesda, MD, USA > (delete NOSPAM from address to mail me) How is that supposed to work? It doesn't leave a fully qualified address. ------------------------------ Date: Mon, 29 Sep 2003 12:01:45 EDT From: TELECOM Digest Editor Subject: Fall Share Day; Can You Help? We are coming out of our summer vacation period and returning to our schools or jobs in earnest for another year. I need to hear from those of you who have not yet (or not recently) given financially to help keep this newsgroup going, spam and virus free for another year. The viruses keep rolling in heavily here; most days at least 100-200 of the 'Microsoft latest patch' things arrive, and I keep on shoveling them into the garbage bucket, along with the now seemingly innocuous and innocent (while still extremely ignorant and pornographic) spams which we *used to* complain about. The net has changed so much in the past couple years has it not? I am *hardly* the only person working to keep the net cleaned up and useful; there are lots of guys out there doing the very same thing in their own areas of expertise, many of whom make more valuable contributions than myself. There are many newsgroups and computer resources being devoted entirely to the several problems we face on the net these days. This note, the monthly Share Day message for October is intended for those of you who could do a little more more to help, financially. Maybe you do not have the expertise needed to write software, but you do have employment and can afford to give financially to help those of us who are sort of on the front lines in the battle to preserve the net. Please, sometime in the next day or three, please select your favorite newsgroup moderator and send a note of appreciation for what they are doing. If some or most of the readers of telecom choose *me* I will be greatly appreciative. If you can help with a financial gift that will be also appreciated. For gifts of fifty dollars or more, I will send you by return mail the two-CD set of the entire Telecom Archives. You can make your donation via credit card through PayPal if you desire using the donation template on the very bottom of our home page at http://telecom-digest.org or transfer money from any source through the same format. If you prefer to write using snailmail you can do that also by writing to Patrick Townson, Post Office Box 50, Independence, Kansas 67301-0050, and making any checks you wish to enclose payable to Patrick Townson/Telecom Digest. Thanks *very much* for your continued support and caring. Patrick Townson ------------------------------ TELECOM Digest is an electronic journal devoted mostly but not exclusively to telecommunications topics. It is circulated anywhere there is email, in addition to various telecom forums on a variety of networks such as Compuserve and America On Line, and other forums. It is also gatewayed to Usenet where it appears as the moderated newsgroup 'comp.dcom.telecom'. TELECOM Digest is a not-for-profit, mostly non-commercial educational service offered to the Internet by Patrick Townson. All the contents of the Digest are compilation-copyrighted. You may reprint articles in some other media on an occasional basis, but please attribute my work and that of the original author. Contact information: Patrick Townson/TELECOM Digest Post Office Box 50 Independence, KS 67301 Phone: 620-330-6774 Fax 1: 775-255-9970 Fax 2: 775-306-8390 Fax 3: 775-642-0603 Fax 4: 530-309-7234 Email: editor@telecom-digest.org Subscribe: telecom-subscribe@telecom-digest.org Unsubscribe:telecom-unsubscribe@telecom-digest.org This Digest is the oldest continuing e-journal about telecomm- unications on the Internet, having been founded in August, 1981 and published continuously since then. Our archives are available for your review/research. We believe we are the second oldest e-zine/ mailing list on the internet in any category! URL information: http://telecom-digest.org Anonymous FTP: mirror.lcs.mit.edu/telecom-archives/archives/ (or use our mirror site: ftp.epix.net/pub/telecom-archives) Email <==> FTP: telecom-archives@telecom-digest.org Send a simple, one line note to that automated address for a help file on how to use the automatic retrieval system for archives files. You can get desired files in email. ************************************************************************* * TELECOM Digest is partially funded by a grant from * * Judith Oppenheimer, President of ICB Inc. and purveyor of accurate * * 800 & Dot Com News, Intelligence, Analysis, and Consulting. * * http://ICBTollFree.com, http://1800TheExpert.com * * Views expressed herein should not be construed as representing * * views of Judith Oppenheimer or ICB Inc. * ************************************************************************* ICB Toll Free News. Contact information is not sold, rented or leased. One click a day feeds a person a meal. Go to http://www.thehungersite.com Copyright 2003 ICB, Inc. and TELECOM Digest. All rights reserved. Our attorney is Bill Levant, of Blue Bell, PA. --------------------------------------------------------------- Finally, the Digest is funded by gifts from generous readers such as yourself who provide funding in amounts deemed appropriate. Your help is important and appreciated. A suggested donation of fifty dollars per year per reader is considered appropriate. See our address above. Please make at least a single donation to cover the cost of processing your name to the mailing list. If you donate at least fifty dollars per year we will send you our two-CD set of the entire Telecom Archives; this is every word published in this Digest since our beginning in 1981. All opinions expressed herein are deemed to be those of the author. Any organizations listed are for identification purposes only and messages should not be considered any official expression by the organization. End of TELECOM Digest V22 #678 ****************************** From editor@telecom-digest.org Tue Sep 30 21:24:52 2003 Received: (from ptownson@localhost) by massis.lcs.mit.edu (8.11.6p2/8.11.3) id h911OqA17909; Tue, 30 Sep 2003 21:24:52 -0400 (EDT) Date: Tue, 30 Sep 2003 21:24:52 -0400 (EDT) From: editor@telecom-digest.org Message-Id: <200310010124.h911OqA17909@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 #679 TELECOM Digest Tue, 30 Sep 2003 21:24:00 EDT Volume 22 : Issue 679 Inside This Issue: Editor: Patrick A. Townson and: Lisa Minter Re: Caller ID vs. *69 (Jay R. Ashworth) Re: NANP "Exhaust"? (Jay R. Ashworth) Re: Phone Companies in RI??? (Group Special Mobile) Re: Verizon Repair (Jay R. Ashworth) Adventures In Dialing (Eric Friedebach) Re: Private Video Transmission (Jay R. Ashworth) Re: Evading the Do Not Call List (Daniel J McDonald) Re: Telco "Standards" and Canadian Postal Abbreviations (Jay R Ashworth) Re: 'To Cord, or Not to Cord' (Jay R. Ashworth) Re: A New Kind of Revolution in the Dorms of Dartmouth (Jay R. Ashworth) UCLA Extension Offers Communications Engineering Short Courses (bgoodin) Re: Cable, Phone and Internet in a Single Box (Paul A Lee) Re: Wireless (and Landline) Portability (Jay R. Ashworth) Re: F.C.C. Chief Talks of Frustration and Surprise (Me) Fall Share Day (TELECOM Digest Editor) All contents here are copyrighted by Patrick Townson and the individual writers/correspondents. Articles may be used in other journals or newsgroups, provided the writer's name and the Digest are included in the fair use quote. By using -any name or email address- included herein for -any- reason other than responding to an article herein, you agree to pay a hundred dollars to the recipients of the email. WE DO NOT PERMIT NAME/EMAIL ADDRESS HARVESTING FROM THIS JOURNAL. 'SALTED' EMAIL ADDRESSES APPEAR HEREIN TO VERIFY THIS. YOU GET SUED IN SMALL CLAIMS COURT IF YOU GET CAUGHT SPAMMING OR SENDING VIRUSES. DON'T DO IT. See the bottom of this issue for subscription and archive details and the name of our lawyer; other stuff of interest. ---------------------------------------------------------------------- From: Jay R. Ashworth Subject: Re: Caller ID vs. *69 Reply-To: jra@baylink.com Date: Tue, 30 Sep 2003 16:32:34 GMT Organization: RoadRunner - Central Florida Stanley settled back into the couch, and John David Galt said to him: > If callee's switch is a PBX, the CID info can be captured there even > if the privacy flag is set. I had the impression this was illegal, > but it is technically possible. To clarify even further: if the CNID is sent with the privacy flag set, and the callee has an ISDN connected PBX -- the terminating End Office is *supposed* not to send the CNID down the trunks (by regulation), but may do it anyway, if it's misconfigured. I would personally suspect DMS-100's, which used to have the same problem the other direction (they allowed ISDNPBX's to *inject* bogus CNID on outgoing calls, and didn't filter it). 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: NANP "Exhaust"? Reply-To: jra@baylink.com Date: Tue, 30 Sep 2003 16:34:00 GMT Organization: RoadRunner - Central Florida Stanley settled back into the couch, and Mark J Cuccia said to him: > In the continuing soapy/sudzy serialized story here in TELECOM Digest > regarding the postponed relief of NPA 909 in southern California > (with 951 to split off), Jay R. Ashworth (jra@baylink.com) wrote: >> 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. > Well, I dunno about 2010 ... even a few years back when it was claimed > 2007, I thought that was WAY too shortsighted ... [ And then Mark quoted ] > Larry wrote: >> ... is anyone aware of any fundamental reorganization of the >> numbering system before we run out of area codes altogether? At this >> rate of area code growth, it's looking like that will happen sooner >> rather than later. > Actually, with more porting of numbers now possible (including cellular/ > wireless numbers later this year), initial assignments of numbering/code > resources down to the "thousands" level of the -xxxx line-numbers instead > of initial assignments of an entire NPA-NXX c.o.code (of all ten > thousands), and with the change in the economy and overall oversaturation > of "fly-by-night" telcos that happened over the past 2-3 years, there is > actually a DOWNTURN in the number of area codes and other numbering/code > resources requested. The NANPA has actually projected "exhaust" of the > area code format further out, now in the 2030 to 2050 time-frame, which > was the projection made back during 1990-95. > So, *IF* the NANP format of ten-digits in the NXX-NXX-xxxx format is > going to "exhaust", it is now back to *LATER* than sooner! :-) Mark knows better than I do; I retract my certainty. :-) 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: Group Special Mobile Subject: Re: Phone Companies in RI??? Date: Tue, 30 Sep 2003 09:36:25 -0700 Organization: Posted via Supernews, http://www.supernews.com Reply-To: look@signature_for_reply_instructions On 29 Sep 2003 13:59:34 -0700, johnkaputnik@yahoo.com (Kaputnik) wrote: > Does anyone know what phone companies provide residential and/or > business service in RI?? I need to know. Or maybe someone can tell > me how to find out. I don't know how you'd definitively determine who was residential and who was business, but you could go to http://www.nanpa.com or http://telcodata.us To send an email reply send to GSMthemobilestandard (@) yahoo.com ------------------------------ From: Jay R. Ashworth Subject: Re: Verizon Repair Reply-To: jra@baylink.com Date: Tue, 30 Sep 2003 16:36:26 GMT Organization: RoadRunner - Central Florida Stanley settled back into the couch, and Cryderman, Charles said to him: >> Can you provide case citations wherein this theory has been >> successfully used? I know they're a little less stringent in Small >> Clams, but ... > The actual case I can not cite, it was in Michigan and some lawyer had > just moved into a new home and had scheduled for Ameritech (now SBC) > and the cable company in her area for service installation. Nether > company showed up on the day scheduled. Sue, first sent each a bill > ($100 per hour I think). Both refused to pay her so she took them to > court. Both ended up paying $800 as well as her attorney fees and > court cost. I believe they each ended up paying well over a grand. The > reason she was able to do this is because both companies have in their > policies the requirement that if the customer is not available during > a call out the customer has to pay for a service call. Her stance with > the court was that if they can charge for the customer not being > available then the customer should also have the right if they miss a > scheduled appointment. I agree with her position. So do I ... but that sounds like it's a result of the *contract*, rather than an interpretation of civil law... Plus, she was a professional, who commonly billed her services directly, at retail, by the hour, rather than being an "employee" (though perhaps she worked for a law firm). 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: Eric Friedebach Subject: Adventures In Dialing Date: Tue, 30 Sep 2003 11:45:45 -0500 Organization: LeAnn Rimes/Busta Rhymes; Know the Difference Arik Hesseldahl, 09.30.03, Forbes.com NEW YORK - There's a reason that Nokia, the Finnish company with a flair for the design and marketing of mobile phones, is the market juggernaut that it is. It knows how to grab eyeballs. Nokia, more than any other company in the mobile-phone business, has turned what used to be an uncommon purchase made maybe once every three or four years into an impulse buy. When teenagers around the world started gabbing into brightly colored wireless phones in the late 1990s, more often than not they were Nokia phones. The company figured out way ahead of everyone else that personalization -- the ability to make the phone look and sound the way the users want it to -- would help sell phones. But Nokia also unleashed the creative juices at other previously less-creative competitors. While Nokia once had the market cornered on the phones that could be described as "cute," the company now has to contend with Motorola, Sony Ericsson, the joint venture of Sony and Ericsson, Samsung and Siemens. Sure, it still leads the market by a wide margin, with a 40% share of the wireless phone business, followed by Motorola, a distant second with 19%. But the constant battle to stay ahead in the game to capture eyeballs and gasps of surprise seems to be taking its toll, as Nokia's wireless phone designs just keep getting weirder by the week. The latest example is the Nokia 7600. Shaped like some 1970s-era knickknack inspired by a day trip to a Bauhaus museum, it doesn't look like a phone at all. Practical isn't exactly a buzzword of the movement toward so-called fashion phones, and the 7600 is no exception. Forget dialing with one hand, you'll be lucky to remember where the numerical keys are located. http://www.forbes.com/2003/09/30/cx_ah_0930tentech.html Eric Friedebach ------------------------------ From: Jay R. Ashworth Subject: Re: Private Video Transmission Reply-To: jra@baylink.com Date: Tue, 30 Sep 2003 16:50:33 GMT Organization: RoadRunner - Central Florida Stanley settled back into the couch, and Tony Pelliccio said to him: > In article , dmckeon@ameritas.com > says: >> >> This story is set in Philadephia which has the 4th largest police >> force and boasts highly advanced IT architecture. Is anyone familiar >> enough with the Philadelphia PD to understand how this might play out >> differently there than in a smaller city? > PA has a system called JNet. Integrated among PD's, AG's, Courts, in > other words all the players in the justice community. Information is > delivered via wired and wireless connections, with platforms ranging > from mid-range systems to PDA's. > It is all a custom solution, it doesn't use HTE or IMC. That much I > know. > Here's the web site for Jnet: > http://www.pajnet.state.pa.us/pajnet/site/default.asp It might be a nice twist if your Bad Guy (PLEASE, don't call him a hacker) actually rode *on the cops* wireless network to send his stalker-cam signal. 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 ------------------------------ Subject: Re: Evading the Do Not Call List Organization: io.com From: djmcdona@fnord.io.com (Daniel J McDonald) Date: Tue, 30 Sep 2003 13:02:11 -0500 In article , AES/newspost wrote: > In article (Thomas A. Horsley) wrote: >>> There is a very reasonable argument that banning commercial speech but >>> permitting non-commercial speech via a do-not-call list is >>> unconstitutional because the system is saying that the ability to >> But there is a very simple solution for this as well: Re-write the law >> so it bans pollsters, political fundraisers, and charities as well as >> everything else. >> What you want to bet Congress will leap into action and do another >> re-write overnight to include those features? :-). > Wouldn't want to bet on what Congress _will_ do in this case -- but > would certainly make a bet that if they did ban religious, political > and/or charitable calls, the Supremes would (and should) find this ban > to be unconstitutional (not to mention unworkable). > Requiring that any of these callers _identify_ themselves as such > before you answer your phone, on the other hand -- the "666" idea -- > might be much more constitutionally acceptable. No, because that creates a barrier for competition. For example, I do a fair amount of grass-roots political activism. One thing that I do is call a bunch of people to get them to run for Precinct Chair -- but there is only a 3 month window each two years when I do that. That's a political call. I'm calling people who may or may not know me -- I put together lists of people who have voted regularly and attended a few local conventions -- and I'm asking them to give up time and talent. Now, let's say the law requires me to have a 666 prefix on my phone. How do I do that? Do I get a second line added for those three months? Do I have to get lines added for all of the people that I recruit to call other people? How can I rally my type of activists if I can't call people who are likely to believe the sames things that I do and encourage them to get involved in the process? That sounds to me more like a free speech issue than anything else. If there were a *code I could make before making the call, that wouldn't be a burden. But forcing me to buy a second line in order to make political phone calls would kill off grass-roots politics completely. Daniel J McDonald CCIE # 2495, CNX Visit my website: http://www.austinnetworkdesign.com ------------------------------ From: Jay R. Ashworth Subject: Re: Telco "Standards" and Canadian Postal Abbreviations Reply-To: jra@baylink.com Date: Tue, 30 Sep 2003 19:05:57 GMT Organization: RoadRunner - Central Florida Stanley settled back into the couch, and Mark J Cuccia said to him: > The first four characters identify the town/city. > The second two characters identify the state/province/country/island > (5th and 6th positions). > The next two characters identify the "building" where the switch or > network element is located (7th and 8th positions). > The final three characters identify the actual switching unit or other > network element (9th, 10th, 11th positions). Can you clarify how it might be that *every switch in my county* has a "building" of "XA": SGBHFLXA39H NGBHFLXA39H BAYUFLXA54F .... I thought it was sort of neat how GTE coded the NXX into the CLLI: it's the first two digits of the prime prefix on the switch, and whether it serves Half the prefixes in that block, or Full. Stanley settled back into the couch, and obsidian said to him: > An interesting insight. You mentioned that NL was assigned for the > Netherlands. > NL is also the asignment by ISO 3166-1 alpha-2 element for the > Netherlands. > A question here, does the CLLI code follow the ISO 3166 list or merely > borrow from it? Perhaps the NL was just a conicidence? It's likely that they based their list on it, but did not *specify it* as their official mapping; this isn't an uncommon approach. See 'DNS'. :-) 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: 'To Cord, or Not to Cord' Reply-To: jra@baylink.com Date: Tue, 30 Sep 2003 19:26:05 GMT Organization: RoadRunner - Central Florida Stanley settled back into the couch, and AES/newspost said to him: > In article , Mark J Cuccia > wrote: >> I read the recent post here about cellular phones, landline-based >> "cordless" phones, and traditional corded phones on landline service, >> w/r/t natural disasters and power outages, etc. >> All of these phone services and consumer-end equipment each have their >> advantages and disadvantages when it comes to power outages and other >> disasters. >> -----(remainder snipped) ----- > This is a good and timelymessage, and I'd just like to add: > 1) We (society in general) have a major need for good communications > especially in and after disasters. > 2) We won't get this from a pure free market. > 3) We have to use the power of government to require that our > communications services prepare, plan and build to provide reliable > service after disasters, and to punish them in a meaningful way if > they don't. (We also, of course, have to be prepared to pay the > additional costs of doing this -- though they're generally minor > overall.) It's there, it's just not there for *you*. :-) http://www.ncs.gov Stanley settled back into the couch, and Mark J Cuccia said to him: > I read the recent post here about cellular phones, landline-based > "cordless" phones, and traditional corded phones on landline service, > w/r/t natural disasters and power outages, etc. > All of these phone services and consumer-end equipment each have their > advantages and disadvantages when it comes to power outages and other > disasters. > The individual cellsites *do* need power but then again so do each and > every individual (landline or wireless-service) telephone central > office. The wireless telcos/providers are going to have to realize > and prepare *JUST* like the landline telcos have, to make certain that > all elements of their network have power, and backup, and some form of > restoration of battery or generator fuel, in the event of a somewhat > prolonged power outage. Yeah, but the problem here is one of scale. Pinellas County, FL, where I live, has about 15 or 20 CO's. It has, likely, cell towers numbering up near a thousand. It's *substantially* more difficult -- at least an order of magnitude, maybe two -- to provision long term emergency power for that many sites. > Even landline telcos now have to power various > "nodes" in their networks' local distribution loops outside of the > individual central office buildings. Some of these are various > digial-to-analog converters, but I don't know if all the power for > them is distributed directly by the telco, or on "commercial" AC power > at the site. I suspect that most RSU's run off commercial power at the physical location. > Also, with a plain-jane old relaible 500 set (or 2500 set), on a > landline loop from old Maw Bell, true you don't need to supply any of > your own additional (external) power, but in a disaster, what about > when the lines (loops) are blown down in wind or an earthquake, or a > tree falls on those loops. You lose your dialtone/service, but maybe > your cellular phone *DOES* continue to work all along if the wireless > provider keeps everything properly maintained, and also you keep your > own extra batteries charged up (as long as there's commercial AC power > to do so). Yeah, there are always tradeoffs. > As for cordless phones (on a "landline-based" loop), I also fail to > see why manufacturers really haven't come out with affordable > *battery powered BASE units* which will allow one to continue to > "talk" on the cordless handset (via landline loop service) when > there's no commercial AC power. They do. AT&T makes several models which will charge a spare pack in the base -- and run the base off that pack when the AC goes out. I believe other manufacturers do as well. > Dittos for (digital) answering machines. They have batteries in there > to "store" the digitally recorded outgoing greetings, time/day clock > info, incoming messages digitally recorded, etc. in case the AC power > goes out, but most of the ones I've seen won't "take" messages when > the AC power is out. Does actual operation of a *no moving parts > DIGITAL* answering machine *really* draw down on a battery *THAT* > much??? It shouldn't. But "charge management" is a difficult issue for civilians. ;-) > The "Luddite" philopsophy/lifestyle looks more and more appealing each and > every day! Shocked, I tell you. Cheers, -- jr 'PHONE/WRITE/WIRE/CABLE indeed' a 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: A New Kind of Revolution in the Dorms of Dartmouth Reply-To: jra@baylink.com Date: Tue, 30 Sep 2003 18:51:08 GMT Organization: RoadRunner - Central Florida Stanley settled back into the couch, and TELECOM Digest Editor noted in response to what Monty Solomon had originally noted from the NY Times and Al Gillis had commented on: >> [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] FWIW, my number one speculation for why this may not be working is that *it's precisely the sort of thing the NYT DOESN'T want people to do*. 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: bgoodin@unex.ucla.edu Subject: UCLA Extension Offers Communications Engineering Short Courses Date: Tue, 30 Sep 2003 11:55:38 -0700 Organization: University of California, Los Angeles Take Advantage of Fall Short Courses with UCLA Extension Increase your expertise this fall with UCLA Extension communications engineering short courses on the UCLA campus in Los Angeles. Extension's prestigious short courses run from two to five days, and provide cutting-edge information, taught by the world's leading experts. These courses should fill fast, but there's still time to sign up. Broadband Satellite Communications: Fixed and Mobile Delivery at Ku and Ka Bands October 13-15 Instructors: Bruce R. Elbert, MSEE, MBA, President, Application Technology Strategy, Inc. and Michael de la Chapelle, MSEE, Boeing Technology Fellow and Lead System Engineer, Connexion by Boeing Fee: $1,395. Adaptive Filters October 15-17 Instructor: Ali H. Sayed, Professor, Electrical Engineering Department, UCLA Fee: $1,395. Satellite Link Budget Training Using SatMaster Pro Software October 16-17 Instructor: Bruce R. Elbert, MSEE, MBA, President, Application Technology Strategy, Inc. Fee: $1,095. Orthogonal Frequency Division Multiplexing (Discrete Multitone) October 16-17 Instructor: fred harris, MS, Cubic Signal Processing Chair Professor of Electrical and Computer Engineering, San Diego State University Fee: $1,095. Designing and Manufacturing Better Products Faster Using the Theory of Inventive Problem Solving (TRIZ) October 27-31 in Seattle, WA Instructor: Zinovy Roysen, Founder and President, TRIZ Consulting, Inc. Fee: $1,995. Wireless Sensor Networks and Their Tactical Applications November 12-14 Instructors: William J. Kaiser, PhD, Professor, Electrical Engineering Department, UCLA; William M. Merrill, PhD, Senior Development Engineer, Sensoria Corporation; Frederic Newberg, PhD, Senior Design Engineer, Sensoria Corporation; Greg Pottie, PhD, Professor, Electrical Engineering Department, UCLA; and Kathy Sohrabi, PhD, Senior Development Engineer, Sensoria Corporation Fee: $1,395. Communications Systems Using Digital Signal Processing November 17-21 Instructors: Bernard Sklar, PhD, President, Communications Engineering Services, and fred harris, MS, Cubic Signal Processing Chair Professor of Electrical and Computer Engineering, San Diego State University Fee: $1,995. UCLA Extension can also present short courses on-site at your workplace for your technical staff. For more information on custom-designed programs and on the dozens of engineering short courses we offer in a variety of fields, visit http://uclaextension.edu/shortcourses, e-mail shortcourses@uclaextension.edu, or call (310) 825-3344. ------------------------------ From: Paul A Lee Subject: Re: Cable, Phone and Internet in a Single Box Date: Tue, 30 Sep 2003 15:40:43 -0400 In TELECOM Digest V22 #666, gdebacker@windsweptsoftware.com (Greg DeBacker) wrote (in part): > All runs would terminate in the attic where I would have some > type hub system set up on one wall. Other respondents have advised Greg on the cabling and interconnection components. I would strongly advise _against_ installing any interconnection points or active electronics in the attic for two reasons: Temperature extremes typical in attics will kill the electronics. Depending on the construction and ventilation, the temperature in an attic can approach the lowest outdoor temperatures in winter. Depending on the construction, ventilation, roof finish, and orientation of the roof to the sun, the attic temperature can go as high as 170 degrees F in summer. Secondly, many attics do not afford ready access for maintenance or changes to the electronics or connections. Access may not be a problem in a 100-year-old house, but the temperature still can be. Make sure you fully assess the attic placement before deciding upon it, or you'll wind up with lots of cables going to the wrong place. Paul A Lee Voice: +1 717 730-8355 Sr Telecom Engineer [Voice & Transmission] Fax: +1 717 975-3789 Rite Aid Corporation, Telecomm, 30 Hunter Lane, Camp Hill, PA 17011-2410 ------------------------------ From: Jay R. Ashworth Subject: Re: Wireless (and Landline) Portability Reply-To: jra@baylink.com Date: Tue, 30 Sep 2003 19:45:48 GMT Organization: RoadRunner - Central Florida Stanley settled back into the couch, and Mark J Cuccia said to him: > But if the second case is true, regarding the slimy telemarketers ... > right now, if I'm not mistaken, telemarketers are prohibited by law > from calling "known" wireless numbers, usually baed on c.o.code prefix > (NPA-NXX), or sometimes down to the "thousdans" level, the NPA-NXX-'T' > part of the ten-digit number (NPA-NXX-Txxx). Telcordia-TRA sells a > product (a *subset* of the LERG) which identifies wireless numbering > ranges, specifically intended for telemarketers, so that they can > identify only those NPA-NXX-(T) ranges as wireless so as "not to call > numbers starting off that way". But if at some point, wireless and > landline numbers become "inter-portable" (which they will at some > point, either now in November, or some time in the future), then > telemarketers won't be able to identify wireless numbers "up > front". They "could" still (in theory) be held liable for placing > calls *to* cellular phones even though they might not "know" in > advance that the number *is* cellular. Conversely, if I have a > landline-based phone that was ported from wireless, I might be > "blessed" with not getting *any* (or at least "fewer") harrassing > calls from telemarketers because they don't "know" that this number is > now really a landline! :) Oh, this is *so* much better a reason why WLNP is bad ... > And also, even with being able to port wireless numbers amongs > wireless providers (whether or not this will initially be consolidated > with existing landline number porting), it still isn't going to be > easy and perfect when one does want to port. Don't many cellular > telcos require that your handset/wireless device be one "approved by > them" (i.e., purchased from them)? Some of this non-compatability has > to do with the type of wireless service technology in use by that > company (GSM, TDMA, CDMA, etc). But even with compatable technology, > some wireless providers still *demand* (require) that your mobile > phone be "approved" by them. They can "lock out" your use of their > network from your phone (that you now "own" but acquired under a > different provider previously) so that you "have" to now get *another* > phone (at cost) from *them*. Yeah, and WLNP ain't gonna solve *that* problem -- you can bring the number, but not the handset. > IMO, *THIS* type of anti-competitive / monopolisitc practice *AS WELL* > should be addressed by the FCC/FTC/DOJ/Congress/etc. I can understand > phones that are not capable of switching between different > technologies where if your phone is analog only, or TDMA-only, and > your new wireless provider is GSM-only, you'll have to get a new > GSM-type phone. But if you *have* an existing phone (from someone > else) that *IS* capable of working on that new provider's > network/technology, then there should be *NO* reason for them to > require/demand that you get yet *another* cellular handset/phone! It's a firmware issue. Think ISDN BRI. :-) > [TELECOM Digest Editor's Note: What about in cases like mine where > my home phone is 'delay call forwarded' (after three or four rings) > to my cellular phone. I suppose after three or four rings when the > caller hears the slightest pause in the ringing while the call is > taken away from my landline number and handed over to my cell phone > am intelligent person would realize he was being transferred to > some other number. But whoever accused telemarketers of having any > brains? PAT] Yeah, but this one's your responsibility, not the telemarketers. This is precisely the reason why I *hate* caller pays cellular, and hope it never flies in the US. 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 ------------------------------ Reply-To: Me From: Me Subject: Re: F.C.C. Chief Talks of Frustration and Surprise Date: Tue, 30 Sep 2003 22:05:51 GMT Me wrote in message news: > I could not disagree more. Rather than trying to change things > Michael Powel tried to bully his litigation ridden personal agenda > through the FCC. > The result is the FCC has rules in place artificially keeping the > natural market consolidation from occurring. Furthermore, Chairman > Powell had consistently sided with the big corporate interests > rather than the consumer and has fragmented what was left of any > order in the FCC by pushing the decisions he could not force through > committee to the states. This will do nothing but further muddy the > waters and keep people unemployed because investors can't make any > reasonable risk/benefit analysis. > Why is the criminal WorldCom/MCI still in business? Why have the > telecom captains of industry not been pursued to the fullest extent > of the law? Why are companies such as Adelphia and XO allowed to > stumble along? I thought the repubicrats wanted "free market" forces > to be the rule? > This is nothing but a field day for lawyers, and of course we all > know that Mr. Powell is a lawyer. The current regulatory cluster*uck > is entirely Mr. Powell's doing. > All in all I have a hard time believing Michael is any relation > what-so-ever to his famous and respected father. As far as I am > concerned as a steward for the FCC, he is a do-nothing failure a > whiner and he cannot be swept out of office too soon. > The legal profession probably has a different opinion of him. > "Sandeep" wrote in message > news:telecom22.678.11@telecom-digest.org: >> Too bad. He was one person who was really trying to change things and >> maybe would have got the telecom industry out of its current state. >> Sandeep >>> http://www.EventHelix.com/EventStudio >> EventStudio 2.0 - Generate Message Sequence Charts in PDF I could not disagree more. Rather than trying to change things Michael Powel tried to bully his litigation ridden personal agenda through the FCC. The result is the FCC has rules in place artificially keeping the natural market consolidation from occurring. Furthermore, Chairman Powell had consistently sided with the big corporate interests rather than the consumer and has fragmented what was left of any order in the FCC by pushing the decisions he could not force through committee to the states. This will do nothing but further muddy the waters and keep people unemployed because investors can't make any reasonable risk/benefit analysis. Why is the criminal WorldCom/MCI still in business? Why have the telecom captains of industry not been pursued to the fullest extent of the law? Why are companies such as Adelphia and XO allowed to stumble along? I thought the repubicrats wanted "free market" forces to be the rule? This is nothing but a field day for lawyers, and of course we all know that Mr. Powell is a lawyer. The current regulatory cluster*uck is entirely Mr. Powell's doing. All in all I have a hard time believing Michael is any relation what-so-ever to his famous and respected father. As far as I am concerned as a steward for the FCC, he is a do-nothing failure a whiner and he cannot be swept out of office too soon. The legal profession probably has a different opinion of him. ------------------------------ Date: Mon, 29 Sep 2003 12:01:45 EDT From: TELECOM Digest Editor Subject: Fall Share Day We are coming out of our summer vacation period and returning to our schools or jobs in earnest for another year. I need to hear from those of you who have not yet (or not recently) given financially to help keep this newsgroup going, spam and virus free for another year. The viruses keep rolling in heavily here; most days at least 100-200 of the 'Microsoft latest patch' things arrive, and I keep on shoveling them into the garbage bucket, along with the now seemingly innocuous and innocent (while still extremely ignorant and pornographic) spams which we *used to* complain about. The net has changed so much in the past couple years has it not? I am *hardly* the only person working to keep the net cleaned up and useful; there are lots of guys out there doing the very same thing in their own areas of expertise, many of whom make more valuable contributions than myself. There are many newsgroups and computer resources being devoted entirely to the several problems we face on the net these days. This note, the monthly Share Day message for October is intended for those of you who could do a little more more to help, financially. Maybe you do not have the expertise needed to write software, but you do have employment and can afford to give financially to help those of us who are sort of on the front lines in the battle to preserve the net. Please, sometime in the next day or three, please select your favorite newsgroup moderator and send a note of appreciation for what they are doing. If some or most of the readers of telecom choose *me* I will be greatly appreciative. If you can help with a financial gift that will be also appreciated. For gifts of fifty dollars or more, I will send you by return mail the two-CD set of the entire Telecom Archives. You can make your donation via credit card through PayPal if you desire using the donation template on the very bottom of our home page at http://telecom-digest.org or transfer money from any source through the same format. If you prefer to write using snailmail you can do that also by writing to Patrick Townson, Post Office Box 50, Independence, Kansas 67301-0050, and making any checks you wish to enclose payable to Patrick Townson/Telecom Digest. Thanks *very much* for your continued support and caring. Patrick Townson TELECOM Digest Editor ------------------------------ 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. --------------------------------------------------------------- Finally, the Digest is funded by gifts from generous readers such as yourself who provide funding in amounts deemed appropriate. Your help is important and appreciated. A suggested donation of fifty dollars per year per reader is considered appropriate. See our address above. Please make at least a single donation to cover the cost of processing your name to the mailing list. If you donate at least fifty dollars per year we will send you our two-CD set of the entire Telecom Archives; this is every word published in this Digest since our beginning in 1981. All opinions expressed herein are deemed to be those of the author. Any organizations listed are for identification purposes only and messages should not be considered any official expression by the organization. End of TELECOM Digest V22 #679 ****************************** From editor@telecom-digest.org Wed Oct 1 17:04:09 2003 Received: (from ptownson@localhost) by massis.lcs.mit.edu (8.11.6p2/8.11.3) id h91L49424041; Wed, 1 Oct 2003 17:04:09 -0400 (EDT) Date: Wed, 1 Oct 2003 17:04:09 -0400 (EDT) From: editor@telecom-digest.org Message-Id: <200310012104.h91L49424041@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 #680 TELECOM Digest Wed, 1 Oct 2003 17:02:00 EDT Volume 22 : Issue 680 Inside This Issue: Editor: Patrick A. Townson and: Lisa Minter Book Review: "Intrusion Signatures and Analysis" Northcutt (Rob Slade) Internet Spying (Monty Solomon) Re: A New Kind of Revolution in the Dorms of Dartmouth (John R. Levine) Some More Info on CLLI Code Assignments/Formats/Structures (Mark Cuccia) Re: Evading the Do Not Call List (AES/newspost) Re: Evading the Do Not Call List (temp7@thewolfden.org) Re: 'To Cord, or Not to Cord' (David Wolff) Re: Private Video Transmission (Tony Pelliccio) Re: Editorial: When it is Best to Outsource Telecom Details (Gail Hall) Re: What Happened to 951 Area Code? (Michael D. Sullivan) Re: Verizon Charges for Everything Lately (Ray Normandeau) Do Not Call List, HELP??? (MJLISENUF@aol.com) Verizon Repair (Charles Cryderman) Re: Server Based PBX vs. Standard PBX (Pete Harris) U.S. Telephone Sharing Case Moved to D.C. Court (Eric Friedebach) Natural Wireless Signs Agreement With Best Western Newark (Eworldwire) Three Sim Card Use on 2G Phones (crookie74@hotmail.com) Last Laugh! Blonds and Computers (Lisa Minter) Fall Share Day (TELECOM Digest Editor) All contents here are copyrighted by Patrick Townson and the individual writers/correspondents. Articles may be used in other journals or newsgroups, provided the writer's name and the Digest are included in the fair use quote. By using -any name or email address- included herein for -any- reason other than responding to an article herein, you agree to pay a hundred dollars to the recipients of the email. WE DO NOT PERMIT NAME/EMAIL ADDRESS HARVESTING FROM THIS JOURNAL. 'SALTED' EMAIL ADDRESSES APPEAR HEREIN TO VERIFY THIS. YOU GET SUED IN SMALL CLAIMS COURT IF YOU GET CAUGHT SPAMMING OR SENDING VIRUSES. DON'T DO IT. See the bottom of this issue for subscription and archive details and the name of our lawyer; other stuff of interest. ---------------------------------------------------------------------- From: Rob Slade Organization: Vancouver Institute for Research into User Date: Wed, 1 Oct 2003 07:54:59 -0800 Subject: Book Review: "Intrusion Signatures and Analysis", Stephen Northcutt BKINSIAN.RVW 20030831 "Intrusion Signatures and Analysis", Stephen Northcutt et al, 2001, 0-7357-1063-5, U$39.99/C$59.95/UK#30.99 %A Stephen Northcutt stephen@sans.org %A Mark Cooper %A Matt Fearnow %A Karen Frederick %C 201 W. 103rd Street, Indianapolis, IN 46290 %D 2001 %G 0-7357-1063-5 %I Macmillan Computer Publishing (MCP) %O U$39.99/C$59.95/UK#30.99 800-858-7674 info@mcp.com %O http://www.amazon.com/exec/obidos/ASIN/0735710635/robsladesinterne http://www.amazon.co.uk/exec/obidos/ASIN/0735710635/robsladesinte-21 %O http://www.amazon.ca/exec/obidos/ASIN/0735710635/robsladesin03-20 %P 408 p. %T "Intrusion Signatures and Analysis" Intrusion detection and network forensics are now vitally important topics in the security arena. An explanation of how to identify dangerous signatures, and extract evidence of an intrusion or attack from network logs, is something that most network administrators require. Unfortunately, while the idea is good, and badly needed, the execution, in the case of the current work, is seriously flawed. The introduction doesn't really specify a purpose or audience for this book. Mention is made of the GIAC (Global Incident Analysis Center, also seemingly referred to at times as the GCIA) certification, but no definition is given as to what this actually is. Chapter one presents a number of examples of network log entries and formats. The interpretation, though, concentrates on easily identifiable items such as IP addresses, and neglects components that are less well known. There seems to be some attempt to structure the descriptions, but it is unclear and confusing, as are a number of the illustrations and figures. Chapters three and four list a "top ten" of specific attacks, described down to a byte level, but not always in clear detail. Perimeter logs, such as those from firewalls and routers, are discussed in chapter six. Restraint in reaction to odd traffic is urged in chapter seven, particularly in light of the probability of address spoofing. Chapter eight outlines packets that indicate mapping scans, while nine does the same with searches that might be gathering system information. Denial of services attacks are reviewed in chapters ten and eleven, first with respect to attacks that attempt to exhaust specific resources, and then in regard to bandwidth consumption. Chapter twelve discusses trojan programs, concentrating on detection of unusual open ports. Miscellaneous exploits are listed in chapter thirteen, but since exploits are listed throughout the previous three chapters it is difficult to find a distinctive for this section. Fragmentation attacks are described in chapter fifteen. Chapter sixteen reports on some odd looking non-malicious packets, in warning against reacting to false positives. A grab bag of odd packets is listed in chapter seventeen. As should be evident from the description above, there is a good deal of valuable material in this book. Unfortunately, it is not easy to extract the useful bits. The book as a whole could use serious reorganization. While chapter one appears to be an introduction to the technical details, a far better explanation of packets and the import of various fields is given in chapter five, ostensibly on non- malicious or normal traffic, and this material should probably have been placed at the beginning of the manual. Chapter fourteen, almost at the end of the text, reviews buffer overflows, which are seen throughout the chapters preceding it. There is a slight attempt to explain the book in chapter two, but the content and organization is perplexing, there is heavy use of unilluminated insider jargon, and the presentation of example packets and subsequent conclusions without the middle step of identifying the items that make these data suspicious could be quite frustrating to the student. The new system administrator will not find the explanations clear or illuminating. The experienced professional will not find particular attacks or traffic types easy to find for reference. Both groups will find themselves flipping back and forth between sections of the book, or even between sections of the exegesis of one particular attack. However, both groups will likely be interested in the book anyway, simply because of the lack of other sources. copyright Robert M. Slade, 2003 BKINSIAN.RVW 20030831 ====================== (quote inserted randomly by Pegasus Mailer) rslade@vcn.bc.ca slade@victoria.tc.ca rslade@sun.soci.niu.edu People everywhere confuse what they read in newspapers with news. - A.J. Liebling http://victoria.tc.ca/techrev or http://sun.soci.niu.edu/~rslade ------------------------------ Reply-To: Monty Solomon From: Monty Solomon Subject: Internet Spying Date: Tue, 30 Sep 2003 21:14:01 -0400 The Connection Hosted by: Dick Gordon Show Originally Aired: 9/30/2003 If you think you are the only one reading your work email, think again. A new survey of major businesses shows most monitor their employees' email and internet access. That means your supervisor and the folks in the tech department could be reading everything you type, from that friendly email to your honey, to the help-wanted site you visited during lunch. Many companies tell employees that the computer is for business, but be honest, who hasn't emailed friends, checked the sports page or swapped the latest work gossip. And as most Americans spend more time at the office, it's getting harder to leave all personal business to after hours. Cyberspying at work. Who's reading what, why businesses say they have no choice, and why most people don't even know they are being watched. Guests Mark Rowe, Senior Research Associate, Center for Business Ethics at Bentley College Lewis Maltby, President, National Workrights Institute. http://www.theconnection.org/shows/2003/09/20030930_a_main.asp http://realserver.bu.edu:8080/ramgen/w/b/wbur/connection/audio/2003/09/con_0930a.rm ------------------------------ Date: 1 Oct 2003 01:39:05 -0000 From: johnl@iecc.com (John R. Levine) Subject: Re: A New Kind of Revolution in the Dorms of Dartmouth Organization: I.E.C.C., Trumansburg NY USA >> [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. Huh? I've been registered at the Times since nearly the day their site opened using a unique address, and I have never, ever gotten any mail to that address other than mail directly from the Times that I've asked for. I can't say that I've ever seen plausible reports of the Times leaking addresses to anyone else, either. > FWIW, my number one speculation for why this may not be working is > that *it's precisely the sort of thing the NYT DOESN'T want people > to do*. Why in the world would you want the Times to send password information anywhere except the address that registered an account? 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. ------------------------------ Date: Tue, 30 Sep 2003 21:11:30 -0500 (CDT) From: Mark J Cuccia Subject: Some More Info on CLLI Code Assignments/Formats/Structures This info on CLLI codes is *some* additional detail, but by NO MEANS the "complete" list of (current) rules/etc. on CLLI code assignments and structure ... Jay R. Ashworth wrote: > Can you clarify how it might be that *every switch in my county* has a > "building" of "XA": > SGBHFLXA39H > NGBHFLXA39H > BAYUFLXA54F In the "old" days (and most CLLIs or at least top-level CLLIs have a great deal of "legacy" aspects about them), the 2-character "building" code beginning with 'X' was "reserved" for non-Bell telcos in US jurisdictions, and non-TCTS-member telcos in Canada. The "building code" part could be 2-alphas or 2-numerics, but *NOT* a mixed alpha-num or num-alpha. *NOT* all of the independent telcos necessarily had building codes starting off with 'X', but *MOST* did use them. And the "popular convention" was to have the first (or "main") building in that city (town, location) served by an independent telco was to have 'XA', and then 'XB', etc. This wasn't always consistant neither where 'X' was used. This is now only "legacy", because the only "rule" that (still) applies to the encoding of "buildings" in CLLIs is that it be 2-alphas, OR 2-numerics, but *NOT* a mixed alpha-num nor num-alpha. (THAT is reserved for other types of network elements not inside a building, and it would be a complete 5-character form to fill out the remainder of the eleven character CLLI, as alpha-num-num-num-num-num, or num-alpha-alpha-alpha-alpha. > I thought it was sort of neat how GTE coded the NXX into the CLLI: > it's the first two digits of the prime prefix on the switch, and > whether it serves Half the prefixes in that block, or Full. Of course, that was "nice" because in the "old" days, it indicated the *range* of prefixes, usually in SxS switching offices. However, as that SXS switch was replaced, many telcos (incluing BOCs, such as some places of Southern/South Central Bell), retained that trailing three-characters of num-num-alpha (with some restrictions on what that final alpha could be, in this case of encoding a CLLI for a local central office). Some CLLIs used the actual three-numerics of the (first) c.o.code served by that c.o.switch. That's "nice" for small towns or switches in rural areas that will never have more than a single c.o.code. But when things become portable more-and-more, this format of num-num-num or num-num-alpha, based on the NXX c.o.code, will become meaningless, and even *misleading*! A better, and more *PREFERRED* method of encoding CLLIs for *local* c.o.switches, is "tecnology" or "service" based, i.e... -SG(char) for Step-by-Step (Selector Group) -MG(char) for Crossbar (Marker Group) -CG(char) for non-digital ESS (Control Group) -DS(char) for Digital ESS (Digital Switch) -RS(char) for Remote Switch -RL(char) for Remote Line (card) -PS(char) for Packet Switch -RP(char) for Remote Packet (switch) -CM(char) for Cellular/Mobile (switch) -VS(char) for Video Switch -OS(char) for Optical Switch -OL(char) for Optical Line (card) etc. And there are other formats of the "trailing three characters" to identify operator boards/positions, call distributors, toll or tandem switches, SS7 signaling nodes, etc ... Mark J. Cuccia mcuccia (at) tulane (dot) edu New Orleans LA USA AND, since this is a post about CLLIs, and I've had requests from time to time about my some things in my various old sig-lines, here it goes! NWORLASKDS0 (BellSouth #5ESS Cl.5 Local "Seabrook" 504-24x-) NWORLAIYCMx (BellSouth-Mobility MTSO NOL ?Ericsson Cellular -CM3?) NWORLAMT01T (BellSouth DMS-100 "Metairie" Tndm; Cellular routes thru) NWORLAMA0GT (BellSouth DMS-100/200 inTRA-LATA/fg.B-C-D Tndm "Main" 504+) NWORLAMA20T (BellSouth DMS-200 TOPS:inLATA Opr.Svc.Tndm "Main" 504+053+) NWORLAMA04T (AT&T #4ESS Class-2 Toll 060-T / 504-2T "Main" 504+) JCSNMSPS06T (AT&T #5ESS OSPS:Operator-Services-Tandem 601-0T 601+121) JCSNMSPS14T (AT&T #4ESS Class-3 Toll 040-T / 601-2T; OSPS routes thru) NWORLAELH01 (PBX NEC-2400 504: 862-3/8xxx 865-4/5/6xxx 314-2,7xxx) NWORLACADS0 (BellSo.DMS-100 Cl.5 Lcl "Carrollton" 504-86x-;PBX 'homes' on) ------------------------------ From: AES/newspost Subject: Re: Evading the Do Not Call List Date: Tue, 30 Sep 2003 19:11:45 -0700 In article , djmcdona@fnord.io.com (Daniel J McDonald) wrote: >> Requiring that any of these callers _identify_ themselves as such >> before you answer your phone, on the other hand -- the "666" idea -- >> might be much more constitutionally acceptable. > No, because that creates a barrier for competition. For example, I do > a fair amount of grass-roots political activism. (snip) > Now, let's say the law requires me to have a 666 prefix on my phone. > How do I do that? Do I get a second line added for those three > months? (snip) > If there were a *code I could make before making the call, that > wouldn't be a burden. But forcing me to buy a second line in order to > make political phone calls would kill off grass-roots politics > completely. You raise a reasonable point, and I don't have an immediate answer -- though if you were some wealthy individual hiring dozens of people to make thousands of calls on some political or ideological issue, I'd be a lot less sympathetic. One answer might be an exemption from the '666' requirement for anyone making less than X equivalent calls, where X is 50 or 100 or ???. Another might be your local telco providing a simple way for you to make '666' identified calls on a temporary basis and at a low cost -- it should be rocket science, technically. A third is for a lot of us to continue using answering machines and only picking up the calls we want -- which of course is bad for us, and bad for all the legitimate callers to us. ------------------------------ Date: Wed, 01 Oct 2003 02:13:00 -0500 From: temp7@thewolfden.org Subject: Re: Evading the Do Not Call List >> Requiring that any of these callers _identify_ themselves as such >> before you answer your phone, on the other hand -- the "666" idea -- >> might be much more constitutionally acceptable. > No, because that creates a barrier for competition. For example, I do a > fair amount of grass-roots political activism. One thing that I do is call > a bunch of people to get them to run for Precinct Chair -- but there is > only a 3 month window each two years when I do that. That's a political > call. I'm calling people who may or may not know me -- I put together > lists of people who have voted regularly and attended a few local > conventions -- and I'm asking them to give up time and talent. > Now, let's say the law requires me to have a 666 prefix on my > phone. How do I do that? Do I get a second line added for those > three months? Do I have to get lines added for all of the people > that I recruit to call other people? How can I rally my type of > activists if I can't call people who are likely to believe the sames > things that I do and encourage them to get involved in the process? Send a letter. You solicit *me* about that, and I'll put you in the same slot as the simian selling siding, as I find you to be synonymous to the slimy siding solicitation. And since its my phone, I don't care what you want any more than I care what the siding simp strives for. ------------------------------ From: dwolffxx@panix.com (David Wolff) Subject: Re: 'To Cord, or Not to Cord' Date: Wed, 1 Oct 2003 02:43:46 +0000 (UTC) Organization: Public Access Networks Corp. In article , Jay R. Ashworth wrote: > Stanley settled back into the couch, and AES/newspost > said to him: >> In article , Mark J Cuccia >> wrote: [major snippage -- attributions may have been *!@#ed] >> Also, with a plain-jane old relaible 500 set (or 2500 set), on a >> landline loop from old Maw Bell, true you don't need to supply any of >> your own additional (external) power, but in a disaster, what about >> when the lines (loops) are blown down in wind or an earthquake, or a >> tree falls on those loops. You lose your dialtone/service, but maybe >> your cellular phone *DOES* continue to work all along if the wireless >> provider keeps everything properly maintained, and also you keep your >> own extra batteries charged up (as long as there's commercial AC power >> to do so). > Yeah, there are always tradeoffs. Phone lines are somehow more robust than power lines. (I seem to remember that they are lighter, they tend to have more slack, and they don't necessarily die if they are lying on the street or entangled in a tree.) My experience during 18 years in my current town is that we've lost power at least a couple of dozen times, but we've never lost landline phone service. Last week we had three power failures during one thunderstormy afternoon... successfully called the power company each time (twice by 2500 set, once by cell phone). Thanks -- David Wolff (remove "xx" to reply) ------------------------------ From: Tony Pelliccio Subject: Re: Private Video Transmission Organization: The Ace Tomato and Cement Company Date: Tue, 30 Sep 2003 22:48:36 -0500 In article , jra@dorothy.baylink.com says: >> Here's the web site for Jnet: >> http://www.pajnet.state.pa.us/pajnet/site/default.asp > It might be a nice twist if your Bad Guy (PLEASE, don't call him a > hacker) actually rode *on the cops* wireless network to send his > stalker-cam signal. Good luck -- from what I remember of the session at the SEARCH conference it has some heavy duty encryption going on, employing the something you know, something you have and standard high bit count encryption. Come to think of it, somewhere in this pile o' crap I've got I probably have their whole presentation on a CD. ------------------------------ From: Gail M. Hall Subject: Re: Editorial: When it is Best to Outsource Telecom Details Date: Tue, 30 Sep 2003 23:28:56 -0400 Reply-To: gmhall@apk.net Pat, I wonder why you are letting this company's spam into the digest. I call it spam because it is commercial advertising in a group that does not usually like out-and-out advertising. Information? Yes. But this is an obvious ad. This was NOT just an "editorial"! It is an ad, pure and simple. An obvious clue is their posting another spam at the same time using a slightly different subject line (Message-ID: ) and different poster's name. Pat, maybe you should send them a bill for letting them advertise on your service. Add "Adv" to the beginning of the subject line so we, the readers, will know right away it's just an ad and can skip it if we want to skip the ads. On Fri, 26 Sep 2003 13:48:14 -0400, in comp.dcom.telecom message ID , auditel wrote: > Telecommunications Bill Auditing, Advantage? > By Greg Randolph > Auditing your telecommunications invoices may sound like a scary > proposition. Technology has changed and bills aren't simple to > analyze. However; with the large cost of these bills and tight > budgetary constraints affecting most large organizations, the benefits > can far outweigh the effort. By having your telecommunication bills > audited, you can gain several advantages over your competitors. OK, not a bad idea. We should all examine our bills to make sure they are correct. But does he leave it at that? No! He wants US to pay HIM money to do the job for us. > You gain Knowledge. The first clue is when he capitalizes "Knowledge" when it is not at the beginning of a sentence. That is marketspeak. [..... zapped .....] > You gain Control. Another capitalized word, a clue to marketspeak. > You can potentially gain MONEY! Wow! All caps! But we gain the money only if we subscribe to this company's service. This group has a lot of telecom professionals and other individuals who are just interested in telecom related subjects. This company's service is really aimed at businesses and organizations that have a lot of phone users and lines but who do not have the time to audit their bills properly. Do things right and put some ads in their newsletters or media that they will be using. If you want to market to doctors and hospitals, send them the ads or place ads in their professional publications. This is a discussion group. I would personally avoid using a company that violates the preferences of the group. Most people in this group do not like spam. I have seen similar information published in our daily newspaper as if it were interesting information for businesses. But the article was shorter, and they definitely did not use the marketspeak this person uses. The article would mention that so-and-so offers this service for a fee and maybe give a contact number. Of course, they will then quote the publication that had the articles as if this were something the publishers of the paper worked on. If an interview appears on TV, they'll tell us all "as appeared on ". Most of us know that the newspaper people or TV people just picked up on the news releases the companies send in to them. disappointed in Ohio USA ------------------------------ From: Michael D. Sullivan Subject: Re: What Happened to 951 Area Code? Date: Wed, 01 Oct 2003 04:13:00 GMT [This followup was posted to comp.dcom.telecom and a copy was sent to the cited author.] On Tue, 30 Sep 2003 03:11:20 -0400, Marcus Didius Falco posted the following to comp.dcom.telecom: >> Michael D. Sullivan >> Bethesda, MD, USA >> (delete NOSPAM from address to mail me) > How is that supposed to work? It doesn't leave a fully qualified address. I didn't update my signature file when I changed my disposable address from zyxM@..., munged as zyxNOSPAM@... to just plain nospam@..., due to (you guessed it) too much spam. Whether it's from spammers slurping the address from Usenet and deleting NOSPAM or from spammers getting the address through other means, I don't know. So now, for Usenet, I'm just going by nospam. Let them delete that!!! Michael D. Sullivan Bethesda, MD, USA Delete nospam from my address and it won't work. ------------------------------ From: rayta@msn.com (Ray Normandeau) Subject: Re: Verizon Charges for Everything Lately Date: 30 Sep 2003 21:35:28 -0700 Organization: http://groups.google.com Steven J Sobol wrote in message news:: > Alan Burkitt-Gray wrote: >>> Either way, I'm getting tired of their service and I intend to change >>> providers as soon as I can take my current number with me. >> I got rid of them in 1998. > No, you didn't. > There is no way you could have ditched Verizon Wireless in 1998; they > didn't exist back then. > My experiences as a VZW customer have been mostly good. Then WHATEVER THEY WERE CALLED at that time. Nynex, NynexMobile, Bell Atlantic ... My landline is Verizon TOO, I have had THEM since the 1960's when they were NY Telephone. You gonna tell me that they, Verizon, didn't exist back then I am sure. ------------------------------ From: MJLISENUF@aol.com Date: Wed, 1 Oct 2003 06:49:01 EDT Subject: Do Not Call List, HELP??? I own a very small business that does some telemarketing, I have no idea where to obtain a copy of the do not call list for my area. That is, by the way, the Chicago, IL. area. Northwest and Western suburbs. Any information that you you could provide would be greatly appreciated. Thanks in advance, Mike LaVarra ------------------------------ From: Charles Cryderman Subject: Verizon Repair Date: Wed, 1 Oct 2003 09:51:07 -0400 Jay R. Ashworth continues our conversation: > So do I ... but that sounds like it's a result of the *contract*, > rather than an interpretation of civil law... Plus, she was a > professional, who commonly billed her services directly, at retail, > by the hour, rather than being an "employee" (though perhaps she > worked for a law firm). Yes, it was a contract, a verbal contract to have her residential telephone and cable service installed. As to her profession, what difference that make? She could well have been a Office manager, assembly line worker or even a hooker. They had an oral agreement which the vendor didn't meet. Her time was wasted because of their error and she was fairly compensated. Worst comes to worst, the person (which I am ashamed to say I don't remember) that started this thread should at least try. The very worse is the courts would drop it but the press for it could start other actions against Verizon. The best they win. I wouldn't put it pass Verizon to settle just to keep it out of the papers. It is not like they are well loved as it is. Chip Cryderman ------------------------------ From: pete@bg.com (Pete Harris) Subject: Re: Server Based PBX vs. Standard PBX Date: 1 Oct 2003 08:13:24 -0700 Organization: http://groups.google.com Paul Robinson wrote > > Reject any server that runs Microsoft because there is no way they > can guarantee you "telco class" reliability, that is "three nines" > or 99.9% uptime. The original poster said he was looking to run a small call center. Why does he need all those 9's? Why does his phone server need to be have constraints beyond that of his data server? How useful are his phones going to be when his servers and/or network is down? Also, with respect to Microsoft (which usually doesn't get much respect from me!), systems built on Windows NT 4.0 SP6 with only necessary services enabled can run for months, maybe years, without problems. We have customers who have NEVER rebooted our NT-based fax modem servers. These run a complex multi-threaded networked application which sends and receives 24-48 faxes at the same time. It is probably more demanding than a soft PBX because voice (actually fax) data moves through it. What makes Windows unstable are its junky services, applications, and drivers. If you ran software like that on a Unix server, it would also become unstable very quickly. - Pete www.bg.com/qphone ------------------------------ From: Eric Friedebach Subject: U.S. Telephone Sharing Case Moved to D.C. Court Date: Wed, 1 Oct 2003 12:35:39 -0500 Organization: LeAnn Rimes/Busta Rhymes; Know the Difference WASHINGTON, Sept 30 (Reuters) - A federal appeals court in St. Louis on Tuesday agreed to transfer to a Washington court challenges of new rules for sharing local telephone networks and the deployment of new fiber networks. The Federal Communications Commission recently released new regulations requiring the dominant carriers to continue sharing for local voice service but freed them from sharing new fiber networks used for high-speed Internet services. Dominant local telephone carriers like BellSouth Corp. argue they should not have to continue sharing their networks with rivals at cut-rate prices while new local telephone carriers believe they should have access to the fiber networks for broadband services at a discount. That sparked challenges from both sides in multiple appeals courts, and the St. Louis court was assigned the case. The Bells requested it be transferred to the Washington court since it ruled on the matter previously. http://www.forbes.com/newswire/2003/09/30/rtr1095490.html Eric Friedebach ------------------------------ From: Eworldwire Subject: Natural Wireless Signs Agreement With Best Western At Newark Date: Wed, 1 Oct 2003 13:43:35 -0400 Natural Wireless Signs Multi-Year Agreement With The Best Western At Newark Airport West For Guest Wireless Internet Access. BeFree! Wireless System is Now Operational Throughout Entire Hotel NEW YORK/EWORLDWIRE/Oct. 1, 2003 --- Natural Wireless (www.naturalwireless.com) today announced that it is has signed a multi-year agreement in August to provide Wireless High Speed Internet Access with the owners of the Best Western at Newark Airport West located at 101 International Drive in Newark, New Jersey. The award winning Best Western at Newark Airport West signed an agreement for Natural Wireless' BeFree! Program. In this program, Natural Wireless designs, installs, manages and owns the Wi-Fi Zone compliant network installed throughout the hotel. In return, the hotel makes minimum monthly payments and both companies share in the revenues from the sale of wireless high speed Internet access sold throughout and from the property. Additionally, Natural Wireless provides hotel management and staff with high-speed Internet access at no additional charge. With this program, each guest is provided with 5 minutes of FREE High Speed Internet Access from a PC based Internet station located in the lobby for each guest day they are at the hotel. Additional access can be purchased in 15 minute, 30 minute and 24-hour periods. Group access is also available for conference room use. "I was very impressed how quickly and professionally Natural Wireless was able to get the wireless system up and running in my hotel. Within several weeks of signing the agreement, wireless access was available throughout the hotel and to my staff," said Ravi Patel, General Manager and Owner of the Best Western at Newark Airport West. "Being near Newark Airport, we run a busy operation. Natural Wireless' professional team got us running quickly and without disruptions to my guests. My staff and I also found their Web based management system to be very easy to use and the team at Natural Wireless has gone out of their way to accommodate our requests. I also found their support to be outstanding which is especially important with this type of system," added Mr. Patel. Natural Wireless has installed a Wi-Fi Zone(TM) (www.wi-fizone.org) compliant wireless access system. Wi-Fi compatible/IEEE 802.11 compliant access points have been deployed throughout the 6-story structure that enables wireless access in all guest rooms, lobby, dining areas and conference rooms. This ensures the hotel and guests that Wi-Fi compliant wireless cards, computers (including computers with Intel's - NASDAQ:INTC - Centrino(TM) Mobile technology) and wireless Personal Digital Assistants (PDA) will readily work at the Best Western at Newark Airport West. Natural Wireless also deployed an access gateway from Nomadix to ensure customers have the most successful experience when accessing the Internet. About the Best Western at Newark Airport West The Best Western at Newark Airport West is located at 101 International Drive in Newark, New Jersey, just ž mile west of Newark International Airport, one of the busiest airports in the world. The Best Western at Newark Airport offers complimentary 24-hour airport shuttle service, oversized guest rooms, 27" TVs in every room and now Wireless High Speed Internet Access throughout the property. The hotel also offers 24-hour shuttle service to Newark Penn Station where guests can catch a quick 10-minute train ride into New York City. The hotel can be reached at http://www.bwnewark.com or by telephone at 973-621-6200 or 1-877-442-0992. About Natural Wireless, LLC Natural Wireless, LLC designs and delivers advanced wireless systems and solutions. The company provides real time wireless solutions to hotels, enterprises and other commercial organizations. Natural Wireless is an approved participant of the Wi-Fi Zone Program (www.wi-fizone.org), an approved Nomadix Partner (www.nomadix.com) and a distributor of Senao Wi-Fi approved equipment. Natural Wireless is led by Mr. Ralph Hayon, the company's founder and CEO, a successful and experienced entrepreneur with over 19 years of experience in managing and operating technology companies. Mr. Hayon is the former CEO of congruency, a Voice Over IP company he founded in 1998 that he successfully merged with Telrad Tenecs in 2002 to form Telrad Connegy. Natural Wireless is located at 52 Forest Avenue, Paramus New Jersey and can be reached at 201-712-0531. Additional information on Natural Wireless can be found at www.naturalwireless.com. For Press Information: Ralph Hayon Natural Wireless Email: ralph@naturalwireless.com Phone: 201-712-0531 HTML: http://newsroom.eworldwire.com/wr/100103/1750.htm PDF: http://newsroom.eworldwire.com/pdf/100103/1750.pdf ONLINE NEWSROOM: http://newsroom.eworldwire.com/1792.htm LOGO: http://newsroom.eworldwire.com/1792.htm CONTACT: Ralph Hayon Natural Wireless 52 Forest Avenue Paramus, NJ 07652 PHONE. 201-712-0531 FAX. 201-664-4770 EMAIL: info@naturalwieless.com http://www.naturalwireless.com Copyright 2003 Eworldwire, All rights reserved. Press Relase Distribution By EWORLDWIRE http://www.eworldwire.com (973)252-6800. ------------------------------ From: crookie74@hotmail.com (crookie74@hotmail.com) Subject: Three SIM Card Use on 2G Phones Date: 1 Oct 2003 11:32:55 -0700 Organization: http://groups.google.com Is there a way I can make calls from from a non-Three phone (in the UK)but using Three sim card? I put the card in a Motorola V66 and it worked for a while but then went to a screen saying check sim. The people in the Three shop said that it is not supposed to work in non-Three phones but it will in some but it is pot luck. Does anyone know what phones it will work in as I dodn't want to carry a big phone, I just want the cheap calls. ------------------------------ From: Lisa Minter Subject: Last Laugh! Blonds and Computers Date: Wed, 1 Oct 2003 00:38:35 -0500 A blond girl enters a store that sells curtains. She tells the salesman: I would like to buy a pink curtain in the size of my computer screen. The surprised salesman replies: But, madam, computers do not have curtains ... And the blond says: Well my boyfriend bought me a computer which has Windows! ------------------------------ Date: Mon, 29 Sep 2003 12:01:45 EDT From: TELECOM Digest Editor Subject: Fall Share Day; Please Respond Today! We are coming out of our summer vacation period and returning to our schools or jobs in earnest for another year. I need to hear from those of you who have not yet (or not recently) given financially to help keep this newsgroup going, spam and virus free for another year. The viruses keep rolling in heavily here; most days at least 100-200 of the 'Microsoft latest patch' things arrive, and I keep on shoveling them into the garbage bucket, along with the now seemingly innocuous and innocent (while still extremely ignorant and pornographic) spams which we *used to* complain about. The net has changed so much in the past couple years has it not? I am *hardly* the only person working to keep the net cleaned up and useful; there are lots of guys out there doing the very same thing in their own areas of expertise, many of whom make more valuable contributions than myself. There are many newsgroups and computer resources being devoted entirely to the several problems we face on the net these days. This note, the monthly Share Day message for October is intended for those of you who could do a little more more to help, financially. Maybe you do not have the expertise needed to write software, but you do have employment and can afford to give financially to help those of us who are sort of on the front lines in the battle to preserve the net. Please, sometime in the next day or three, please select your favorite newsgroup moderator and send a note of appreciation for what they are doing. If some or most of the readers of telecom choose *me* I will be greatly appreciative. If you can help with a financial gift that will be also appreciated. For gifts of fifty dollars or more, I will send you by return mail the two-CD set of the entire Telecom Archives. You can make your donation via credit card through PayPal if you desire using the donation template on the very bottom of our home page at http://telecom-digest.org or transfer money from any source through the same format. If you prefer to write using snailmail you can do that also by writing to Patrick Townson, Post Office Box 50, Independence, Kansas 67301-0050, and making any checks you wish to enclose payable to Patrick Townson/Telecom Digest. Thanks *very much* for your continued support and caring. Patrick Townson ------------------------------ TELECOM Digest is an electronic journal devoted mostly but not exclusively to telecommunications topics. It is circulated anywhere there is email, in addition to various telecom forums on a variety of networks such as Compuserve and America On Line, and other forums. It is also gatewayed to Usenet where it appears as the moderated newsgroup 'comp.dcom.telecom'. TELECOM Digest is a not-for-profit, mostly non-commercial educational service offered to the Internet by Patrick Townson. All the contents of the Digest are compilation-copyrighted. You may reprint articles in some other media on an occasional basis, but please attribute my work and that of the original author. Contact information: Patrick Townson/TELECOM Digest Post Office Box 50 Independence, KS 67301 Phone: 620-330-6774 Fax 1: 775-255-9970 Fax 2: 775-306-8390 Fax 3: 775-642-0603 Fax 4: 530-309-7234 Email: editor@telecom-digest.org Subscribe: telecom-subscribe@telecom-digest.org Unsubscribe:telecom-unsubscribe@telecom-digest.org This Digest is the oldest continuing e-journal about telecomm- unications on the Internet, having been founded in August, 1981 and published continuously since then. Our archives are available for your review/research. We believe we are the second oldest e-zine/ mailing list on the internet in any category! URL information: http://telecom-digest.org Anonymous FTP: mirror.lcs.mit.edu/telecom-archives/archives/ (or use our mirror site: ftp.epix.net/pub/telecom-archives) Email <==> FTP: telecom-archives@telecom-digest.org Send a simple, one line note to that automated address for a help file on how to use the automatic retrieval system for archives files. You can get desired files in email. ************************************************************************* * TELECOM Digest is partially funded by a grant from * * Judith Oppenheimer, President of ICB Inc. and purveyor of accurate * * 800 & Dot Com News, Intelligence, Analysis, and Consulting. * * http://ICBTollFree.com, http://1800TheExpert.com * * Views expressed herein should not be construed as representing * * views of Judith Oppenheimer or ICB Inc. * ************************************************************************* ICB Toll Free News. Contact information is not sold, rented or leased. One click a day feeds a person a meal. Go to http://www.thehungersite.com Copyright 2003 ICB, Inc. and TELECOM Digest. All rights reserved. Our attorney is Bill Levant, of Blue Bell, PA. --------------------------------------------------------------- Finally, the Digest is funded by gifts from generous readers such as yourself who provide funding in amounts deemed appropriate. Your help is important and appreciated. A suggested donation of fifty dollars per year per reader is considered appropriate. See our address above. Please make at least a single donation to cover the cost of processing your name to the mailing list. If you donate at least fifty dollars per year we will send you our two-CD set of the entire Telecom Archives; this is every word published in this Digest since our beginning in 1981. All opinions expressed herein are deemed to be those of the author. Any organizations listed are for identification purposes only and messages should not be considered any official expression by the organization. End of TELECOM Digest V22 #680 ****************************** From editor@telecom-digest.org Thu Oct 2 18:39:03 2003 Received: (from ptownson@localhost) by massis.lcs.mit.edu (8.11.6p2/8.11.3) id h92Md3Y02255; Thu, 2 Oct 2003 18:39:03 -0400 (EDT) Date: Thu, 2 Oct 2003 18:39:03 -0400 (EDT) From: editor@telecom-digest.org Message-Id: <200310022239.h92Md3Y02255@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 #681 TELECOM Digest Thu, 2 Oct 2003 18:39:00 EDT Volume 22 : Issue 681 Inside This Issue: Editor: Patrick A. Townson and: Lisa Minter PayPal Files Patent Lawsuit Vs. Bank One (Monty Solomon) Card Games/Should Buyers Beware of How Supermarkets Use (Monty Solomon) New DIRECWAY Broadband Satellite Terminal (Monty Solomon) Netflix Subscribers Rise 74 pct in 3rd Qtr (Monty Solomon) Yahoo, NY Atty General Settle Consumer Rights Case (Monty Solomon) Official: Hackers Have Broken Into GPRS Billing (Monty Solomon) Re: Internet Spying (Gail M. Hall) Re: 'To Cord, or Not to Cord' (Gail M. Hall) Fibre Optic or Wireless Connection Between Two FPGAs (Patrick Twomey) Re: Isabel and East Coast Conditions (Carl Moore) Overlooked Security Risk: the Telephone (The Old Bear) a-law to u-law (Andrew) Re: Do Not Call List, HELP??? (jared) Re: Do Not Call List, HELP??? (Paul A Lee) Re: Evading the Do Not Call List (Joey Lindstrom) Re: Verizon Charges for Everything Lately (Steven J Sobol) Re: Server Based PBX vs. Standard PBX (Tony Pelliccio) Re: Server Based PBX vs. Standard PBX (Ian) Telemarketers (Ally Hauptmann) Re: Wireless (and Landline) Portability (Robert Bonomi) 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, 1 Oct 2003 21:40:15 -0400 From: Monty Solomon Subject: PayPal Files Patent Lawsuit Vs. Bank One WILMINGTON, Del. (AP) -- PayPal Inc. has filed suit against Bank One Corp., alleging the bank's online bill payment system infringes on its patent for processing payments over the Internet. Bank One and PayPal, a unit of eBay Inc., have traded legal volleys before over rights to Web-based transaction processing systems. In the latest complaint filed Monday, PayPal says it informed Bank One in February of its patent on a process that allowed Internet users to make secure payments and authenticated transactions over a computer network, but the Chicago-based bank's online bill paying system still violates its patents. Meanwhile, PayPal has been defending itself against patent infringement allegations from Bank One's First USA Bank since September last year. - http://finance.lycos.com/home/news/story.asp?story=35890616 ------------------------------ Date: Wed, 1 Oct 2003 21:35:30 -0400 From: Monty Solomon Subject: Card Games / Should Buyers Beware of How Supermarkets Use Should Buyers Beware of How Supermarkets Use "Loyalty Cards" to Collect Personal Data? By Joab Jackson October 1 - October 7, 2003 http://www.citypaper.com/2003-10-01/feature.html ------------------------------ Date: Thu, 2 Oct 2003 01:17:29 -0400 From: Monty Solomon Subject: New DIRECWAY Broadband Satellite Terminal Model DW6000 features Ethernet LAN interface, self-hosting GERMANTOWN, Md., Sept. 30 /PRNewswire/ -- Hughes Network Systems, Inc. (HNS), the world's leading provider of broadband satellite solutions, today introduced the latest member of its family of DIRECWAY(R) broadband terminals, the DW6000. The DW6000 is self-hosting, thereby eliminating the requirement to install any special software on customers' computers and extending DIRECWAY service to Apple Macintosh(TM) PCs, beyond Windows(TM)-based systems. http://finance.lycos.com/qc/news/story.aspx?story=35857341 ------------------------------ Date: Wed, 1 Oct 2003 19:14:24 -0400 From: Monty Solomon Subject: Netflix Subscribers Rise 74 Pct in 3rd Qtr LOS ANGELES, Oct 1 (Reuters) - Online DVD renter Netflix Inc. on Wednesday said during the third-quarter it boosted subscribers by 74 percent even as it faced competition from retail heavyweights like Wal-Mart entering its business. Netflix, which plans to announce its third-quarter financial results Oct. 15, said it ended the quarter with 1.29 million subscribers, up from 742,000 at the end of third quarter 2002, and 13 percent ahead of its client base at the end of the second quarter, which numbered 1.14 million. - http://finance.lycos.com/home/news/story.asp?story=35890530 ------------------------------ Date: Thu, 2 Oct 2003 08:53:21 -0400 From: Monty Solomon Subject: Yahoo, NY Atty General Settle Consumer Rights Case SAN FRANCISCO, Oct 1 (Reuters) - Yahoo Inc. (NASDAQ:YHOO) on Wednesday said it would pay $75,000 as part of a settlement with the New York Attorney General's office concerning its marketing practices. Under the agreement, Yahoo will pay the costs of an investigation into marketing changes it made last year, clearly notify consumers of any marketing policy changes and allow them ample time to opt out of promotional lists. The settlement ends an investigation New York officials launched after Yahoo told registered users in March 2002 that it was changing its marketing policies. At that time, Yahoo told users they would receive marketing promotions within 60 days unless they went to a privacy preference page on the Web site and indicated that they did not want to receive marketing targeted for different interests. Previously, consumers signing up for a Yahoo account were simply asked to indicate whether or not they wanted to receive marketing. - http://finance.lycos.com/home/news/story.asp?story=35893020 ------------------------------ Date: Thu, 2 Oct 2003 16:40:32 -0400 From: Monty Solomon Subject: Official: Hackers Have Broken Into GPRS Billing By Guy Kewney Some time today, the GPRS world will reveal that it has a security vulnerability which has seen an undisclosed number of its customers ripped off. They've been trapped into connecting to malicious content servers, by hackers penetrating the billing system. The first international phone company to admit that they have installed a solution -- offered by Check Point -- will be the German phone provider, E-Plus. The scam is called "the over-billing attack." It works quite simply because of a link from the Internet world -- unregulated -- to the normally tightly regulated GSM planet. "Network administrators face an exponential onslaught of attacks that to date have traditionally been confined to the world of wire line data," was the summary from Check Point. There are lots of potential issues, but the one which has forced the phone networks to acknowledge that there is a problem, is a scam where a company obtains IP addresses that the GPRS operators own, in the "cellular pool" and start pinging those addresses. When one of them responds, the scam operator knows that a user has been assigned the address. And, unbelievably, there was nothing to stop them simply providing services direct to that IP address -- and taking the money out of the GPRS billing system to pay for it. http://www.newswireless.net/articles/031002-scam.html ------------------------------ From: Gail M. Hall Subject: Re: Internet Spying Date: Thu, 02 Oct 2003 04:36:18 -0400 Reply-To: gmhall@apk.net On Tue, 30 Sep 2003 21:14:01 -0400, in comp.dcom.telecom message , Monty Solomon wrote: > The Connection > Hosted by: Dick Gordon > Show Originally Aired: 9/30/2003 > If you think you are the only one reading your work email, think > again. A new survey of major businesses shows most monitor their > employees' email and internet access. That means your supervisor and > the folks in the tech department could be reading everything you type, > from that friendly email to your honey, to the help-wanted site you > visited during lunch. I don't have sympathy for anyone who overuses a work computer any more than I would sympathize with them using the work phone for personal calls when the company policy is to use the pay phones for personal calls. (I guess that tells you how long I've been retired. We had lots of pay phones where I worked. ) Internet service is not very expensive these days, so get your own account and do your surfing and personal emails at home. Companies do have a right to control how their equipment is used and how you use your time on the job. > Many companies tell employees that the computer is for business, but > be honest, who hasn't emailed friends, checked the sports page or > swapped the latest work gossip. That doesn't make it right. > And as most Americans spend more time > at the office, it's getting harder to leave all personal business to > after hours. Cyberspying at work. Who's reading what, why businesses > say they have no choice, and why most people don't even know they are > being watched. If people did their work during work time, maybe they wouldn't have to stay at work as long. Anyway, the right of businesses to monitor e-mail has been written about for a long enough time that most people should know that companies have a right to monitor what happens at their site. Companies should let their employees know their e-mail is likely to be monitored, though. With all the worms and viruses coming in these days, it takes only one employee clicking on one infected email to infect a whole company. Don't be surprised if companies start blocking a lot of email coming from domains belonging to companies they don't do business with. And people should not use work e-mail to gossip, especially about their boss or the company owners. That's worse than gossiping over the phone or in the lunch room. Gail in Ohio USA ------------------------------ From: Gail M. Hall Subject: Re: 'To Cord, or Not to Cord' Date: Thu, 02 Oct 2003 04:36:17 -0400 Reply-To: gmhall@apk.net On Wed, 1 Oct 2003 02:43:46 +0000 (UTC), in comp.dcom.telecom message , dwolffxx@panix.com (David Wolff) wrote: > In article , > Jay R. Ashworth wrote: >> Stanley settled back into the couch, and AES/newspost >> said to him: >>> In article , Mark J Cuccia >>> wrote: > [major snippage -- attributions may have been *!@#ed] >>> Also, with a plain-jane old relaible 500 set (or 2500 set), on a >>> landline loop from old Maw Bell, true you don't need to supply any of >>> your own additional (external) power, but in a disaster, what about >>> when the lines (loops) are blown down in wind or an earthquake, or a >>> tree falls on those loops. You lose your dialtone/service, but maybe >>> your cellular phone *DOES* continue to work all along if the wireless >>> provider keeps everything properly maintained, and also you keep your >>> own extra batteries charged up (as long as there's commercial AC power >>> to do so). >> Yeah, there are always tradeoffs. > Phone lines are somehow more robust than power lines. (I seem to > remember that they are lighter, they tend to have more slack, and they > don't necessarily die if they are lying on the street or entangled in > a tree.) My experience during 18 years in my current town is that > we've lost power at least a couple of dozen times, but we've never > lost landline phone service. Last week we had three power failures > during one thunderstormy afternoon... successfully called the power > company each time (twice by 2500 set, once by cell phone). We have quite a few trees in our neighborhood, and we have had some problems with phone lines. But it's not often -- rarely more than once every couple of years. Most of the time it's squirrels chewing the lines. In general, the repair person comes to fix the line within 24 hours. A few times we have gotten problems with water in the cables or the phone company goofs up a connection somewhere. Once a contractor digging where he shouldn't hit a phone cable and disconnected a bunch of us all at once. Again, they fix it within 24 hours most of the time. Electric power goes out a lot more often, usually for several hours and sometimes for several days. Our phone service still works when that happens. I am not ready to give up my landline! It's always nice if we can have alternatives for doing things just in case something happens to the main way. If it's the phone line going out, then maybe we can use a cel phone or a neighbor's phone. If the electricity goes out, some of us cook with gas. But a camp stove might be a good idea to have handy. Our most reliable utility here is natural gas. But maybe some day something will happen to that. So we will cook some other way. Gail in Ohio USA ------------------------------ From: patrickt@rennes.ucc.ie (Patrick Twomey) Subject: Fibre Optic or Wireless Connection Between Two FPGAs Date: 2 Oct 2003 03:42:53 -0700 Organization: http://groups.google.com I am trying to set up a system to communicate between two FPGAs (Field Programmable Gate Arrays) over the distance of about 5-8 m (from one end of a room to another). I am trying to do this either wirelessly or optically. The data to be sent currently has the following format of 32 bits wide and data clock of 10 MHz (i.e. data changes every 100 ns). So data rate required is 320 Mbps. This is very high and a wireless comms system would seem to be be impractical. I only need data to be sent in one direction. A basic fibre optic system seems ideal. Does anyone know of any products suitable for setting up such an optical system. ------------------------------ Date: Thu, 2 Oct 2003 10:32:43 EDT From: Carl Moore Subject: Re: Isabel and East Coast Conditions Sorry I did not see my name mentioned until just now. I live in North East, Maryland, which is about 45 miles up I-95 going from Baltimore toward the Delaware state line. Power was off for 23 hours (from about 11:10 PM Thursday 18 Sept to about 10:10 PM the next day), by far the most annoying part of this storm. (There was a storm in 1999 where I returned home early and where my power stayed on, because I think I saw at least one interesting actor credit in a show I watched at that time.) Back to Isabel: Phone and water service stayed on. In very late afternoon, I drove east to Delaware, passing through town of Elkton (Maryland), where the power was on; then going NE on the Newark-Elkton road, and finding darkness at the restaurants and truck stops at Md. 279/I-95 interchange, but power ON when I entered Delaware. Later I returned to Maryland, noticed spotty service as I headed past Perryville and Havre de Grace to Aberdeen, then after going to a still- open restaurant at Aberdeen, got back home to find my power back on, although my cable service was not yet up (was so within an hour?). ------------------------------ Date: Thu, 02 Oct 2003 14:54:56 -0400 From: The Old Bear Subject: Overlooked Security Risk: the Telephone As summarized in today's NewsScan for October 2, 2003: OVERLOOKED SECURITY RISK: THE TELEPHONE As corporate phone systems become increasingly complex and computerized, criminals are finding new ways to infiltrate company networks, and the problem becomes magnified as businesses turn to IP-based phone systems. "This is the first time that a computer virus can stop your telephones from working," says PricewaterhouseCoopers senior manager Mark Lobel. "There is a whole new class of attacks that can occur. The essence of the problem is that everyone is looking at this as a new technology for voice -- the way we're sending voice communications is absolutely new. But the data is still riding on the same infrastructure that was pounded by recent problems like SoBig." To counteract the threats, phone system administrators need to be much more vigilant about password management and may even consider locking out certain country codes. "In fact, you should probably consider the risk associated with VoIP systems to be as high as the threats to your organization's most sensitive data. If someone in your IT department gets paged when your firewall goes down, they should also be paged when 40 new voicemail boxes mysteriously appear on your IP system," says Lobel. source: E-Commerce Times (2 Oct 2003) http://www.ecommercetimes.com/perl/story/31731.html NewsScan Daily is a lively summary of information technology news and is distributed FREE via email to its subscribers. To receive NewsScan, send email to NewsScan@NewsScan.com and in the subject line type "subscribe". For more information, see the NewsScan web pages at http://www.NewsScan.com ------------------------------ From: Andrew Subject: a-law to u-law Date: Wed, 1 Oct 2003 21:48:18 UTC Organization: North Avenue Trade School What kind of results can one expect when connecting via modems over a phone line from Europe to the US? I would think that the a-law to u-law conversion might cause problems. Andrew Olechny | s/nats/gatech/g | Atlanta, Ga USA ------------------------------ Date: Wed, 01 Oct 2003 15:12:02 -0600 From: jared.NospaM@netspace.net.au (jared) Subject: Re: Do Not Call List, HELP??? http://donotcall.gov/FAQ/FAQBusiness.aspx is a good place to start. > I own a very small business that does some telemarketing, I have no > idea where to obtain a copy of the do not call list for my area. That > is, by the way, the Chicago, IL. area. Northwest and Western suburbs. > Any information that you you could provide would be greatly appreciated. > Thanks in advance, > Mike LaVarra ------------------------------ From: Paul A Lee Subject: Re: Do Not Call List, HELP??? Date: Wed, 1 Oct 2003 18:02:12 -0400 In TELECOM Digest V22 #680, MJLISENUF@aol.com wrote (in part): > I own a very small business that does some telemarketing, I have no > idea where to obtain a copy of the do not call list for my area. That > is, by the way, the Chicago, IL. area. Northwest and Western suburbs. The whole Do Not Call Registry enforcement process is still subject to court tests, but you can get information on the intended/contemplated procedures at: http://www.ftc.gov/bcp/conline/pubs/buspubs/tsrcomp.htm http://www.ftc.gov/bcp/conline/pubs/buspubs/tsrcomp.htm#qanda http://www.ftc.gov/bcp/conline/pubs/buspubs/tsrcomp.htm#smallhome http://www.donotcall.gov/FAQ/FAQBusiness.aspx You should be able to register for web access to the Do Not Call Registry information for up to 5 area codes at no cost. The FTC links above will get you to the details on signing up to access the Registry. The FTC has stated that it will not enforce Do Not Call rules against small, home-based businesses, especially if they are calling only intrastate. The FCC regulations about abusive calling practices still apply, though. Standard disclaimers apply. This is not legal advice -- just "driving directions". Hope it helps. Paul A Lee Voice: +1 717 730-8355 Sr Telecom Engineer [Voice & Transmission] Fax: +1 717 975-3789 Rite Aid Corporation, Telecomm, 30 Hunter Lane, Camp Hill, PA 17011-2410 ------------------------------ From: Joey Lindstrom Date: Wed, 01 Oct 2003 15:57:14 -0600 Subject: Re: Evading the Do Not Call List Reply-To: joey@telussucks.info On Wed, 1 Oct 2003 17:04:09, temp7 wrote: >>> Requiring that any of these callers _identify_ themselves as such >>> before you answer your phone, on the other hand -- the "666" idea -- >>> might be much more constitutionally acceptable. >> No, because that creates a barrier for competition. For example, I >> do a fair amount of grass-roots political activism. One thing that >> I do is call >> a bunch of people to get them to run for Precinct Chair -- but there is >> only a 3 month window each two years when I do that. That's a political >> call. I'm calling people who may or may not know me -- I put together >> lists of people who have voted regularly and attended a few local >> conventions -- and I'm asking them to give up time and talent. >> Now, let's say the law requires me to have a 666 prefix on my >> phone. How do I do that? Do I get a second line added for those >> three months? Do I have to get lines added for all of the people >> that I recruit to call other people? How can I rally my type of >> activists if I can't call people who are likely to believe the sames >> things that I do and encourage them to get involved in the process? > Send a letter. > You solicit *me* about that, and I'll put you in the same slot as the > simian selling siding, as I find you to be synonymous to the slimy > siding solicitation. And since its my phone, I don't care what you > want any more than I care what the siding simp strives for. Right on, brother! And thanks for raising this point -- indeed, I'm puzzled that it hasn't really been raised all that strongly, either here or in the media. What makes people think that there's any distinction at all between one kind of annoying call in the middle of dinner versus another kind of annoying call in the middle of dinner? Personally, when *ANY* call comes in that I don't recognize, I either let my machine catch it, or else I answer it to see who it is -- and the MOMENT they start with any sort of sales pitch, or political statement, or tear-jerking story about all the poor people who suffer from motion sickness and need my help, I interrupt them in mid-sentence and state "please add this number to your do-not-call list". Usually the response is "OK" and nothing more is said. Sometimes they try to talk me out of it, or argue that this isn't really a telemarketing call. I just keep repeating those ten words - pretty soon they get the message that those are the only ten words they're going to hear from me. Like you said: "send a letter". When flyers arrive in my mail and in my newspaper, I take a look. Sometimes I get political pamphlets and requests from charities -- I've responded to these as well. But the important factors here are these: 1) I can look over this printed material AT MY LEISURE, according to MY SCHEDULE. Sometimes I look at it as soon as I walk in the door, other times I've got somewhere to go and I just stick it on the table and check it all out later. With a phone solicitation, I have to drop what I'm doing and deal with the solicitor, right now. My feeling here is this: just who the HELL do you think you are, dictating to *ME* when *I* will deal with this? I'm at *HOME* - this is my castle and I'm the freaking king. GET THE HELL OUT OF MY HOUSE, and don't come back until you are INVITED and I am ready to deal with you. 2) I don't pay for your admail. You do. Telephone solicitation, junk faxing, spam - it all costs *ME* money to receive this crap. Again, just who the hell do you think you are? I'm sorry if this sounds like I'm coming down like a ton of bricks solely on the poor fellow (whose name I've forgotten, sorry) who spoke of grass-roots political organizations and the possible negative impact that tougher anti-telemarketing rules might have on them. This isn't just directed at you, sir -- but take what I've said to heart. You have no more right to use MY telephone than the guy trying to sell me aluminum siding (does anyone still sell that stuff by phone?) If I add my name to a do-not-call registry and opt for NO POLITICAL CALLS, the impact that this may have on your small grass-roots political organizations is YOUR PROBLEM, NOT MINE. If your organization cannot thrive without having to invade the privacy of everyone in your district, then it deserves to die. Quickly. Find some other way to spread your message, just get the hell off my phone. ------------------------------ From: Steven J Sobol Subject: Re: Verizon Charges for Everything Lately Date: Wed, 01 Oct 2003 19:25:10 -0500 Ray Normandeau wrote: >> There is no way you could have ditched Verizon Wireless in 1998; they >> didn't exist back then. >> My experiences as a VZW customer have been mostly good. > Then WHATEVER THEY WERE CALLED at that time. Nynex, NynexMobile, Bell > Atlantic ... > My landline is Verizon TOO, I have had THEM since the 1960's when they > were NY Telephone. You gonna tell me that they, Verizon, didn't exist > back then I am sure. No, they didn't. They _were_ different companies. Hell, how many mergers did New York Telephone have to go through before they ended up even being part of Bell Atlantic? Two or three, at least? I know it seems like I'm splitting hairs, but ... 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: Tony Pelliccio Subject: Re: Server Based PBX vs. Standard PBX Organization: The Ace Tomato and Cement Company Date: Wed, 1 Oct 2003 20:53:02 -0500 In article , pete@bg.com says: > Also, with respect to Microsoft (which usually doesn't get much > respect from me!), systems built on Windows NT 4.0 SP6 with only > necessary services enabled can run for months, maybe years, without > problems. We have customers who have NEVER rebooted our NT-based fax > modem servers. These run a complex multi-threaded networked > application which sends and receives 24-48 faxes at the same time. It > is probably more demanding than a soft PBX because voice (actually > fax) data moves through it. That's the thing with NT 4.0 server -- it was good for doing one thing per server but not several. Otherwise you're just asking for trouble. For example, our mail server was Exchange 5.5 with very limited space and also handled certain web services. Bzzzzt -- used to have to be rebooted at least once a month otherwise it would flake out. Done the same thing with a Linux box running Sendmail and Apache and no problems, never rebooted it. It was only when the ps fan became so clogged with dust a few years later that we had problems. ------------------------------ From: google@bathfordhill.co.uk (Ian) Subject: Re: Server Based PBX vs. Standard PBX Date: 2 Oct 2003 15:11:36 -0700 Organization: http://groups.google.com Paul Robinson wrote in message news:: > Reject any server that runs Microsoft because there is no way they can > guarantee you "telco class" reliability, that is "three nines" or 99.9% > uptime. Telco class is five 9's not 3 always has been and always will be. 99.9 i belive is what data people aim at. Ian ------------------------------ From: artifex2@bigpond.com (Ally Hauptmann) Subject: Telemarketers Date: 1 Oct 2003 22:48:24 -0700 Organization: http://groups.google.com It's actually not that difficult to get rid of telemarketers. As far as I'm concerned, people who don't respect my privacy and ring 'to pull money out of my pocket' as my father called things like that, are not worth the time of day. Since I tell everyone 'This household boycotts companies who do telemarketing' and actually doing it, never donate anything either, my phone number might have entered a list of numbers not to ring. BLISS. The same thing applies to spam. If nobody would ever buy anything from them, they would stop their activities. DO NOT BUY FROM SPAMSTERS, they are ill mannered for bothering you and do not deserve the time of day. Ally H. ------------------------------ Subject: Re: Wireless (and Landline) Portability Organization: Not Much From: bonomi@c-ns (Robert Bonomi) Date: Thu, 02 Oct 2003 06:10:42 GMT In article , Jay R. Ashworth wrote: > tanley settled back into the couch, and Mark J Cuccia > mcuccia@tulane.edu> said to him: >> But if the second case is true, regarding the slimy telemarketers ... >> right now, if I'm not mistaken, telemarketers are prohibited by law >> from calling "known" wireless numbers, usually baed on c.o.code prefix >> (NPA-NXX), or sometimes down to the "thousdans" level, the NPA-NXX-'T' >> part of the ten-digit number (NPA-NXX-Txxx). Telcordia-TRA sells a >> product (a *subset* of the LERG) which identifies wireless numbering >> ranges, specifically intended for telemarketers, so that they can >> identify only those NPA-NXX-(T) ranges as wireless so as "not to call >> numbers starting off that way". But if at some point, wireless and >> landline numbers become "inter-portable" (which they will at some >> point, either now in November, or some time in the future), then >> telemarketers won't be able to identify wireless numbers "up >> front". They "could" still (in theory) be held liable for placing >> calls *to* cellular phones even though they might not "know" in >> advance that the number *is* cellular. Conversely, if I have a >> landline-based phone that was ported from wireless, I might be >> "blessed" with not getting *any* (or at least "fewer") harrassing >> calls from telemarketers because they don't "know" that this number is >> now really a landline! :) > Oh, this is *so* much better a reason why WLNP is bad ... >> And also, even with being able to port wireless numbers amongs >> wireless providers (whether or not this will initially be consolidated >> with existing landline number porting), it still isn't going to be >> easy and perfect when one does want to port. Don't many cellular >> telcos require that your handset/wireless device be one "approved by >> them" (i.e., purchased from them)? Some of this non-compatability has >> to do with the type of wireless service technology in use by that >> company (GSM, TDMA, CDMA, etc). But even with compatable technology, >> some wireless providers still *demand* (require) that your mobile >> phone be "approved" by them. They can "lock out" your use of their >> network from your phone (that you now "own" but acquired under a >> different provider previously) so that you "have" to now get *another* >> phone (at cost) from *them*. > Yeah, and WLNP ain't gonna solve *that* problem -- you can bring the > number, but not the handset. >> IMO, *THIS* type of anti-competitive / monopolisitc practice *AS WELL* >> should be addressed by the FCC/FTC/DOJ/Congress/etc. I can understand >> phones that are not capable of switching between different >> technologies where if your phone is analog only, or TDMA-only, and >> your new wireless provider is GSM-only, you'll have to get a new >> GSM-type phone. But if you *have* an existing phone (from someone >> else) that *IS* capable of working on that new provider's >> network/technology, then there should be *NO* reason for them to >> require/demand that you get yet *another* cellular handset/phone! > It's a firmware issue. Think ISDN BRI. :-) >> [TELECOM Digest Editor's Note: What about in cases like mine where >> my home phone is 'delay call forwarded' (after three or four rings) >> to my cellular phone. I suppose after three or four rings when the >> caller hears the slightest pause in the ringing while the call is >> taken away from my landline number and handed over to my cell phone >> am intelligent person would realize he was being transferred to >> some other number. But whoever accused telemarketers of having any >> brains? PAT] > Yeah, but this one's your responsibility, not the telemarketers. This > is precisely the reason why I *hate* caller pays cellular, and hope it > never flies in the US. Note: In the case of a "call-forwarded" call, the party who's number is 'forwarded' is the one who incurs any costs involved in reaching the 'target' number. Easy to test -- call-forward your phone to a number that is a 'toll' call from your phone. Now, (A) call it from a number that is 'local' to your phone, and (b) from a number tht is local to the _target_ number. ------------------------------ 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. --------------------------------------------------------------- Finally, the Digest is funded by gifts from generous readers such as yourself who provide funding in amounts deemed appropriate. Your help is important and appreciated. A suggested donation of fifty dollars per year per reader is considered appropriate. See our address above. Please make at least a single donation to cover the cost of processing your name to the mailing list. If you donate at least fifty dollars per year we will send you our two-CD set of the entire Telecom Archives; this is every word published in this Digest since our beginning in 1981. All opinions expressed herein are deemed to be those of the author. Any organizations listed are for identification purposes only and messages should not be considered any official expression by the organization. End of TELECOM Digest V22 #681 ****************************** From editor@telecom-digest.org Fri Oct 3 12:12:58 2003 Received: (from ptownson@localhost) by massis.lcs.mit.edu (8.11.6p2/8.11.3) id h93GCwG08235; Fri, 3 Oct 2003 12:12:58 -0400 (EDT) Date: Fri, 3 Oct 2003 12:12:58 -0400 (EDT) From: editor@telecom-digest.org Message-Id: <200310031612.h93GCwG08235@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 #682 TELECOM Digest Fri, 3 Oct 2003 12:13:00 EDT Volume 22 : Issue 682 Inside This Issue: Editor: Patrick A. Townson and: Lisa Minter Comcast Devours Your Life/Privacy Shmivacy. Cable-TV Beast (M Solomon) Who Controls Your Computer?/Trusted Computing: Promise & Risk (Solomon) TiVo Series2 Improves on Original (Monty Solomon) Microsoft Faces Class-Action on Security Breaches (Monty Solomon) Privacy and Human Rights 2003: International Survey of Privacy (Solomon) RCN Raises the Bar By Increasing Cable Modem Download Speeds (Solomon) Comcast to Double Downstream Speeds For Comcast High-Speed (M Solomon) Bell Specs (Boris Badinov) Local Loop Standards (Boris Badinov) Re: Telemarketers (Mark Brader) Re: Telemarketers (Kevin Benko) Re: Internet Spying (William Warren) More Information on Norvergence; You Determine if Fraud (Satchel Paige) Re: Fibre Optic or Wireless Connection Between Two FPGAs (Scott Dorsey) 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, 2 Oct 2003 22:40:02 -0400 From: Monty Solomon Subject: Comcast Devours Your Life / Privacy Shmivacy. The Cable-TV Beast Privacy shmivacy. The cable-TV beast knows more about you than your own mother. Be very creeped out By Mark Morford, SF Gate Columnist Wednesday, September 24, 2003 Occasionally just for fun and to make yourself slightly ill and if you're for some reason eager to feel all soiled and violated and megacorporate and vituperative and John Ashcroftian, you read the fine print on your cable bill. Or, rather, you read the little nondescript brochure that came with your Comcast bill called the "Privacy Notice," just to see, just to get a bit of insight as to what the country's largest and greediest and increasingly scariest cable and Internet provider (they just sucked up AT&T Cable last year) actually does with your personal info, and why, and how much they snicker and gloat and hiss like drunken snakes when they do it. Name, home address, e-mail and phone number? Ha. Tip of the draconian iceberg, honey. How about your driver's license number, Social Security number, bank-account number, credit card numbers (note the plural) and "other similar information"? You betcha. They know it all. And they don't mind sharing. http://www.sfgate.com/cgi-bin/article.cgi?file=/gate/archive/2003/09/24/notes092403.DTL ------------------------------ Date: Thu, 2 Oct 2003 21:55:20 -0400 From: Monty Solomon Subject: Who Controls Your Computer? / Trusted Computing: Promise and Risk Electronic Frontier Foundation Reports on Trusted Computing Electronic Frontier Foundation Media Advisory San Francisco - The Electronic Frontier Foundation (EFF) yesterday published a landmark report on trusted computing, a technology designed to improve security through hardware changes to the personal computer. http://www.eff.org/Infra/trusted_computing/20031002_eff_pr.php Trusted Computing: Promise and Risk Introduction Computer security is undeniably important, and as new vulnerabilities are discovered and exploited, the perceived need for new security solutions grows. "Trusted computing" initiatives propose to solve some of today's security problems through hardware changes to the personal computer. Changing hardware design isn't inherently suspicious, but the leading trusted computing proposals have a high cost: they provide security to users while giving third parties the power to enforce policies on users' computers against the users' wishes -- they let others pressure you to hand some control over your PC to someone else. This is a "feature" ready-made for abuse by software authors who want to anticompetitively choke off rival software. It needn't be this way: a straightforward change to the plans of trusted computing vendors could leave the security benefits intact while ensuring that a PC owner's will always trumps the wishes of those who've loaded software or data onto the PC. http://www.eff.org/Infra/trusted_computing/20031001_tc.php ------------------------------ Date: Thu, 2 Oct 2003 22:04:30 -0400 From: Monty Solomon Subject: TiVo Series2 Improves on Original by Alex Hoffman I've been carrying around a dirty secret for a couple of years now. When I wrote a TidBITS article about Netflix, the DVD rental service I had used and loved for years, I had already stopped using it. (See "Worthy Web Sites: Get Your Kicks with Netflix" in TidBITS-604). Netflix is great, but TiVo is better. Shortly after getting a TiVo DVR (Digital Video Recorder), my wife and I stopped needing to rent DVDs. Essentially, everything you've heard about TiVo is true (see "Dominate Your TV" in TidBITS-594 for more on TiVo). It is that good. So good, in fact, that when we moved this spring to a bigger place, we bought a new TiVo Series2 model, which features a degree of integration between it and our Macs. Buying a second TiVo also enabled us to have one on each television in our house. http://www.tidbits.com/tb-issues/TidBITS-698.html#lnk5 TiVo Series2 Wishes and Getting Our Bears Straight by Adam C. Engst Sometimes we wish we could rewind life as easily as rewinding television programs recorded by TiVo. In last week's issue, Alex Hoffman's article "TiVo Series2 Improves on Original" discussed how the digital video recorder could organize recorded programs in groups when perusing the Now Playing list. In the article, this is mentioned as a wishlist item, when in fact the Series2 does include the feature. Chalk up the error to a TidBITS editor who wishes his original TiVo could support that excellent way to browse shows: Jeff's punishment will be to categorize and alphabetize all his DVDs and VHS tapes. http://www.tidbits.com/tb-issues/TidBITS-699.html#lnk3 ------------------------------ Date: Thu, 2 Oct 2003 19:03:33 -0400 From: Monty Solomon Subject: Microsoft Faces Class-Action on Security Breaches By Kevin Krolicki LOS ANGELES, Oct 2 (Reuters) - Microsoft Corp. (NASDAQ:MSFT) faces a proposed class-action lawsuit in California based on the claim that its market-dominant software is vulnerable to viruses capable of triggering "massive, cascading failures" in global computer networks. The lawsuit, filed on Tuesday in Los Angeles Superior Court, also claims that Microsoft's security warnings are too complex to be understood by the general public and serve instead to tip off "fast-moving" hackers on how to exploit flaws in its operating system. The lawsuit claims unfair competition and the violation of two California consumer rights laws, one of which took effect earlier this year and is intended to protect the privacy of personal information in computer databases. The lawsuit would reignite a simmering debate over whether the computer software industry should be held to the same standard of liability as other companies, such as car makers. The result could be to make computer software more secure -- and more expensive, computer security experts said. - http://finance.lycos.com/home/news/story.asp?story=35914778 ------------------------------ Date: Fri, 3 Oct 2003 08:35:41 -0400 From: Monty Solomon Subject: Privacy and Human Rights 2003: An International Survey of Privacy http://www.privacyinternational.org/survey/phr2003/ ------------------------------ Date: Fri, 3 Oct 2003 08:41:37 -0400 From: Monty Solomon Subject: RCN Raises the Bar By Increasing Cable Modem Download Speeds MegaModem Mach 5(SM) is the Fastest Residential Modem Available in the Markets Served by RCN PRINCETON, N.J., Oct. 2 /PRNewswire-FirstCall/ -- Continuing to set the industry standard for cable modem services, RCN (Nasdaq: RCNC) announced today the launch of its latest high-speed Internet service, MegaModem Mach 5(SM). This service will provide customers with up to 5 Mbps of download speed, which is more than 3 times the speed of most competitors' "high speed" offerings at no extra cost. Customers will now be able to download videos, MP3 music files and other Web-based forms of entertainment in significantly less time than it would take with competitor cable modem or DSL connections. http://finance.lycos.com/qc/news/story.aspx?story=35900161 ------------------------------ Date: Fri, 3 Oct 2003 08:46:04 -0400 From: Monty Solomon Subject: Comcast to Double Downstream Speeds For Comcast High-Speed Comcast High-Speed Internet Customers to Receive 3Mbps Service at No Additional Cost Customers in Atlanta, Detroit, Knoxville, Pittsburgh and 10 other U.S. Cities First to Receive Faster Broadband Service PHILADELPHIA, Oct. 2 /PRNewswire/ -- Comcast, the nation's number one broadband provider, today announced that it will double downstream speeds for its residential Comcast High-Speed Internet customers allowing them to take full advantage of the richest broadband content and applications that the Internet has to offer. Downstream speeds for Comcast High-Speed Internet customers will be increased to 3Mbps from 1.5Mbps at no additional cost. The faster service is making its debut today in Atlanta, Detroit, Dallas, Ga., Hattiesburg, Miss., Independence, Mo., Knoxville, Tenn., Lake County, Fla., Meridian, Miss., Mobile, Ala., Muncie, Ind., Panama City, Fla., Pittsburgh, Savannah, Ga., and Tuscaloosa, Ala. While the service is officially being launched today in 14 U.S. markets, the increased speeds will be progressively deployed to all Comcast markets based on technical readiness. The company projects that the majority of customers will receive the faster speed by the end of the year. The speed increase will be automatic and customers will not be required to download any special files or upgrade their connections. To take advantage of the new speeds, customers in upgraded areas need only to unplug their modems, wait 60 seconds and plug it back in. Upstream speeds will remain the same at 256Kbps. http://finance.lycos.com/qc/news/story.aspx?story=35898303 ------------------------------ From: boris_badinov2000@yahoo.com (Boris Badinov) Subject: Bell Specs Date: 2 Oct 2003 17:00:23 -0700 Organization: http://groups.google.com Does anybody know if there are any Bell System Tech pubs available on-line? I'm specifically looking for standards for residential local loops. Thanks, Boris ------------------------------ From: boris_badinov2000@yahoo.com (Boris Badinov) Subject: Local Loop Standards Date: 2 Oct 2003 17:03:56 -0700 Organization: http://groups.google.com Anybody know what the tech pub standards are for residential local loops in independent company areas, specifically Sprint? Would the standards for Sprint local loops be the same as the old Bell System Standards? Thanks, Boris ------------------------------ Subject: Re: Telemarketers Date: Thu, 2 Oct 2003 20:20:48 EDT From: msb@vex.net (Mark Brader) Ally Hauptmann writes: > ... people who don't respect my privacy and ring 'to pull money out > of my pocket' as my father called things like that, are not worth > the time of day. ... I tell everyone 'This household boycotts > companies who do telemarketing' ... > The same thing applies to spam. If nobody would ever buy anything from > them, they would stop their activities. DO NOT BUY FROM SPAMSTERS... Unfortunately, this approach requires you to listen to enough of the telemarketing, and read enough of the spammer's messages, to identify who they are. I don't want to give them enough time of my day for me to be able to do that. Mark Brader "People with whole brains, however, dispute Toronto this claim, and are generally more articulate msb@vex.net in expressing their views." -- Gary Larson ------------------------------ From: Kevin Benko Subject: Re: Telemarketers Organization: Bear and Moose Date: Fri, 03 Oct 2003 03:08:04 GMT In article , artifex2@bigpond.com says... > It's actually not that difficult to get rid of telemarketers. As far > as I'm concerned, people who don't respect my privacy and ring 'to > pull money out of my pocket' as my father called things like that, are > not worth the time of day. Since I tell everyone 'This household > boycotts companies who do telemarketing' and actually doing it, never > donate anything either, my phone number might have entered a list of > numbers not to ring. BLISS. [snip] I've recently decided that when I get called by telemarketers [spit], I will create a *hostile*work*environment* for them. I try to make a game out of being creepy and evil. It's especially interesting when I get a prerecorded message telling me to hit a key on my telephone to speak with a representative [[that kind of call is probably illegal, anyway]], it gives me a few more seconds to put on my *hostile*work*environment* hat. Hehehehehe I, likewise, refuse to do business with "spammers", telemarketers, or pushy salespeople. Kevin Benko I am posting in a public forum, please respond to me in a public forum. ------------------------------ From: William Warren Subject: Re: Internet Spying Organization: Comcast Online Date: Fri, 03 Oct 2003 01:24:23 GMT Gail M. Hall wrote in message news:telecom22.681.7@telecom-digest.org: > I don't have sympathy for anyone who overuses a work computer any more > than I would sympathize with them using the work phone for personal > calls when the company policy is to use the pay phones for personal > calls. [snip] There's a difference: the Internet doesn't charge by the minute. In any case, most companies have realized that forcing employees to use pay phones is counterproductive, since the time spent away from their desk costs more than the personal call would. > Internet service is not very expensive these days, so get your own > account and do your surfing and personal emails at home. I agree on the first: surfing for enjoyment is a leisure-time activity, and has no place in a business. > Companies do have a right to control how their equipment is used and > how you use your time on the job. >> Many companies tell employees that the computer is for business, but >> be honest, who hasn't emailed friends, checked the sports page or >> swapped the latest work gossip. > That doesn't make it right. ... But it does make it understandable. Before computers, office workers interacted face-to-face a lot more often than now, just because they had to pass forms back and forth, file documents by hand, etc. Human beings are social animals by our nature, and no bureaucratic edict is going to undo millions of years of evolution. >> And as most Americans spend more time >> at the office, it's getting harder to leave all personal business to >> after hours. Cyberspying at work. Who's reading what, why businesses >> say they have no choice, and why most people don't even know they are >> being watched. > If people did their work during work time, maybe they wouldn't have to > stay at work as long. Sometimes they don't have a choice: especially in computer-related professions, work must often be done out of normal hours. Even "normal" office work has stretched workers' schedules: everyone knows how it feels to lose a weekend for an "important" report or proprosal. Also, remember that multinational corporations can span as many as fifteen time zones, and office workers must be present at odd hours for conference calls, for the arrivals and departures of upper-echelon visitors, and even for the occasional snowstorm. In addition, with a substantial minority of American families being split, and the majority being two-earner, there are the constant juggling acts of day-to-day life with kids, doctors, dentists, teachers, sports, and groceries forcing workers to trade some of their day hours, and to work evenings either at home or their office. It gets increasingly hard for supervisors to do "warm body" management: i.e., they can't count the bodies in the seats and assume everyone is productive if they're still breathing. Some supervisors aren't up to the task of separating the jobs their subordinates do from the times at which they do them: deprived of easy solutions, they have turned to yet another "quick fix", which is monitoring. > Anyway, the right of businesses to monitor e-mail has been written > about for a long enough time that most people should know that > companies have a right to monitor what happens at their site. > Companies should let their employees know their e-mail is likely to be > monitored, though. [snip] > And people should not use work e-mail to gossip, especially about > their boss or the company owners. That's worse than gossiping over > the phone or in the lunch room. > Gail in Ohio USA Whether people use their computers to gossip, or to send email to friends, or _any_ non-business use, is not worth arguing about: we are, as I said, social animals conditioned by evolution to crave contact with others, even to the point where children will consciously make mistakes in order to draw a teacher's attention, or where adults will pick a fight just so that they can get contact of a different sort. It's as old as humanity, and I'm surprised that no one has pointed this out before. Bureaucracies are designed to make people as much like machines as possible: replaceable cogs in a gearwork that never stops spinning. This soulless manipulation extracts a cost that has been extensively studied and written about: cut off from their peers, office workers find other ways to communicate. They always have, and always will: be it flying paper airplanes across an aisle or using an instant messaging system. Any competent manager will understand this, and allow for it: (s)he won't care about it happening, since it's inevitable, but rather about it happening too much. I can go a step further: workers isolated from their peers and made to feel unimportant are the ones most likely to arrive with an Uzi in their lunch bucket. The bottom line here is that most businesses want office workers to be on salary so that they don't get overtime, and have made them responsible for their own time and for meeting corporate goals within that framework. Now, the computer has increased their productivity, while at the same time making it more likely that short-sited supervisors will try to turn them into factory workers, with every movement choreographed by an electronic straw-boss that never turns its head. The result is as predictable as carpel-tunnel syndrome: unions are making a comeback amoung office workers. FWIW. YMMV. Bill ------------------------------ From: dor@writeme.com (Satchel Paige) Subject: More Information on Norvergence; You Determine if it is Fraud Date: 2 Oct 2003 19:39:38 -0700 Organization: http://groups.google.com Read the posts on the following link. It contains remarks from other people who have information to provide regarding Norvergence: http://www.dslreports.com/forum/remark,7448091~root=cellphones~start=5~mode=flat Good luck on your decisions. Remember, the Federal Trade Commission can be reached at 877-382-4357. ------------------------------ From: kludge@panix.com (Scott Dorsey) Subject: Re: Fibre Optic or Wireless Connection Between Two FPGAs Date: 2 Oct 2003 18:44:58 -0400 Organization: Former users of Netcom shell (1989-2000) Patrick Twomey wrote: > I am trying to set up a system to communicate between two FPGAs (Field > Programmable Gate Arrays) over the distance of about 5-8 m (from one > end of a room to another). I am trying to do this either wirelessly or > optically. The data to be sent currently has the following format of > 32 bits wide and data clock of 10 MHz (i.e. data changes every 100 > ns). So data rate required is 320 Mbps. This is very high and a > wireless comms system would seem to be be impractical. I only need > data to be sent in one direction. A basic fibre optic system seems > ideal. Does anyone know of any products suitable for setting up such > an optical system. I think you could do this even with the Toshiba TOSLINK stuff which uses cheap plastic fibre. What's wrong with coax, though? Coax is cheap and plentiful. --scott "C'est un Nagra. C'est suisse, et tres, tres precis." ------------------------------ 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. --------------------------------------------------------------- Finally, the Digest is funded by gifts from generous readers such as yourself who provide funding in amounts deemed appropriate. Your help is important and appreciated. A suggested donation of fifty dollars per year per reader is considered appropriate. See our address above. Please make at least a single donation to cover the cost of processing your name to the mailing list. If you donate at least fifty dollars per year we will send you our two-CD set of the entire Telecom Archives; this is every word published in this Digest since our beginning in 1981. All opinions expressed herein are deemed to be those of the author. Any organizations listed are for identification purposes only and messages should not be considered any official expression by the organization. End of TELECOM Digest V22 #682 ****************************** From editor@telecom-digest.org Sat Oct 4 00:26:06 2003 Received: (from ptownson@localhost) by massis.lcs.mit.edu (8.11.6p2/8.11.3) id h944Q6W11736; Sat, 4 Oct 2003 00:26:06 -0400 (EDT) Date: Sat, 4 Oct 2003 00:26:06 -0400 (EDT) From: editor@telecom-digest.org Message-Id: <200310040426.h944Q6W11736@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 #683 TELECOM Digest Sat, 4 Oct 2003 00:26:00 EDT Volume 22 : Issue 683 Inside This Issue: Editor: Patrick A. Townson and: Lisa Minter EPIC Alert 10.20 (Monty Solomon) VeriSign to Suspend Site Finder (Monty Solomon) VeriSign Site Finder Service Update (Monty Solomon) ICANN Demands VeriSign Suspend SiteFinder (Judith Oppenheimer) ICANN Actually Does the Right Thing For Netizens (Joey Lindstrom) Re: Three SIM Card Use on 2G Phones (Group Special Mobile) Re: Telemarketers (Jay R. Ashworth) Re: Telemarketers (Gary Breuckman) Re: Card Games/Should Buyers Beware of How Supermarkets Use (K. Benko) Re: Verizon Charges for Everything Lately (jbl) Re: What Happened to 951 Area Code? (Hank Fung) Re: Trillian Plugs Back Into Yahoo, MSN (James) Re: To Cord, or Not to Cord (Neal McLain) LDMI - Opinions? (Steven J Sobol) All contents here are copyrighted by Patrick Townson and the individual writers/correspondents. Articles may be used in other journals or newsgroups, provided the writer's name and the Digest are included in the fair use quote. By using -any name or email address- included herein for -any- reason other than responding to an article herein, you agree to pay a hundred dollars to the recipients of the email. WE DO NOT PERMIT NAME/EMAIL ADDRESS HARVESTING FROM THIS JOURNAL. 'SALTED' EMAIL ADDRESSES APPEAR HEREIN TO VERIFY THIS. YOU GET SUED IN SMALL CLAIMS COURT IF YOU GET CAUGHT SPAMMING OR SENDING VIRUSES. DON'T DO IT. See the bottom of this issue for subscription and archive details and the name of our lawyer; other stuff of interest. ---------------------------------------------------------------------- Date: Fri, 3 Oct 2003 16:53:41 -0400 From: Monty Solomon Subject: EPIC Alert 10.20 ======================================================================= E P I C A l e r t ======================================================================= Volume 10.20 October 2, 2003 ----------------------------------------------------------------------- Published by the Electronic Privacy Information Center (EPIC) Washington, D.C. http://www.epic.org/alert/EPIC_Alert_10.20.html ====================================================================== Table of Contents ====================================================================== [1] EPIC Urges Halt to CAPPS II Air Passenger Profiling System [2] JetBlue and Acxiom are Subjects of EPIC Complaint to FTC [3] Do-Not-Call Registry Hit with Legal Challenges [4] EPIC Testifies in the House on Cross Border Fraud [5] Coalition Questions HUD Homeless Surveillance Program [6] News in Brief [7] EPIC Bookstore: The Challenge of Crime [8] Upcoming Conferences and Events http://www.epic.org/alert/EPIC_Alert_10.20.html ------------------------------ Date: Fri, 3 Oct 2003 17:14:16 -0400 From: Monty Solomon Subject: VeriSign to Suspend Site Finder By ANICK JESDANUN AP Internet Writer NEW YORK (AP) -- The Internet's key traffic cop bowed to pressure Friday and agreed to suspend a new online search service blamed for such side effects as disabling junk e-mail filters and networked printers. The decision came hours after the main oversight body for the Internet threatened legal action against VeriSign Inc. unless it shut down its Site Finder service by Saturday evening. The company manages ".com" and ".net" addresses as well as the global network's central directory computers. "We will accede to the request while we explore all of our options," VeriSign spokesman Tom Galvin said Friday. He said VeriSign would work with ICANN on deciding when it would pull the plug on Site Finder. - http://finance.lycos.com/home/news/story.asp?story=35928084 ------------------------------ Date: Fri, 3 Oct 2003 17:15:15 -0400 From: Monty Solomon Subject: VeriSign Site Finder Service Update VeriSign Will Temporarily Suspend Web Navigation Service in Order to Continue To Work With Internet Community Towards a Long-Term Implementation MOUNTAIN VIEW, Calif., Oct. 3 /PRNewswire-FirstCall/ -- VeriSign, Inc. (Nasdaq: VRSN), the leading provider of critical infrastructure services for the Internet and telecommunications networks, today announced that it will temporarily suspend its Site Finder, a new service to improve Web navigation for Internet users. - http://finance.lycos.com/home/news/story.asp?story=35926511 ------------------------------ Reply-To: From: Subject: ICANN Demands VeriSign Suspend SiteFinder Date: Fri, 3 Oct 2003 13:06:16 -0400 Organization: ICB Inc./WhoSells800.com "VeriSign must suspend the changes to the .com and .net top-level domains introduced on 15 September 2003 by 6:00 PM PDT on 4 October 2003. Failure to comply with this demand by that time will leave ICANN with no choice but to seek promptly to enforce VeriSign's contractual obligations." http://icbtollfree.com/article_free.cfm?articleId=5898 ICANNWatch article archive on SiteFinder - for excellent legal and industry commentary http://www.icannwatch.org/search.pl?query=SiteFinder Judith Oppenheimer 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: Joey Lindstrom Date: Fri, 03 Oct 2003 18:34:46 -0600 Subject: ICANN Actually Does the Right Thing For Netizens Reply-To: joey@telussucks.info VeriSign shuts down Web site finder SAN FRANCISCO (Reuters) -- Web address provider VeriSign Inc. said on Friday it would suspend a controversial new service that steers mistaken Web searches to its own page after the organization that oversees Internet policies demanded it do so. Earlier on Friday, the Internet Corporation for Assigned Names and Numbers issued a statement insisting that VeriSign halt its SiteFinder service and restore the ".com" and ".net" Web domains to the way they were before Sept. 15, when VeriSign began the service. ICANN gave VeriSign until 6 p.m. PDT to comply with the request or face sanctions for violating its contract with ICA http://www.cnn.com/2003/TECH/internet/10/03/verisign.icann.reut/index.html ------------------------------ From: Group Special Mobile Subject: Re: Three SIM Card Use on 2G Phones Date: Fri, 03 Oct 2003 07:22:20 -0700 Organization: Posted via Supernews, http://www.supernews.com Reply-To: look@signature_for_reply_instructions On 1 Oct 2003 11:32:55 -0700, crookie74@hotmail.com (crookie74@hotmail.com) wrote: > Is there a way I can make calls from from a non-Three phone (in the > UK)but using Three sim card? I put the card in a Motorola V66 and it > worked for a while but then went to a screen saying check sim. The > people in the Three shop said that it is not supposed to work in > non-Three phones but it will in some but it is pot luck. Does anyone > know what phones it will work in as I dodn't want to carry a big > phone, I just want the cheap calls. Generally if a wireless operator "locks" the handsets they market you cannot use another operator's SIM in your handset. If however your carrier is a "virtual" carrier using another network e.g. Virgin Mobile in the UK uses the T-Mobile network so handsets bought from either Virgin Mobile or T-Mobile will work. An O2 SIM will not work in a Virgin or T-Mobile handset. If Three is also a virtual network (which I believe it is) then you can only use it with handsets sold by three or by the network they use. I believe Three is a virtual operator as well though I'm not sure which network they use. http://www.uk-three-mobile-phones.co.uk/ To send an email reply send to GSMthemobilestandard (@) yahoo.com ------------------------------ From: Jay R. Ashworth Subject: Re: Telemarketers Reply-To: jra@baylink.com Date: Fri, 03 Oct 2003 18:09:07 GMT Organization: RoadRunner - Central Florida Stanley settled back into the couch, and Kevin Benko said to him: > I've recently decided that when I get called by telemarketers [spit], > I will create a *hostile*work*environment* for them. I try to make a > game out of being creepy and evil. It's especially interesting when I > get a prerecorded message telling me to hit a key on my telephone to > speak with a representative [[that kind of call is probably illegal, > anyway]], it gives me a few more seconds to put on my > *hostile*work*environment* hat. If you can spare the time and energy, The Best Thing to do with telemarketers is to draw them out, ask them hundreds of topical questions about their product, make them feel *really good* that they're going to get a sale out of you ... and *then* say: "No thanks; I never buy products sold by telemarketers" and hang up. If enough people did that, there might be a wave of suicides in Omaha. 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: Gary Breuckman Subject: Re: Telemarketers Date: Fri, 03 Oct 2003 15:48:37 -0500 Organization: Puma's Lair - catbox.com In article , Ally Hauptmann wrote: > The same thing applies to spam. If nobody would ever buy anything from > them, they would stop their activities. DO NOT BUY FROM SPAMSTERS, they > are ill mannered for bothering you and do not deserve the time of day. The problem is that there are some folks who do occasionally buy from spammers, so the return vs. cost says they should keep doing it. Of course, if they could identify exactly who NEVER buys from spammers, that would make life easier, but how can they? The only solution really is for service providers to crack down, but then they just move overseas. Like someone is saying, "disconnect China from the Internet." And Korea, and Japan, and Great Britain, and Canada. Gee, now the Internet isn't good for much anymore. -- Gary Breuckman ------------------------------ From: Kevin Benko Subject: Re: Card Games / Should Buyers Beware of How Supermarkets Use Organization: Bear and Moose Date: Fri, 03 Oct 2003 02:58:32 GMT In article , monty@roscom.com says: > Should Buyers Beware of How Supermarkets Use "Loyalty Cards" to > Collect Personal Data? Fsck the "loyalty cards". My wife and I refuse to use them. Until recently, we drove 10 miles, one way, to shop at a supermarket that didn't have a *slavery*card*. Last Sunday, we discovered that the chain started using the card. We did fill out an application {Name: Mindyour Business, Address: General Delivery [city] [state] [zip], telephone number: [local police department's non-emergency number], Email: spamtrap@mailinator.com} so that I could cut the card into tiny plastic bits, walk up to the manager, hand him the tiny plastic bits and tell him that he just lost our business. Now we drive 15 miles, one way, to shop at another supermarket that doesn't use those damnable *slavery*cards*. My privacy is worth the extra time and money required to avoid those stores. I'll pay the price in time, money, and effort to avoid those b*st*rds. For more information on those damnable cards see http://www.nocards.org Kevin Benko I am posting in a public forum, please respond to me in a public forum. [Lisa Minter note: Although Kevin raises a very good point on the plastic ID cards grocery stores use I find it is convenient to use mine at Marvins for check cashing purposes. When Country Mart was in that same building at 10th and Laurel Street in Independence they offered them as a 'loyalty card' so regular shoppers could get a five percent discount on groceries, *and* for check-writing/cashing from the cashiers. They would swipe that card through the register each time you were in the store. Marvins has been there for a little more than a year now, and although they do not give additional discounts at the registers, they do as a courtesy honor the old 'Country Mart' cards as ID for check writing and encashment, but they do not issue such cards on their own. During the six or seven month period in 2001- 2002 when we had not a single grocery store in Independence and everyone had to go to Walmart SuperCenter for groceries (even the Walmart haters had to go there for groceries) people began getting accustomed to going to Walmart for everything, to the chagrin of the downtown merchants. Now folks have begun to discover (as I have) that Marvins is just as cheap or cheaper than Walmart, with a pretty good selection at that. When County Mart was there, issuing those plastic cards and swiping them through the register, I do not know what they did with all that information. Lisa M] ------------------------------ From: jbl Subject: Re: Verizon Charges for Everything Lately Date: Thu, 02 Oct 2003 23:03:29 -0700 Organization: On the desert Reply-To: jbl@spamblocked.com In , Steven J Sobol wrote: > They _were_ different companies. Hell, how many mergers did New York > Telephone have to go through before they ended up even being part of Bell > Atlantic? Two or three, at least? NYTel--\ >--Nynex--\ NETel--/ \ >--BellAtlantic---\ / (still) \ BellAtlantic*-----/ >--Verizon / GTE-----------------------------------/ /JBL *BellAtlantic was made from a number of the original local Bells and may have absorbed some other companies before this point; I don't know, exactly, so I'm leaving that out. ------------------------------ Date: Fri, 3 Oct 2003 01:20:23 -0700 (PDT) From: Hank Fung Subject: Re: What Happened to 951 Area Code? Organization: Univ. of California Berkeley Open Computing Facility Going back on topic, you will find the Administrative Law Judge's decision (subject to comment, of course) at http://www.cpuc.ca.gov/word_pdf/COMMENT_DECISION/30353.pdf and the alternate decision by appointed Commissioner Loretta Lynch at http://www.cpuc.ca.gov/word_pdf/COMMENT_DECISION/30388.pdf The report on the public hearings is at http://www.cpuc.ca.gov/word_pdf/REPORT/29707.pdf and I am one of the commentors listed, against the split and for the overlay. Hank Fung fungus@ocf.berkeley.edu Go Bears! Yes on Recall... No on Bustamante ------------------------------ From: tester123@fastmail.fm (James) Subject: Re: Trillian Plugs Back Into Yahoo, MSN Date: 3 Oct 2003 05:36:35 -0700 Organization: http://groups.google.com Monty Solomon wrote in message news:: > Trillian Pro 2.0, the most recent version of the for-pay service, > has already been upgraded, Werndorfer said. Trillian Pro 2.0, the most recent version of the for-pay service, phones home and should never be purchased. ------------------------------ Date: Fri, 03 Oct 2003 07:25:51 -0600 From: Neal McLain Reply-To: nmclain@annsgarden.com Subject: Re: To Cord, or Not to Cord Jay R. Ashworth wrote: > Also, with a plain-jane old relaible 500 set (or 2500 set), on a > landline loop from old Maw Bell, true you don't need to supply any of > your own additional (external) power, but in a disaster, what about > when the lines (loops) are blown down in wind or an earthquake, or a > tree falls on those loops. You lose your dialtone/service, but maybe > your cellular phone *DOES* continue to work all along if the wireless > provider keeps everything properly maintained, and also you keep your > own extra batteries charged up (as long as there's commercial AC power > to do so). Whereupon David Wolff wrote: > Phone lines are somehow more robust than power lines. Not necessarily. If you're talking about single- or double-pair drop cable (pole to building), then I disagree: they aren't very strong. If a falling tree hits one, something will surely break: either the attachment at the building, or the cable itself. Even ice loading can bring it down. If you're talking about multipair pole-to-pole cables supported by steel strand [1], then I agree. Multipair telco cables are often larger and heavier than power conductors, and they're supported by tensioned steel strand. Typical strand tensions range from a few hundred pounds for small 25- to 100-pair cables to over 1000 pounds for large cables. Pole-to-pole telephone cables have a further advantage: they're located *under* power lines on joint poles, so they're protected from falling trees. On three-way joint poles (power/telco/CATV), telephone is usually under CATV as well, so both power and CATV protect telco facilities. See definition of "joint pole" in Newton's Telecom Dictionary (18th Edition or later). > (I seem to remember that they [telco cables] are lighter, they tend > to have more slack ... Again, not necessarily. If you're talking drop cable, then I agree: they are indeed lighter and they're not tensioned, so they "have more slack." But that makes them less robust, not more so. If you're talking about strand-supported multipair cables, then I disagree. The whole purpose of tensioning the strand is prevent sag (i.e. "slack"). That's why there are downguys at riser poles, end-of-run poles, and corner poles: to maintain the tension without putting horizontal force on the pole. CATV cables are supported by tensioned strands just like telco cables (in fact, the cable industry uses the same pole hardware that telcos use). Power conductors are also tensioned, which is why they are sometimes called "high tension lines." The whole idea behind tensioning all conductors and strands on a poleline is to prevent sag, and keep all conductors approximately parallel. Minimum clearances among various services (both from each other and above grade) are specified by the National Electrical Safety Code [2]. The actual tension in any conductor or strand varies as a function of several factors: initial installed tension; weight; span length; coefficient of thermal expansion; modulus of elasticity; permanent non-elastic deformation ("creep"); temperature; wind; ice conditions. Minimum clearances among various conductors must be maintained at all times during all weather conditions, including two extremes: Hot summer days, when high ambient temperature, direct sunlight, and maximum electrical load (maximum I^2*R loss) all combine to heat the power conductors, causing them expand and sag. This, in turn, reduces clearance above telephone and CATV cables. Winter ice storms, which cause ice build-up on all conductors. > and they [telco cables] don't necessarily die if they are lying on > the street or entangled in a tree.) Agreed. Landline telephone cables are insulated; as long as the tip and ring conductors remain intact, and are not shorted to anything, the phone will continue to operate. By contrast, power conductors (except secondary) and not insulated. Any contact with ground (even a wet tree), or with another conductor, will (or should) cause a circuit breaker to trip. > My experience during 18 years in my current town is that > we've lost power at least a couple of dozen times, but we've never > lost landline phone service. Last week we had three power failures > during one thunderstormy afternoon... successfully called the power > company each time (twice by 2500 set, once by cell phone). That doesn't prove anything about the outside telco plant. It does, however, indicate that both the landline telco and the cell telco have done a good job of providing backup power. --------------------- [1] Strand: a steel cable, placed under tension, to provide mechanical support for a signal-conducting cable such as multipair copper, coaxial, or fiber. The signal-conducting cable is "lashed" to the strand by a spiral lashing wire. See . [2] National Electrical Safety Code (NESC): the code that governs electrical facilities on public rights-of-way; published by the Institute of Electrical and Electronics Engineers (IEEE). Not to be confused with the National Electrical Code (NEC), which governs electrical facilities inside buildings; published by the National Fire Protection Association (NFPA). Neal McLain nmclain@annsgarden.com ------------------------------ From: Steven J Sobol Subject: LDMI - Opinions? Date: Fri, 03 Oct 2003 09:12:10 -0500 My father is looking at LDMI for long distance and local calls. I know nothing about them, and he is looking for opinions. Anyone have experience with them? 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 ------------------------------ 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. --------------------------------------------------------------- Finally, the Digest is funded by gifts from generous readers such as yourself who provide funding in amounts deemed appropriate. Your help is important and appreciated. A suggested donation of fifty dollars per year per reader is considered appropriate. See our address above. Please make at least a single donation to cover the cost of processing your name to the mailing list. If you donate at least fifty dollars per year we will send you our two-CD set of the entire Telecom Archives; this is every word published in this Digest since our beginning in 1981. All opinions expressed herein are deemed to be those of the author. Any organizations listed are for identification purposes only and messages should not be considered any official expression by the organization. End of TELECOM Digest V22 #683 ****************************** From editor@telecom-digest.org Sat Oct 4 02:16:56 2003 Received: (from ptownson@localhost) by massis.lcs.mit.edu (8.11.6p2/8.11.3) id h946Gui12542; Sat, 4 Oct 2003 02:16:56 -0400 (EDT) Date: Sat, 4 Oct 2003 02:16:56 -0400 (EDT) From: editor@telecom-digest.org Message-Id: <200310040616.h946Gui12542@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 #684 TELECOM Digest Sat, 4 Oct 2003 02:17:00 EDT Volume 22 : Issue 684 Inside This Issue: Editor: Patrick A. Townson and: Lisa Minter CLIE Video Recorder Lets User Choose Where/When to Watch TV (M Solomon) VeriSign to Suspend Site Finder at 6 p.m. PT on Oct. 4 (Monty Solomon) Re: Server Based PBX vs. Standard PBX (Pete Harris) Re: A New Kind of Revolution in the Dorms of Dartmouth (Jay R. Ashworth) Re: Evading the Do Not Call List (Jay R. Ashworth) Re: Comcast Devours Your Life/Privacy Shmivacy (Kevin Benko) Pager Cloning (infopro) Yahoo! News - 3G Mobile Signals Can Cause Nausea, (Marcus Didius Falco) Re: Consumers: Be Careful When Buying Prepaid Phone Cards (sam) AUTOVON Telephone or 16-Key DTMF Keypad Compatible w/2500 Phones (R H) Re: Bell Specs (Paul Cook) Proctor 49200 Wanted (Paul Cook) 111 Years Ago This Weekend (Patrick Townson) All contents here are copyrighted by Patrick Townson and the individual writers/correspondents. Articles may be used in other journals or newsgroups, provided the writer's name and the Digest are included in the fair use quote. By using -any name or email address- included herein for -any- reason other than responding to an article herein, you agree to pay a hundred dollars to the recipients of the email. WE DO NOT PERMIT NAME/EMAIL ADDRESS HARVESTING FROM THIS JOURNAL. 'SALTED' EMAIL ADDRESSES APPEAR HEREIN TO VERIFY THIS. YOU GET SUED IN SMALL CLAIMS COURT IF YOU GET CAUGHT SPAMMING OR SENDING VIRUSES. DON'T DO IT. See the bottom of this issue for subscription and archive details and the name of our lawyer; other stuff of interest. ---------------------------------------------------------------------- Date: Sat, 4 Oct 2003 00:26:14 -0400 From: Monty Solomon Subject: CLIE Video Recorder Lets User Choose Where/When to Watch TV Sony's New Accessory Records Cable and Over-The-Air Programs on Memory Stick Media for Playback on a Variety of Devices SAN DIEGO, Sept. 23 /PRNewswire-FirstCall/ -- Keeping up with the latest in reality TV and archiving favorite cooking shows just left the confines of a living room with Sony's new CLIE(R) PEGA-VR100K video recorder accessory. A little larger than a VHS tape and easily connected to a TV or cable box via coaxial cable, the device records more than four hours of television programs on an optional 1GB Memory Stick PRO(TM) memory card. The recorded videos can be viewed on a TV, PC or anywhere the CLIE handheld goes. Computer displays with a video input jack will also be able to receive cable and TV signals through the unit's built-in TV tuner. PC viewing of recorded videos requires the optional QuickTime(R) application program (version 6.0 or higher). http://finance.lycos.com/qc/news/story.aspx?story=35770579 ------------------------------ Date: Sat, 4 Oct 2003 00:21:33 -0400 From: Monty Solomon Subject: VeriSign to Suspend Site Finder at 6 p.m. PT on Saturday, Oct. 4 MOUNTAIN VIEW, Calif., Oct. 3 /PRNewswire-FirstCall/ -- VeriSign, Inc. (Nasdaq: VRSN), the leading provider of critical infrastructure services for the Internet and telecommunications networks, today announced the timetable for temporarily suspending Site Finder, a service to improve Web navigation for Internet users. Per ICANN's directive, VeriSign will temporarily suspend the service on 6 p.m. PT on Saturday, Oct. 4. VeriSign requested a three-day extension to give notice to the community, but ICANN rejected the request. - http://finance.lycos.com/home/news/story.asp?story=35932623 ------------------------------ From: pete@bg.com (Pete Harris) Subject: Re: Server Based PBX vs. Standard PBX Date: 3 Oct 2003 16:06:49 -0700 Organization: http://groups.google.com > That's the thing with NT 4.0 server -- it was good for doing one thing > per server but not several. Otherwise you're just asking for trouble. I respectfully disagree. NT, XP, and 2003 Server each can do a lot of things at one time. The problem is the things themselves. > For example, our mail server was Exchange 5.5 with very limited space > and also handled certain web services. Bzzzzt -- used to have to be > rebooted at least once a month otherwise it would flake out. Done the > same thing with a Linux box running Sendmail and Apache and no problems, > never rebooted it. It was only when the ps fan became so clogged with > dust a few years later that we had problems. Sendmail is more stable than Exchange and Apache is more stable the variously-named Microsoft http services. That's why your Linux box was more stable than your Windows box. Sites which run Apache and other well-behaved services on Windows do just fine. google@bathfordhill.co.uk (Ian) wrote in message: > Telco class is five 9's not 3 always has been and always will > be. 99.9 I belive is what data people aim at. "Always will be?" I would argue that is not even the present situation. Cell phones are more like 9 5's than 5 9's. Sure the landline telcos may be providing 5 9's, but nobody outside of telecom really cares. When the battery runs down on our cordless phone at home, we just use one of our cell phones. Inbound calls all go to the answering machine anyway. Anybody who seriously wants to get a hold of me tries my cell phone. At work, it's a similar situation. No one answers their phone any more. They check their messages every so often, that's about it. Again, if they couldn't get an outside line for a while, no bit deal. They'd use a cell phone, or just wait. The important content is carried over the internet as email and instant messaging. I hold the view that landline telephony (outside of call centers) has evolved into just another form of messaging. This is why VOIP and its 3 9's (if you're lucky) is the future -- or even the present for many of us. -Pete www.bg.com/qphone ------------------------------ From: Jay R. Ashworth" Subject: Re: A New Kind of Revolution in the Dorms of Dartmouth Reply-To: jra@baylink.com Date: Fri, 03 Oct 2003 17:54:46 GMT Organization: RoadRunner - Central Florida Stanley settled back into the couch, and John R. Levine said to him: >>> [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. > Huh? I've been registered at the Times since nearly the day their > site opened using a unique address, and I have never, ever gotten any > mail to that address other than mail directly from the Times that I've > asked for. I can't say that I've ever seen plausible reports of the > Times leaking addresses to anyone else, either. Not our issue here. >> FWIW, my number one speculation for why this may not be working is >> that *it's precisely the sort of thing the NYT DOESN'T want people >> to do*. > Why in the world would you want the Times to send password information > anywhere except the address that registered an account? The Times does not want people *sharing* accounts, which was the topic of our conversation. PS: please try to configure your newsreader so that courtesy carbon emails are *marked*. I caught it this time from the tone, but it's a pain to answer something by email and then discover later they had posted it 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: Jay R. Ashworth Subject: Re: Evading the Do Not Call List Reply-To: jra@baylink.com Date: Fri, 03 Oct 2003 17:50:04 GMT Organization: RoadRunner - Central Florida Stanley settled back into the couch, and Daniel J McDonald said to him: >> Wouldn't want to bet on what Congress _will_ do in this case -- but >> would certainly make a bet that if they did ban religious, political >> and/or charitable calls, the Supremes would (and should) find this ban >> to be unconstitutional (not to mention unworkable). >> Requiring that any of these callers _identify_ themselves as such >> before you answer your phone, on the other hand -- the "666" idea -- >> might be much more constitutionally acceptable. > No, because that creates a barrier for competition. For example, I do > a fair amount of grass-roots political activism. One thing that I do > is call a bunch of people to get them to run for Precinct Chair -- but > there is only a 3 month window each two years when I do that. That's > a political call. I'm calling people who may or may not know me -- I > put together lists of people who have voted regularly and attended a > few local conventions -- and I'm asking them to give up time and > talent. > Now, let's say the law requires me to have a 666 prefix on my phone. > How do I do that? Do I get a second line added for those three > months? Do I have to get lines added for all of the people that I > recruit to call other people? How can I rally my type of activists if > I can't call people who are likely to believe the sames things that I > do and encourage them to get involved in the process? That sounds to > me more like a free speech issue than anything else. By me, the difference here is that you are neither a *corporation*, nor an *organization*, merely an individual. *That* is the distinction any such legislation must make. 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: Kevin Benko Subject: Re: Comcast Devours Your Life/Privacy Shmivacy. The Cable-TV Beast Organization: Bear and Moose Date: Fri, 03 Oct 2003 19:34:56 GMT In article , monty@roscom.com says: > Or, rather, you read the little nondescript brochure that came with > your Comcast bill called the "Privacy Notice," [snip] It seems to me the only companies that have "privacy notices" are those companies that are going to invade your privacy. Kevin Benko I am posting in a public forum, please respond to me in a public forum. ------------------------------ From: infopro@infopro.tv (infopro) Subject: Pager Cloning Date: 3 Oct 2003 14:25:27 -0700 Organization: http://groups.google.com [TELECOM Digest Editor's Note: This piece of hackerspam showed up in email today from the 'tv' domain, and I thought it interesting enough to pass along. I do *not* recommend using the service. PAT] http://www.sell.com/2HTW8 Visit the about site for more info on this service. Pager Cloning You send us your subjects pager information, 24-48 hours later The Pros sends back, a duplicate pager. Now every time your subject gets a page, so does your cloned pager. Great way to keep track of someone's telephone activities. Most people seem to use pagers when they are trying to keep communication discreet and confidential. This product was developed by The Pros, and is not currently offered anywhere else. The Pros will not export this product outside the United States. The Pros does not condone any illegal use of this telephone product, customer assumes all legal liabilities. Professional Spy Tool. Free shipping in USA. We accept paypal, Money Gram and United States postal money orders. ------------------------------ Date: Fri, 03 Oct 2003 18:56:15 -0400 From: Marcus Didius Falco Subject: Yahoo! News - 3G Mobile Signals Can Cause Nausea http://story.news.yahoo.com/news?tmpl=story&cid=581&e=3&u=/nm/20030930/tc_nm/health_mobile_damage_dc News via RSS Technology - Reuters 3G Mobile Signals Can Cause Nausea, Headache -Study Tue Sep 30, 4:03 PM ET AMSTERDAM (Reuters) - Radio signals for the next generation of mobile phone services can cause headaches and nausea, according to a study conducted by three Dutch ministries. The study, the first of its kind, compared the impact of radiation from base stations used for the current mobile telephone network with that of base stations for new third generation (3G) networks for fast data transfer, which will enable services such as video conferencing on a mobile device. A base station, which usually covers a "cell" area of several square kilometers (miles), transmits signals to mobile phones with an electromagnetic field. "If the test group was exposed to third generation base station signals there was a significant impact ... They felt tingling sensations, got headaches and felt nauseous," a spokeswoman for the Dutch Economics Ministry said. There was no negative impact from signals for current mobile networks. However, cognitive functions such as memory and response times were boosted by both 3G signals and the current signals, the study found. It said people became more alert when they were exposed to both. Government ministers responsible for Economic Affairs, Health and Telecommunications said follow-up research was needed to confirm the findings as well as to look at any longer-term health effects and biological causes. They will also discuss the study with the European Commission (news - web sites), the spokeswoman said. The double-blind laboratory tests -- meaning no one in the survey knew if a 3G-like base station was actually transmitting signals -- exposed test subjects to expected levels of average radiation for 3G networks when they become commercial. The GSM Association, a global organization of mobile telecommunications operators, said it was studying the report and could not comment. The study, conducted by the Dutch technological research institute TNO, was the first to look for an impact of mobile telephones on well-being. It was also the first study to find a statistically significant negative impact from 3G base stations. Previous research on a negative health impact of mobile phones, mostly second-generation, has been inconclusive. Existing research gives no scientific evidence that second-generation phones cause brain tumors, while a long-term study by the International Agency on Research on Cancer is not expected to yield results before 2004. Previous research did find an impact on cognitive functions, which was also found in the Dutch survey. But TNO noted that earlier studies always measured the impact of cellphones held close to the head, causing high fields of radiation close to the ear and warming of the brain. TNO's study used lower a dose of radiation to mimic base station signals rather than handsets. Handsets emit stronger radiation when they are used, while base stations transmit more constant levels of radio signals, exposing everyone within range. ------------------------------------ Copyright c 2003 Reuters Limited. All rights reserved. Republication or redistribution of Reuters content is expressly prohibited without the prior written consent of Reuters. Reuters shall not be liable for any errors or delays in the content, or for any actions taken in reliance thereon. ------------------------------------- There was a rebuttal of sorts from the industry. You can find it at http://story.news.yahoo.com/news?tmpl=story&cid=581&e=1&u=/nm/20031001/tc_nm/health_mobile_3g_dc Basically, it just says, "more study." *** FAIR USE NOTICE. This message contains copyrighted material the use of which has not been specifically authorized by the copyright owner. This Internet discussion group is making it available without profit to group members who have expressed a prior interest in receiving the included information in their efforts to advance the understanding of literary, educational, political, and economic issues, for non-profit research and educational purposes only. I believe that this constitutes a 'fair use' of the copyrighted material as provided for in section 107 of the U.S. Copyright Law. If you wish to use this copyrighted material for purposes of your own that go beyond 'fair use,' you must obtain permission from the copyright owner. For more information go to: http://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/17/107.shtml ------------------------------ From: chong719@hotmail.com (sam) Subject: Re: Consumers: Be Careful When Buying Prepaid Phone Cards Date: 3 Oct 2003 16:17:28 -0700 Organization: http://groups.google.com Thank you very much for your suggestions. Samuel yeltrabnhoj@email.com wrote in message news:: > On 5 Sep 2003 18:02:42 -0700, chong719@hotmail.com (sam) wrote: >> Beware for consumers who are about to buy Total Call International's >> phone cards. > Suggest you also post this with the Better Business Bureau > www.bbb.org > Nobody but a fool goes into a federal counterrorism operation without duct tape - Richard Preston, THE COBRA EVENT. ------------------------------ From: rant@picrad.com (R H) Subject: AUTOVON Telephone or 16-Key DTMF Keypad Compatible w/2500 Phones Date: 3 Oct 2003 17:54:45 -0700 Organization: http://groups.google.com I picked up a DOD surplus telephone that has a traditional 12-key touch-tone (DTMF) keypad. I would like to be able to refit the phone to be more "official" looking (it already has a sticker saying that classified information should not be discussed over it, as it is not a secure phone.) I also have red and yellow handsets (purchased years ago for some Apple-Cat modems) If anyone knows of a surplus place I can acquire the 16-key AUTOVON keypad, please send me some information. (the extra 4 keys are usually Red in Color, with alphabetic information) I will probably be using the sets with FWD or Vonage, once I find an appropriate VOIP<->POTS terminal adapter (it needs to support different ring cadences for different dialed numbers). ------------------------------ Reply-To: Paul Cook From: Paul Cook Subject: Re: Bell Specs Date: Fri, 3 Oct 2003 10:26:12 -0700 Organization: Proctor & Associates, Inc. boris_badinov2000@yahoo.com (Boris Badinov) wrote: > Does anybody know if there are any Bell System Tech pubs available > on-line? I'm specifically looking for standards for residential local > loops. I don't think so. What were the Bell Local Switching Systems Generic Requirements were quite expensive. As I recall, the version in our lab was 4 or 5 feet thick. I know Bellcore sold them, and I expect that whatever entity Bellcore has become (I can't recall their name. Telcordia?) still sells it. I have seen EIA specs for phones online though. Somewhat related, TIA has an Application Guide for Part 68 online: http://www.tiaonline.org/standards/sfg/tr-41/Part_68_Guide_D3.pdf I guess they ARE available online: http://telecom-info.telcordia.com/site-cgi/ido/index.html That is, you can ORDER them online. Boris, give my regards to Natasha. 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 ------------------------------ Reply-To: Paul Cook From: Paul Cook Subject: Proctor 49200 Wanted Date: Fri, 3 Oct 2003 10:35:57 -0700 Organization: Proctor & Associates, Inc. Does anyone know where I can get a Proctor 49200 Telephone Demonstrator (a line simulator) in great condition? I have someone who wants the 9-1-1 version (the 49200M1), and I have the 911 EPROMs that make a 49200 into a 49200M1, but no more 49200 units 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 ------------------------------ From: TELECOM Digest Editor Subject: 111 Years Ago This Weekend Date: Sat, 4 Oct 2003 00:00:15 EDT Not telecom related, but worth a passing mention. Dateline, Coffeyville, Kansas, October 3-4: Coffeyville, originally an 'old west' type town saw its better days fifty or sixty years ago, when its population was about 18 thousand people. On Saturday, October 4, 1892, the Dalton Gang came to Coffeyville with the intent of robbing the two banks in town; First National Bank and Condon National Bank (then Condon State Bank) but due to unforseen circumstances were stopped dead in their tracks. Both banks are located across the street from each other more or less, exactly where they were located in 1892, at 8th and Walnut Streets in the downtown area. On that date in 1892, the desparados came riding into town on their horses, but unfortunatly for them, at that intersection there were street repairs underway; the city was building a gazebo to use for outdoor band concerts, etc. So the Dalton guys had to leave their horses about a half block away at the old (now days) jail and marshall's office. First they went into First National Bank where they were stalled by the cashier, who told them the safe was on a time- lock and would not come open for about another five minutes. That was just a lie to buy some time, as they soon would find out. They thought about it for awhile, and taking a hostage with them, they set out for the Condon State Bank just across the street. In the meantime, someone tipped off the Marshall who came out of his office with his deputies and their guns blazing. If things had gone as planned, the outlaws would have then headed south out of town and out of the United States into Indian Territory as Oklahoma, which was not yet a state of the USA was called. Other gang members were waiting in Tulsa, Indian Territory to help conceal the loot and make a clean getaway. It was a very bloody Saturday morning; five members of the gang were killed in the shootout with the marshall and his men in front of the Condon Bank; six private citizens who had the misfortune not to get off of Walnut and 8th Streets in time were also killed. In those days, most people knew enough to duck out of the way when a gang of desparados came riding on horses through town, and while everyone else ducked for cover, these six were killed, including one of the marshall's deputies. Five of the six in the gang were also killed; the one who survived -- I think it was James Dalton -- was sent to prison for 35 years; he was paroled in the late 1920's. The citizens of Coffeyville were so indignant about the bank robberies and murders they attempted to lynch Mr. Dalton on the way to the courthouse for his trial. A group of citizens had to assist the marshall in guarding the one surviving prisoner-outlaw until his trial. Friday night there was a re-enactment of the robbery and shoot-out on the street in front of Condon Bank, which will be repeated Saturday night. The actors and actresses all used 'blanks' in the guns of course but it was quite a realistic performance, including the final scene where the local undertaker and some other men gathered up the dead bodies and stacked them next to each other on the sidewalk. A monument on the spot erected several years ago announces it was on that location October 4, 1892 that the Dalton Gang was shot dead during the Condon and First National bank robberies. A smaller plaque next to it announced the same location was where President William Howard Taft departed the Santa Fe train enroute to the political convention in Chicago to greet the citizens waiting to see him a few years later when he was running for president. The 'Dalton House' is a popular saloon in the downtown area to this day. It was certainly packed after the commemoration tonight. ObTelecom: Coffeyville was always served by Southwestern Bell Tele- hone Company and still is. It was cut from manual service to dial in 1957 and has always been serviced on 316 (now 620)-CLinton 1. Just as Independence (15 miles up the road) has always been 620-331, Coffeyville was always 251. Recently SWB 'opened' 620-252 for a couple of large businesses and the local hospital, and citizens resentfully began to learn and use that new exchange; just as the folks in Independence began to learn that 'a few special numbers' were on 620-330 or 620-332. But Coffeyville has indeed seen much better times when their population was about twice what it is now. Patrick Townson ------------------------------ TELECOM Digest is an electronic journal devoted mostly but not exclusively to telecommunications topics. It is circulated anywhere there is email, in addition to various telecom forums on a variety of networks such as Compuserve and America On Line, and other forums. It is also gatewayed to Usenet where it appears as the moderated newsgroup 'comp.dcom.telecom'. TELECOM Digest is a not-for-profit, mostly non-commercial educational service offered to the Internet by Patrick Townson. All the contents of the Digest are compilation-copyrighted. You may reprint articles in some other media on an occasional basis, but please attribute my work and that of the original author. Contact information: Patrick Townson/TELECOM Digest Post Office Box 50 Independence, KS 67301 Phone: 620-330-6774 Fax 1: 775-255-9970 Fax 2: 775-306-8390 Fax 3: 775-642-0603 Fax 4: 530-309-7234 Email: editor@telecom-digest.org Subscribe: telecom-subscribe@telecom-digest.org Unsubscribe:telecom-unsubscribe@telecom-digest.org This Digest is the oldest continuing e-journal about telecomm- unications on the Internet, having been founded in August, 1981 and published continuously since then. Our archives are available for your review/research. We believe we are the second oldest e-zine/ mailing list on the internet in any category! URL information: http://telecom-digest.org Anonymous FTP: mirror.lcs.mit.edu/telecom-archives/archives/ (or use our mirror site: ftp.epix.net/pub/telecom-archives) Email <==> FTP: telecom-archives@telecom-digest.org Send a simple, one line note to that automated address for a help file on how to use the automatic retrieval system for archives files. You can get desired files in email. ************************************************************************* * TELECOM Digest is partially funded by a grant from * * Judith Oppenheimer, President of ICB Inc. and purveyor of accurate * * 800 & Dot Com News, Intelligence, Analysis, and Consulting. * * http://ICBTollFree.com, http://1800TheExpert.com * * Views expressed herein should not be construed as representing * * views of Judith Oppenheimer or ICB Inc. * ************************************************************************* ICB Toll Free News. Contact information is not sold, rented or leased. One click a day feeds a person a meal. Go to http://www.thehungersite.com Copyright 2003 ICB, Inc. and TELECOM Digest. All rights reserved. Our attorney is Bill Levant, of Blue Bell, PA. --------------------------------------------------------------- Finally, the Digest is funded by gifts from generous readers such as yourself who provide funding in amounts deemed appropriate. Your help is important and appreciated. A suggested donation of fifty dollars per year per reader is considered appropriate. See our address above. Please make at least a single donation to cover the cost of processing your name to the mailing list. If you donate at least fifty dollars per year we will send you our two-CD set of the entire Telecom Archives; this is every word published in this Digest since our beginning in 1981. All opinions expressed herein are deemed to be those of the author. Any organizations listed are for identification purposes only and messages should not be considered any official expression by the organization. End of TELECOM Digest V22 #684 ****************************** From editor@telecom-digest.org Sun Oct 5 16:08:16 2003 Received: (from ptownson@localhost) by massis.lcs.mit.edu (8.11.6p2/8.11.3) id h95K8G524190; Sun, 5 Oct 2003 16:08:16 -0400 (EDT) Date: Sun, 5 Oct 2003 16:08:16 -0400 (EDT) From: editor@telecom-digest.org Message-Id: <200310052008.h95K8G524190@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 #685 TELECOM Digest Sun, 5 Oct 2003 16:07:00 EDT Volume 22 : Issue 685 Inside This Issue: Editor: Patrick A. Townson and: Lisa Minter Digital Set-Top Box Seen As Rival To Microsoft's Media (Monty Solomon) Another Case of Electronic Vote-Tampering? (Monty Solomon) E-mail is Broken (Monty Solomon) Re: Telemarketers (Ally Hauptmann) Re: Card Games/Should Buyers Beware of Supermarkets Use (AES/newspost) Cheyenne Bitware (Ivan Danicic) Canadians Rise-up With Petition for Nextgen Phone/PDA (John Buchan) Re: Yahoo! News - 3G Mobile Signals Can Cause Nausea (Dana) Re: Server Based PBX vs. Standard PBX (SayNoToCrossposters) Phoenix and MS to Integrate BIOS With Windows (Marcus Didius Falco) Re: VeriSign to Suspend Site Finder Saturday, Oct. 4 (George Mitchell) Re: VeriSign to Suspend Site Finder Saturday, Oct. 4 (Phil Earnhardt) TechLaw - Why Tech Contracts Typically Fall Short (Marcus Didius Falco) Any Such Thing as a Phone Line Transceiver? (Ed Clarke) Re: Comcast Devours Your Life/Privacy Shmivacy (Robert Bonomi) All contents here are copyrighted by Patrick Townson and the individual writers/correspondents. Articles may be used in other journals or newsgroups, provided the writer's name and the Digest are included in the fair use quote. By using -any name or email address- included herein for -any- reason other than responding to an article herein, you agree to pay a hundred dollars to the recipients of the email. WE DO NOT PERMIT NAME/EMAIL ADDRESS HARVESTING FROM THIS JOURNAL. 'SALTED' EMAIL ADDRESSES APPEAR HEREIN TO VERIFY THIS. YOU GET SUED IN SMALL CLAIMS COURT IF YOU GET CAUGHT SPAMMING OR SENDING VIRUSES. DON'T DO IT. See the bottom of this issue for subscription and archive details and the name of our lawyer; other stuff of interest. ---------------------------------------------------------------------- Date: Sun, 5 Oct 2003 10:41:26 -0400 From: Monty Solomon Subject: Digital Set-Top Box Seen As Strong Rival To Microsoft's Media By Antone Gonsalves, TechWeb News The recent launch of Microsoft Corp.'s Media Center update has certainly made the PC a major contender for the living room, but the digital cable set-top box remains a strong rival as the preferred entertainment hub, a study showed Wednesday. According to research from Trace Strategies, the number of set-top boxes will increase to 29.3 million units in North America, an increase of 35 percent over last year. Fueling the demand are purchases of high-definition televisions and the personal video recorder, a device that enables consumers to digitize broadcast TV onto a hard disk, allowing the viewer to pause at any time and return later. HDTV-enabled set-top boxes are expected to make the most inroads this year, capturing 5.7 percent of the total installed base, the Boston-based market research firm said. Trace is an independent research and consulting firm that analyzes the converging market of digital media and consumer electronics. http://www.techweb.com/wire/story/TWB20031001S0021 ------------------------------ Date: Sun, 5 Oct 2003 13:20:43 -0400 From: Monty Solomon Subject: Another Case of Electronic Vote-Tampering? Representatives of the computer vote-counting industry are unfairly dominating the standard-setting process, say critics. By Farhad Manjoo Sept. 29, 2003 | When the IEEE, the world's leading professional society of engineeers, decided in the summer of 2001 to create a technical standard for electronic voting machines, most everyone concerned with the elections business thought it was a grand idea. For the most part, the IEEE operates just as you'd expect a bunch of engineers to behave -- the group is rigorous, open-minded, dispassionate, and reluctant to embark upon any major endeavor unless everyone with an opinion has had an opportunity to hold forth. "Consensus" is the IEEE's main buzzword; and while that ethic can lead to some frustration, it also explains why so many industries and government agencies ask the IEEE to draw up technical standards for new technologies. People trust the IEEE's open process, and when it sets down certain specifications -- governing everything from aircraft gyros to wireless networks -- the specs are widely respected by technologists. And by the summer of 2001, a standard for voting machines was clearly needed. After the hobbled 2000 presidential election, officials across the nation were rushing to purchase new equipment to replace their maligned punch-card systems. Elections vendors were heavily promoting fully electronic, ATM-style touch-screen voting machines, but many computer scientists warned -- and are warning still -- of critical security flaws in such systems. The key players in the debate over electronic voting saw the IEEE as a good place to resolve concerns people had with the new systems; they hoped that after hearing all sides, the vaunted body could create respected technical guidelines for the machinery of modern democracy. Two years later, however, the IEEE group charged with drafting a voting machine standard is paralyzed by bitter in-fighting. Members of the body can't agree on the substance of a proposed standard for voting machines, nor can they even come to a consensus on a fair process for determining such a standard. The parties involved are arguing about big things -- about whether, for instance, electronic voting machines should be required to produce a "voter-verifiable" audit trail, which many security experts say is the only way to guarantee security in electronic systems -- and tiny things, such as the order in which topics are discussed in the meetings they hold. To hear members of the committee tell it, the whole process has become a circus -- a circus that illustrates how difficult it might be to eventually create a national standard for voting systems. http://www.salon.com/tech/feature/2003/09/29/voting_machine_standards/ ------------------------------ Date: Sun, 5 Oct 2003 13:29:31 -0400 From: Monty Solomon Subject: E-mail is Broken Four Internet pioneers discuss the sorry state of online communication today. The consensus: It's a real mess. By Katharine Mieszkowski Oct. 2, 2003 | Somewhere between that spam promoting spyware disguised as a chipper e-greeting and the latest e-mail-borne virus masquerading as an urgent software upgrade, something got lost. Not just a single overlooked urgent message from your boss, lodged in a sea of ghastly teenage bestiality spam, but something more fundamental, something more essential. It's impossible to say exactly when the ritual of opening the e-mail in box went from being the lure that brought you online in the first place to a slough of deleting drudgery, full not only of irritating commercial messages that you never signed up to receive, but also of potential threats that could bring down your computer. But there's no use being nostalgic for that earlier, simpler time, whenever you got online, whether that was in 1984 or 1998. You can't go home again, or at least, you can't go back to a home without spam. The questions now are: Can e-mail be saved? How bad is the problem, really? And what can be done to fix it? Salon interviewed four Internet pioneers, computer scientists who have been online longer than most of the rest of world and who, in some cases, helped set up the systems we use today. Dave Farber, who sometimes calls himself "the grandfather of the Internet" because many of his students went on to be its fathers, is now a professor at Carnegie Mellon University's school of computer science. He first went online in 1962 and started on the Internet in the late '60s "near the day it was born," when his student Dave Crocker, now a principal in Brandenburg Consulting but then part of the original Arpanet research community, "got the damn thing working." Brad Templeton, chairman of the board of the Electronic Frontier Foundation, first used e-mail in 1976 and started the first ".com" company, in 1989. And Jakob Nielsen, a usability expert and principal of Nielsen Norman group, started using e-mail in 1981 and the Internet back in 1985, when he worked at IBM's T.J. Watson Research Center: "Every single time I sent e-mail to a non-IBM address, a screen came up to warn me that we were sending information outside the company and asked the user to confirm that no confidential information was included." http://www.salon.com/tech/feature/2003/10/02/e_mail/ ------------------------------ From: artifex2@bigpond.com (Ally Hauptmann) Subject: Re: Telemarketers Date: 3 Oct 2003 21:19:42 -0700 Organization: http://groups.google.com msb@vex.net (Mark Brader) wrote in message news:: > Ally Hauptmann writes: >> ... people who don't respect my privacy and ring 'to pull money out >> of my pocket' as my father called things like that, are not worth >> the time of day. ... I tell everyone 'This household boycotts >> companies who do telemarketing' ... >> The same thing applies to spam. If nobody would ever buy anything from >> them, they would stop their activities. DO NOT BUY FROM SPAMSTERS... > Unfortunately, this approach requires you to listen to enough of the > telemarketing, and read enough of the spammer's messages, to identify > who they are. I don't want to give them enough time of my day for me > to be able to do that. > Mark Brader "People with whole brains, however, dispute > Toronto this claim, and are generally more articulate > msb@vex.net in expressing their views." -- Gary Larson Here in Australia, good manners prescribe to address me by name and ask how I am!!! When someone rings and asks 'Mrs. Hauptmann, do I pronounce that right ? And how are you today' then I know. Which stranger would ring up and ask these questions. Next possibility is to pretend you are an answering machine e.g. pick up the phone and say 'you have reached Mrs Smith - please leave a message after the beep. BEEP' It can be fun. Where I came from, Germany, telemarketing was disallowed. What's the problem with the English speaking world that they cannot outlaw it? Does everybody have the right to enter my yard and ring the doorbell? Never! Ally H. ------------------------------ From: AES/newspost Subject: Re: Card Games / Should Buyers Beware of How Supermarkets Use Date: Fri, 03 Oct 2003 19:12:58 -0700 In article , Monty Solomon wrote: > http://www.citypaper.com/2003-10-01/feature.html At some of the major markets where we shop, if you just look sad and say, "Oh, I left my card at home" or "Oh, my wife has it", the checkout person will pull a dummy card out of a drawer, swipe it, and you get the discounts with no data collection. ------------------------------ Reply-To: Ivan Danicic From: Ivan Danicic Subject: Cheyenne Bitware Date: Sat, 4 Oct 2003 17:43:26 +0100 Organization: blueyonder (post doesn't reflect views of blueyonder) Hello all, How can I record a telephone conversation with this? If I answer while a caller leaves a message the subsequent conversation is automatically recorded. Thanks in advance for any comments. By the way I am totally ignorant in the communications field. Ivan ------------------------------ From: jbuchan@telus.net (John Buchan) Subject: Canadians Rise-up With Petition For Nextgen Phone/PDA Date: 4 Oct 2003 11:41:48 -0700 Organization: http://groups.google.com THIS IS NOT A COMMERCIAL MESSAGE We have all been waiting for the small form factor cell phone/pda that actually fits in the palm of our hand - well, it is almost here .. and as a Canadian Cell phone user I would like to see it made available sooner, not the usual ... later. For more information ... and to participate in the online petition to bring this phone to Canada ... click this link. Please also, click the send this petition to a friend link ... lets get the word out. http://www.PetitionOnline.com/Rogers/petition.html ------------------------------ From: Dana Subject: Re: Yahoo! News - 3G Mobile Signals Can Cause Nausea Date: Sat, 4 Oct 2003 11:40:06 -0800 Organization: Posted via Supernews, http://www.supernews.com Marcus Didius Falco wrote in message news:telecom22.684.8@telecom-digest.org: http://story.news.yahoo.com/news?tmpl=story&cid=581&e=3&u=/nm/20030930/tc_nm/health_mobile_damage_dc > News via RSS > Technology - Reuters > 3G Mobile Signals Can Cause Nausea, Headache -Study > Tue Sep 30, 4:03 PM ET > AMSTERDAM (Reuters) - Radio signals for the next generation of mobile > phone services can cause headaches and nausea, according to a study > conducted by three Dutch ministries. If this is indeed true, than any device capable of transmitting microwave frequencies can fall into this category. > The study, the first of its kind, compared the impact of radiation > from base stations used for the current mobile telephone network with > that of base stations for new third generation (3G) networks for fast > data transfer, which will enable services such as video conferencing > on a mobile device. The radiation is the same, as the carrier will more than likely use the same frequency he is now using for 2G. > A base station, which usually covers a "cell" area of several square > kilometers (miles), transmits signals to mobile phones with an > electromagnetic field. Correct, But 3G cells will be smaller than 2G cells. Except of course rural cells, even if rural cells get 3G. > "If the test group was exposed to third generation base station > signals there was a significant impact ... They felt tingling > sensations, got headaches and felt nauseous," a spokeswoman for the > Dutch Economics Ministry said. For that to happen either the power level of the cell was way above typical usage levels, or the subjects were placed closer to the source than they would be when the cell is in normal operation. They have found nothing new, as everyone knows that high levels of rf transmissions can cause harm, that is why here in the states we have to identify the hotspots at the cell sites. If the levels are to high, we have to provide technicians with the proper protective equipment to work on the equipment. > There was no negative impact from signals for current mobile > networks. And there will be no negative impact from 3G, so long as people are not directly in fron of the transmitting base station antenna. > TNO's study used lower a dose of radiation to mimic base station > signals rather than handsets. > Handsets emit stronger radiation when they are used, while base > stations transmit more constant levels of radio signals, exposing > everyone within range. The last two items kind of indicate that the article is a shame. As everyone knows that the base stations transmit more radiation than the handsets. But the handsets are of course a lot closer to a person's head than a base station would be. But it is a fallacy to claim that the handsets transmitt more radiation than the base stations. ------------------------------ From: SayNoToCrossposters Subject: Re: Server Based PBX vs. Standard PBX Organization: Comcast Online Date: Sat, 04 Oct 2003 19:45:28 GMT > At work, it's a similar situation. No one answers their phone any > more. They check their messages every so often, that's about it. > Again, if they couldn't get an outside line for a while, no bit deal. > They'd use a cell phone, or just wait. The important content is > carried over the internet as email and instant messaging. Maybe in your situation you can get away with that. Most people that rely on telephone calls would take a much harder view ... and rightfully so. If you think you can survive today without "high touch" you are living a dream world or about to go bankrupt because your competitor is taking your business. > I hold the view that landline telephony (outside of call centers) has > evolved into just another form of messaging. This is why VOIP and its > 3 9's (if you're lucky) is the future -- or even the present for many of > us. I would say VOIP has GREAT potential ... the be all of everything that some are saying is simply not true and lacks any real world experience. I would be VERY dubious of even 3 9's on a total IP system ... VERY. This is just my opinion, and alot of stomping the crap out of every total IP system that I have some into competition with. All I have to do is educate the customer...demo and show what I'm talking about ... it's a lock. BTW Haven't lost a single customer or sale to an all IP system yet. Rich ------------------------------ Date: Sat, 04 Oct 2003 18:14:44 -0400 From: Marcus Didius Falco Subject: Phoenix and MS to Integrate BIOS With Windows Date: Fri, 03 Oct 2003 21:55:44 -0000 From: Seth Johnson Subject: [dc-free] Phoenix and MS to Integrate BIOS with Windows (This is it. -- Seth) -----Original Message----- From: "Ryan Jairam" Date: Fri, 3 Oct 2003 19:50:04 -0400 Subject: Phoenix and MS moves to integrate Windows with BIOS A deal with BIOS maker Phoenix Technologies would allow the operating system to directly control hardware. It also raises concerns over who controls the software in PCs. Microsoft has expanded its relationship with BIOS maker Phoenix Technologies in a deal designed to more closely integrate the basic building blocks of the PC with the Windows operating system. Full story at: http://news.zdnet.co.uk/software/developer/0,39020387,39116902,00.htm Ryan Jairam > http://news.zdnet.co.uk/software/developer/0,39020387,39116902,00.htm Microsoft moves to integrate Windows with BIOS Matthew Broersma ZDNet UK October 03, 2003, 17:25 BST A deal with BIOS maker Phoenix Technologies would allow the operating system to directly control hardware. It also raises concerns over who controls the software in PCs Microsoft has expanded its relationship with BIOS maker Phoenix Technologies in a deal designed to more closely integrate the basic building blocks of the PC with the Windows operating system. The relationship, announced this week, is designed to make PCs simpler and more reliable, the companies said. The move is likely to put consumer rights advocates on their guard, however, since both Microsoft and Phoenix are involved in plans to integrate digital rights management (DRM) technology at the operating system and hardware level. DRM is designed to give copyright owners more control over how users make use of software and content, but has been criticised as eroding consumer rights. A BIOS, or basic input/output system, is the software that ties the operating system to a PC's hardware. Traditionally, it has carried out basic tasks such as hardware and system configuration, and has been standardised and simple enough to allow the installation of alternative operating systems, including Linux. Phoenix's Core System Software (CSS) is a next-generation BIOS with a more sophisticated integration of operating system and hardware, for example making it easier for system administrators to remotely monitor the hardware configurations of their systems. CSS is designed for non- PC systems such as blade servers and embedded industrial devices as well as traditional desktops. Microsoft said integration should mean simpler and more reliable computers. "This is a pivotal change for the industry, and it will rapidly advance serviceability, deployment, and management for servers, mobile devices, and desktops," said Microsoft general manager of Windows hardware Tom Phillips, in a statement. "Effectively, Phoenix is creating an entirely new category of system software." Microsoft said the next-generation BIOS would allow future versions of Windows to manage server blades when they are connected to a system, without needing to be turned on. The BIOS would also allow better control of unauthorised devices connected to a system, Microsoft said. Phoenix is one of the biggest BIOS providers, its customers including four of the top five PC manufacturers. Its products are also used by consumer electronics makers such as Pioneer, Matsushita, Sony and Toshiba. Both Microsoft and Phoenix are currently arguing for closer integration of Windows with PC hardware, and DRM integrated throughout. Microsoft is planning to tie Windows DRM features to the hardware platform via its controversial Next Generation Secure Computing Base (NGSCB) project, formerly known as Palladium. NGSCB is associated with the next version of Windows, code-named Longhorn, which is due in about two years' time. Phoenix recently said it is touting round a BIOS with built-in DRM technology to major PC manufacturers. In September the company said it had developed a prototype of its Core Management Engine (CME) including DRM from Orbid. The DRM technology would allow content providers to identify which PCs and devices were authorised to play particular files, more effectively controlling content distribution, file-trading and moving software from one machine to another, according to Phoenix. Phoenix said the DRM-enabled CME was not part of Microsoft's NGSCB, but that the technology was complementary. The CME would allow PC makers to embed digital rights management directly into the hardware, though they would have the option of allowing users to turn it off. Consumer electronics makers are particularly interested in the technology, according to Phoenix. ------------------------------ From: George Mitchell Subject: Re: VeriSign to Suspend Site Finder at 6 p.m. on Saturday, Oct. 4 Date: Fri, 03 Oct 2003 23:31:56 -0700 Organization: Posted via Supernews, http://www.supernews.com Monty Solomon wrote: > VeriSign requested a three-day extension to give notice to the > community, but ICANN rejected the request. Funny, they didn't give three-day notice to the community when they started the, uh, service. -- George Mitchell (obfuscated email) ------------------------------ From: Phil Earnhardt Subject: Re: VeriSign to Suspend Site Finder at 6 p.m. on Saturday, Oct. 4 Date: 4 Oct 2003 20:03:42 -0700 Organization: Newsguy News Service [http://newsguy.com] In article , Monty Solomon says: > Per ICANN's directive, VeriSign will temporarily suspend the service > on 6 p.m. PT on Saturday, Oct. 4. > VeriSign requested a three-day extension to give notice to the > community, but ICANN rejected the request. This is a colossal straw man. If Verisign had been concerned about updating the community, they still would have updated the page that mis-typed URLs go to. If they thought "the community" needed three days' worth of notice, then a day-or-so would still have been beneficial. They failed to change the webpage at all -- there was no notice that the service was getting turned off. VeriSign's spokesmen originally said they did this to "enhance the user experience" of the WWW. Did they ever present any surveys indicating that any users out there actually *wanted* this service? Note: this is the same Verisign/Network Solutions that apparently thought that selling my DNS registration information to junk mailers would somehow "enhance" my experience of owning a registration. Hogwash. I have since moved all of my registrations off of this registrar. Where exactly is the outrage in the user community that this DNS [dis-]service was suspended? --phil ------------------------------ Date: Sat, 04 Oct 2003 18:13:58 -0400 From: Marcus Didius Falco Subject: TechLaw - Why Tech Contracts Typically Fall Short ---------- Forwarded message ---------- Date: Fri, 03 Oct 2003 10:00:00 -0700 From: Mark Grossman Subject: TechLaw - Why Tech Contracts Typically Fall Short ************************* This article has appeared in the Miami Herald. ************************* Mark Grossman's TechLaw Horribly written contracts for tech deals cross my desk everyday. They're a lawsuit waiting to happen. When a lawyer writes a contract, he should be writing a document that tells a story about the deal, albeit with a tilt toward his client. Often, what I see isn't a tilt, it's illiteracy. When I started practicing law about 18 years ago, I was exposed to what you might call "sophisticated" corporate deals. The documents that I saw were well written by good lawyers who'd been mentored by similarly bright lawyers. Whether it was a private placement, merger and acquisition, or documenting a large commercial transaction, the documents used a time-tested formula established by quality lawyers. The process of doing these deals was a sophisticated one, done using a mature contracting process. The lawyers involved even understood what it was they were doing. Then there's tech contracting. Usually, the first draft of the contract comes from the seller of the tech services. It might be services like the development and maintenance of an e-commerce website or for the customization of some software. More often than not, these deals show the wisdom of the 20-minute old dotcom driving the deal. (All that's missing are pimples on the documents.) Throw in some rhetoric like, "We have to move this deal at 'Net speed'" and "On the West Coast, they do these deals in a day," and what you have is a nuke looking to explode in a courtroom near you. It's really a simple formula. Poorly written contracts lead to war. (In our society, we call legalized and ritualized warfare -- "civil litigation." Some speculate that it's an improvement over dueling. Sometimes I wonder.) Assume New People When people are negotiating a deal, they have a natural tendency to assume that the team putting it together will be the team implementing it. I start from the opposite perspective. I always assume that none of the players at the negotiating table will be involved after the parties sign the contract. Businesses are sold all the time, people get promoted, and consultants move along. When these things happen, it means that whoever knew what the contract "really" meant is gone. The written document has to stand on its own. When the person across the table doesn't want to take the time to clarify a clause in the contract, he'll often say something like, "Come on, you and I know what it means. Just trust me." At that point, I like to say, "I do trust you, but I assume that you're so good at what you do that you'll be outa here doing bigger and better things in about four minutes. It's not you I don't trust. It's the guy who I don't know who will replace you that I don't trust. So let's clarify the clause." You know you have a well-written contract if somebody who knows nothing about the specifics of your deal could read it and understand the deal. If your contract doesn't meet this standard, you need to get one that does. The "Why" Behind "Poorly Written" Let's do a reality check. Why are tech contracts so often so bad? It turns out that many factors are at play here. Let's start with tech contracting is a relatively new legal specialty. Outside of a few places like Silicon Valley and Boston, you just can't find many lawyers with legitimate experience doing these deals. Of course, as you might expect, the definition of "legitimate experience" may just vary depending upon whom you ask. An aggressive lawyer looking for business may believe that he has "legitimate experience" because he is a lawyer, he has written a contract, his kids play with AOL and his secretary uses WordPerfect 5.0 on a 386 running DOS. (Remember DOS? It was that ugly operating system brought to us by Bill Gates before he gave us Windows with all of its pretty little pictures.) Now, the potential client asking about the experience might have the audacity to think that "legitimate experience" has another meaning. She might think that it includes actually having done several of these deals in the past and involve general knowledge about intellectual property and the underlying technology that the contract addresses. People paying fees can be so darn demanding -- you know. Having said this, before you think that lawyers are completely at fault for bad tech contracting practices, let me assure you that it's not true. Many times, the first draft that I see has never crossed a lawyer's desk. After all, why involve your tech lawyer when you have the contract form that somebody else in your industry used or have the contract your lawyer gave you for a completely different deal? As for the answers, we could start with one size doesn't fit all and you're playing with fire. While it's tempting to use the form your competitor used, you really don't know that it's any good. The odds are that it isn't. In fact, chances are that they "borrowed" it themselves. Propose Your Own Contract If you're on the buying side of a tech deal, you should consider having your tech lawyer prepare the contract from scratch. While this may seem like an expensive fix, it may not be. Often it takes more time, and more money to try to patch a poorly written contract than to rewrite it from scratch. Moreover, the result of a complete rewrite is often better because no matter how hard you try to repair a bad first draft presented by the other side, you can never quite make it right. If the other side doesn't like this idea, tell them that it's a Board requirement and then have your Board require it. (Don't you just love hiding behind that faceless Board when it's convenient?) If your tech deal is worth doing, it's worth doing right too. You should get yourself competent legal help. If you're buying tech services, you should demand that the other side agree to high-quality legal documents. If excellent documentation of your deal doesn't seem important to them, you should question at what point high-quality will become important to them. _________________________________________ Mark Grossman is a shareholder and leads the Technology Law Group of Becker & Poliakoff, P.A. If you would like information about retaining the Firm's legal services, you can contact Mr. Grossman at 305.260.1018 or 800.533.4874. _________________________________________ You can find a TechLaw archive at: http://www.ecomputerlaw.com/article_archives.htm and at: http://www.miami.com/mld/miamiherald/business/columnists/mark_grossman/. If you have any comments, please send them to TechLawComments@EComputerLaw.com. This is the digital version of the TechLaw column, which appears each Monday in the Miami Herald, and other publications. Mark Grossman has extensive experience as a speaker as well. If you would like him to speak before your group or corporate meeting, please call for information. Disclaimer: The advice given in the TechLaw column should not be considered legal advice. This newsletter only provides general educational information. You must never rely upon the advice given here. Your individual situation may not fit the generalizations discussed. Only your attorney can evaluate your individual situation and give you advice. Except as provided below, you may feel free to forward, distribute and copy the TechLaw column if you distribute and copy it without any changes and you include all headers and other identifying information. You may not copy it to a website. Copyright 2003 Mark Grossman All Rights Reserved If you have any comments, please send them to TechLawComments@EComputerLaw.com. I welcome your comments and questions, but due to the volume of email I get, I cannot promise that every comment or question will be answered. _________________________________________ Mark Grossman's online research source is LexisNexis. He thanks LexisNexis for their support of this column. EMail: Web@EComputerLaw.com Firm Home Page: www.becker-poliakoff.com Technology Law Group Home Page: www.EComputerLaw.com ------------------------------ From: Ed Clarke Subject: Any Such Thing as a Phone Line Transceiver? Date: 5 Oct 2003 02:10:47 GMT Organization: Ciliophora Associates, Inc. Reply-To: clarke@cilia.org I'm looking for something that plugs into a standard residential phone line, converts to multimode fiber and has a duplicate on the other end to convert back to a phone line. Should be full duplex. Does anyone make such a thing? The purpose is to avoid the excitement involved in running a long stretch of wire between buildings in a lightning prone area. I've got spare fiber already installed. ------------------------------ Subject: Re: Comcast Devours Your Life/Privacy Shmivacy. The Cable-TV Beast Organization: Not Much From: c-ns!bonomi@uunet.uu.net (Robert Bonomi) Date: Sun, 05 Oct 2003 06:37:53 GMT In article , Kevin Benko wrote: > In article , monty@roscom.com says: >> Or, rather, you read the little nondescript brochure that came with >> your Comcast bill called the "Privacy Notice," >[snip] > It seems to me the only companies that have "privacy notices" are > those companies that are going to invade your privacy. There is federal statute on the books that _requires_ those privacy notices. Updated and sent to every customer, *anually*. ------------------------------ 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. --------------------------------------------------------------- Finally, the Digest is funded by gifts from generous readers such as yourself who provide funding in amounts deemed appropriate. Your help is important and appreciated. A suggested donation of fifty dollars per year per reader is considered appropriate. See our address above. Please make at least a single donation to cover the cost of processing your name to the mailing list. If you donate at least fifty dollars per year we will send you our two-CD set of the entire Telecom Archives; this is every word published in this Digest since our beginning in 1981. All opinions expressed herein are deemed to be those of the author. Any organizations listed are for identification purposes only and messages should not be considered any official expression by the organization. End of TELECOM Digest V22 #685 ****************************** From editor@telecom-digest.org Mon Oct 6 15:16:06 2003 Received: (from ptownson@localhost) by massis.lcs.mit.edu (8.11.6p2/8.11.3) id h96JG6S01738; Mon, 6 Oct 2003 15:16:06 -0400 (EDT) Date: Mon, 6 Oct 2003 15:16:06 -0400 (EDT) From: editor@telecom-digest.org Message-Id: <200310061916.h96JG6S01738@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 #686 TELECOM Digest Mon, 6 Oct 2003 15:16:00 EDT Volume 22 : Issue 686 Inside This Issue: Editor: Patrick A. Townson and: Lisa Minter Telecom Update (Canada) #402, October 6, 2003 (Angus TeleManagement) Re: Any Such Thing as a Phone Line Transceiver? (Herb Stein) RE: Any Such Thing as a Phone Line Transceiver? (Paul A Lee) Re: Pager Cloning (infopro) Telephone Remote Controler (AXI) Re: Card Games/Should Buyers Beware of Supermarkets Use (Ron Chapman) Re: Card Games/Should Buyers Beware of Supermarkets Use (Kevin Benko) Re: VeriSign to Suspend Site Finder on Saturday, Oct. 4 (Steven J Sobol) Re: Any Such Thing as a Phone Line Transceiver? (Reed) Reminder Ring on Call Forwarding (Paul Crick) Correction: Dalton Date in 1892 (Jonathan Burke) 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, 06 Oct 2003 10:02:26 -0400 From: Angus TeleManagement Subject: Telecom Update (Canada) #402, October 6, 2003 ************************************************************ TELECOM UPDATE ************************************************************ published weekly by Angus TeleManagement Group http://www.angustel.ca Number 402: October 6, 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: ** Feds Fund Satellite Capacity for Broadband ** BCE May Seek Another TV Licence ** Meridian User Group Changes Name, Role ** Utelcos Want Equitable Building Access ** Bell, Telus to Offer Push-to-Talk on CDMA ** U.S. Do-Not-Call Rules in Effect ** Vonage Seeks Exemption from State Telephone Rules ** Bell Files Dark Fibre Tariffs ** Northwestel Gets OK for Joint Marketing ** Allstream Offers Global Net Roaming ** Com Dev Raises $20 Million ** Critical Telecom Funds Expansion ** European Wireless Companies Form Alliance ** World's Biggest Telecom Show Next Week ** Secrets of Telecom Cost Control ============================================================ FEDS FUND SATELLITE CAPACITY FOR BROADBAND: Industry Canada, the Canadian Space Agency, and the Canada Strategic Infrastructure Fund will spend $155 million to expand the satellite capacity available for Internet services in northern and remote communities. The program will reduce the cost of providing broadband access in the North. www.newswire.ca/releases/October2003/05/c8252.html BCE MAY SEEK ANOTHER TV LICENCE: BCE Executive VP Lawson Hunter last week told reporters that the company plans to apply for a broadcast distribution licence in addition to the one it holds through ExpressVu. Hunter said the satellite company could not compete effectively with cablecos for service to urban apartment buildings, so the telco wants to offer TV over terrestrial facilities as well. MERIDIAN USER GROUP CHANGES NAME, ROLE: Hoping to attract data network managers, the International Nortel Networks Meridian Users Group (INNMUG) has decided to change its name to International Nortel Networks Users Association (INNUA). UTELCOS WANT EQUITABLE BUILDING ACCESS: Fifteen telecom carriers affiliated with electrical utilities have asked the CRTC to extend the building access guidelines established in Telecom Decision 2003-45 to them. They say building owners impose discriminatory terms of access on them because they are not CLECs, even though CLECs often rely on hydro telecom networks to connect to end users. (See Telecom Update #390) BELL, TELUS TO OFFER PUSH-TO-TALK ON CDMA: Both Bell Mobility and Telus Mobility say they plan to offer a push-to-talk instant connection feature on their CDMA networks next year. The capability is already available in the U.S. from Verizon. U.S. DO-NOT-CALL RULES IN EFFECT: Despite multiple court challenges, the Federal Communications Commission began enforcing restrictions on telemarketing on October 1. Under the new regulations, telemarketers who call phone numbers on the Do-Not-Call list may be fined up to $11,000 per call. VONAGE SEEKS EXEMPTION FROM STATE TELEPHONE RULES: Vonage, an Internet telephony company, has asked the FCC to exempt it from state rules governing providers of telephone service. Minnesota recently ordered Vonage to comply with its rules, including providing E911 service and contributing to the Universal Service Fund; other states plan to do the same. BELL FILES DARK FIBRE TARIFFS: As ordered by the CRTC in Telecom Decision 2003-59, Bell Canada has filed a tariff for inter-exchange dark fibre. Bell proposes to provide fibre in increments of two strands on 1, 3, and 5-year contracts. ** Bell will provide IX dark fibre "where suitable existing facilities are available as determined by the Company." Where fibre is not available, Bell will quote on constructing new facilities at an additional cost. NORTHWESTEL GETS OK FOR JOINT MARKETING: CRTC Telecom Decision 2003-65 allows Northwestel to jointly market its wireline services with those of its wireless affiliate. The CRTC has asked the telco to comment on whether it should be subject to the bundling and affiliate rules that apply to major incumbents. www.crtc.gc.ca/archive/ENG/Decisions/2003/dt2003-65.htm ALLSTREAM OFFERS GLOBAL NET ROAMING: Starting in November, Allstream will offer global Internet roaming, enabling customers to use some 35,000 access points in 150 countries. COM DEV RAISES $20 MILLION: Com Dev has raised $20 million through a share offering. It will use the funds to pay costs arising from its investment in Skybridge, an unsuccessful attempt to develop satellite telephone service. CRITICAL TELECOM FUNDS EXPANSION: Ottawa-based Critical Telecom, whose technology provides ADSL service up to 25 kilometres from a Central Office, has raised about $18 million to finance marketing outside Canada. EUROPEAN WIRELESS COMPANIES FORM ALLIANCE: Wireless companies in nine European countries have formed an alliance to provide uniform access to voice mail, customer service, and other functions. WORLD'S BIGGEST TELECOM SHOW NEXT WEEK: Telecom World, the once-every-four-years global telecommunications trade show and conference sponsored by the International Telecommunications Union, runs October 12-18 in Geneva. 825 organizations have booked exhibit space, and the ITU predicts total attendance will exceed 85,000 people. SECRETS OF TELECOM COST CONTROL: This summer, we challenged the Angus consulting team to assemble their latest and most effective techniques for auditing telecom bills and managing telecom with a bottom line focus. The exclusive briefing they developed will be offered once only, on October 15 in Toronto. ** Also: Leveraging the New Competitive Market. A report card and forecast for Canadian telecom, developed and presented by Ian and Lis Angus, including a no-holds-barred panel discussion with top telecom executives. ** Don't miss out: Download full program and registration information now: 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: Herb Stein Subject: Re: Any Such Thing as a Phone Line Transceiver? Date: Mon, 6 Oct 2003 09:28:03 -0500 Ed Clarke wrote in message news:telecom22.685.14@telecom-digest.org: > I'm looking for something that plugs into a standard residential phone > line, converts to multimode fiber and has a duplicate on the other end > to convert back to a phone line. Should be full duplex. > Does anyone make such a thing? The purpose is to avoid the excitement > involved in running a long stretch of wire between buildings in a > lightning prone area. I've got spare fiber already installed. My son says he has a couple but he's at work now. I'll get back to you when he find that and can give me the name/model/part no. etc. Herb Stein The Herb Stein Group www.herbstein.com herb@herbstein.com 314 952-4601 ------------------------------ From: Paul A Lee Subject: Re: Any Such Thing as a Phone Line Transceiver? Date: Mon, 6 Oct 2003 10:52:49 -0400 In TELECOM Digest V22 #685, Ed Clarke wrote (in part): > I'm looking for something that plugs into a standard residential phone > line, converts to multimode fiber and has a duplicate on the other end > to convert back to a phone line. Should be full duplex. > Does anyone make such a thing? A quick search turned up the following: http://www.liteway.com/products/tlpx-1001.htm http://www.versitron.com/telephone-phone-modems.htm I'm interpreting your question to mean that you want to be able to extend just one line. Multi-channel, multiplexer equipment is available from many more manufacturers, but is considerably more expensive. Paul A Lee Voice: +1 717 730-8355 Sr Telecom Engineer [Voice & Transmission] Fax: +1 717 975-3789 Rite Aid Corporation, Telecomm, 30 Hunter Lane, Camp Hill, PA 17011-2410 ------------------------------ From: infopro@infopro.tv (infopro) Subject: Re: Pager Cloning Date: 6 Oct 2003 10:01:39 -0700 Organization: http://groups.google.com Hi TELECOM Digest Editor Pat, This is not hacker spam. I don't understand why you say that you would not recommend this service. You never used us before. We offer many investigative services and products to private investigator who resell our services to make money. There is nothing wrong with that. We also are used alot by people who want to know if their spouse is cheating on them. Are you against people finding out if they are being cheated on? > [TELECOM Digest Editor's Note: This piece of hackerspam showed up in > email today from the 'tv' domain, and I thought it interesting enough > to pass along. I do *not* recommend using the service. PAT] > http://www.sell.com/2HTW8 > Visit the about site for more info on this service. > Pager Cloning > You send us your subjects pager information, 24-48 hours later The > Pros sends back, a duplicate pager. Now every time your subject gets a > page, so does your cloned pager. Great way to keep track of someone's > telephone activities. Most people seem to use pagers when they are > trying to keep communication discreet and confidential. > This product was developed by The Pros, and is not currently offered > anywhere else. The Pros will not export this product outside the > United States. The Pros does not condone any illegal use of this > telephone product, customer assumes all legal liabilities. > Professional Spy Tool. Free shipping in USA. We accept paypal, Money > Gram and United States postal money orders. [TELECOM Digest Editor's Note: No, I am not against finding out if someone is cheating. What I *am* against is the unlawful/illegal 'tapping' of telephone communications. You do say in your disclaimer that you do not condone illegal use, and the customer assumes all legal liabilities, but I think you *know* very few if any of your customers will bother with the formality of getting a lawful search warrant or other permission to use what is essentially a 'tap' on a telephone line. There is also a 'little problem' with monitoring radio communications and using the results of such transmissions for personal gain. If you had said the device was *only* intended for use by police agencies (where I guess it is assumed the police officers using the device would automatically be observing all laws as a matter of course [a big, and oftentimes erroneous assumption I will admit]) then your message, while distasteful, IMO, would have been accepted, given general dislike of spam on the net. No, I do not object to finding out if someone is 'cheating'; only the invasion of privacy to do so and the fact that you cannot or would not provide a real name to place the spam on the net. PAT] ------------------------------ From: AXI Subject: Telephone Remote Controler Date: Sun, 5 Oct 2003 23:41:44 +0200 I found nice telephone remote controler at: http://www.pausch.at/htm/g/tel/ Your's Alexander ------------------------------ Date: Sun, 5 Oct 2003 18:49:12 -0400 From: Ron Chapman Subject: Re: Card Games / Should Buyers Beware of How Supermarkets Use In article , AES/newspost wrote: > In article , Monty Solomon > wrote: >> http://www.citypaper.com/2003-10-01/feature.html > At some of the major markets where we shop, if you just look sad and > say, "Oh, I left my card at home" or "Oh, my wife has it", the > checkout person will pull a dummy card out of a drawer, swipe it, and > you get the discounts with no data collection. Duh. I just walk in and sign up for a card, using a completely bogus address. They give me a temporary card that lasts 3 months or so; when it expires, I sign up for another card. It's kinda fun coming up with completely random names and street addresses. I wonder what their rate of returned mail is on those things. ------------------------------ From: Kevin Benko Subject: Re: Card Games / Should Buyers Beware of How Supermarkets Use Organization: Bear and Moose Date: Sun, 05 Oct 2003 23:58:15 GMT In article , siegman@stanford.edu says: > At some of the major markets where we shop, if you just look sad and > say, "Oh, I left my card at home" or "Oh, my wife has it", the > checkout person will pull a dummy card out of a drawer, swipe it, and > you get the discounts with no data collection. That sends the message that this sort of card scheme is acceptable, or at least tolerated. I wish to send the message that I disagree with these "loyalty" cards, and I will point out that I will not be doing any business with such chains. On www.nocards.org, they give real empirical evidence that stores that have gone over to using those "loyalty" cards have raised their prices such that even with the illusionary discount from the "loyalty" card, the prices are higher than before going over to the card. The "loyalty" cards are marketing hype to make people feel special for having the cards, and to facilitate direct marketing [[junk mail]] targeted at card holders. It's an invasion of my privacy. No one has any legitimate business tracking my purchasing trends without my explicit knowledge and consent. If I want someone to know what my purchasing trends are, I'll tell them. I'd rather tell those organizations that want to track such things that I think that what they are doing is *wrong* by not doing business with them *at*all* than by bypassing their data collection but still giving them my business. I'd rather give *more* money to their card-less competitors, except, in the end, the card-less competitors are still cheaper. Kevin Benko I am posting in a public forum, please respond to me in a public forum. [Lisa Minter note: Marvin's is as cheap as Walmart, and while I was mainly using my loyalty card from the old Country Mart at Marvins to cash personal checks for a few dollars for example late on Saturday nights or Sunday when Commerce Bank was closed, now that I have two debit cards (one from Commerce and one from Condon Bank) I don't need the Country Mart card any longer, but if they want to give me five percent off on my grocery bill for using the card, who cares. But now Marvins has cut some deal with Condon Bank to give free chances in a contest where you use the debit card as a credit card and sign a slip for purchases rather than enter a pin number. I think Marvins is going to quit bothering with the old Country Mart loyalty cards at all; at least one of the guys I know there in the customer service area told me that. Lisa M.] ------------------------------ From: Steven J Sobol Subject: Re: VeriSign to Suspend Site Finder at 6 p.m. on Saturday, Oct. 4 Date: Sun, 05 Oct 2003 15:08:18 -0500 Phil Earnhardt wrote: > Where exactly is the outrage in the user community that this DNS > [dis-]service was suspended? There's plenty, among people like the network engineers on the NANOG mailing list, and other technically-oriented discussion groups, where you have people who know the ramifications of Verisquat's stupidity. Joe Sixpack, however, isn't aware of how DNS works and in many cases doesn't even know it exists. 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: Reed Organization: None Whatsoever Subject: Re: Any Such Thing as a Phone Line Transceiver? Date: Mon, 06 Oct 2003 02:19:11 GMT try here for one possibility: http://www.transition.com/products/mcon_platform/standalone/pots/index.htm --reed Ed Clarke wrote: > I'm looking for something that plugs into a standard residential > phone line, converts to multimode fiber and has a duplicate on the > other end to convert back to a phone line. Should be full duplex. > Does anyone make such a thing? The purpose is to avoid the > excitement Lightning involved in running a long stretch of wire > between buildings in a prone area. I've got spare fiber already > installed. ------------------------------ From: web+google@ivrl.com (Paul Crick) Subject: Reminder Ring on Call Forwarding Date: 5 Oct 2003 20:28:02 -0700 Organization: http://groups.google.com If I forward all calls using *72 to another number, every time a call is forwarded my phone gives a short little reminder ring to remind me that a divert is in operation. Is it technically possible within the CO switch to disable this feature on a line by line basis? (Telco politics is a completely different matter of course) ;-) What I'd like to do is have calls to my regular number divert immediately to another number, with no local indication, and for calls to my smart ring number which doesn't follow call forwarding to ring in the regular fashion. Any switch techs care to comment? Thanks in advance, Paul ------------------------------ Date: Mon, 6 Oct 2003 09:28:39 PDT From: Jonathan Burke Subject: Correction: Dalton Date in 1892 TELECOM Digest Editor wrote in comp.dcom.telecom: > Subject: 111 Years Ago This Weekend ... > On Saturday, October 4, 1892, the Dalton > Gang came to Coffeyville Er; October 4, 1892 was a _Tuesday_, not a Saturday. But otherwise an interesting bit of history. Jonathan [TELECOM Digest Editor's Note: You are right, and I am dumb. Of curiosity when writing the original piece, it happened to be early Saturday when I was writing it. I wondered about the day of the week and did 'cal' on my Linux system. I entered 'cal 10-1892' and it gave me the calendar for the theoretical year '10'. I should have said 'cal 10 1892' without that connecting dash of course. In the theoretical year '10', October 4 would have been Saturday. I went to the 'Dalton shootout' observance with my cousin who lives in C-ville and Lisa and her mom. The town has certainly changed for the worst since I was born there 61 years ago. The city fathers tore down over a hundred vacant, abandoned buildings last year alone. They are trying very desparately to keep the 'historic' parts of downtown still around even while other downtown buildings stand completly empty. Their population is now less than half of what it was when I was born there. I suspect in twenty or thirty years it will be simply an abandoned ghost town. The only things I recognized from walking around downtown were the First National and Condon National Bank buildings and the Coffeyville Journal newspaper plant which were where they have 'always' been in my memory, although Condon now is a very new, modern building, standing next to the old building which is a national historic landmark, along with the old bus station/train station complex and the Western Union telegraph office; the old jail and Marshall's office as I remembered them from the 1950's. The Dale Hotel is now the Dale Apartments (same location) and the old Midland Theatre is now the 'new' Midland Auditorium where the local community theatre puts on plays once or twice a year, but no 'movies' in many years. I was reminded of the novel written by author Thomas Wolfe, "You Can't Go Home Again". Very sad ... Independence has a lot of history also, and a few scars as a result as well, but we seem to be advancing into the 21st century better than our neighbors to the immediate (15 miles) south in Coffeyville. Sorry about that error in days of the week. 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. --------------------------------------------------------------- Finally, the Digest is funded by gifts from generous readers such as yourself who provide funding in amounts deemed appropriate. Your help is important and appreciated. A suggested donation of fifty dollars per year per reader is considered appropriate. See our address above. Please make at least a single donation to cover the cost of processing your name to the mailing list. If you donate at least fifty dollars per year we will send you our two-CD set of the entire Telecom Archives; this is every word published in this Digest since our beginning in 1981. All opinions expressed herein are deemed to be those of the author. Any organizations listed are for identification purposes only and messages should not be considered any official expression by the organization. End of TELECOM Digest V22 #686 ****************************** From editor@telecom-digest.org Tue Oct 7 14:59:50 2003 Received: (from ptownson@localhost) by massis.lcs.mit.edu (8.11.6p2/8.11.3) id h97IxoA09036; Tue, 7 Oct 2003 14:59:50 -0400 (EDT) Date: Tue, 7 Oct 2003 14:59:50 -0400 (EDT) From: editor@telecom-digest.org Message-Id: <200310071859.h97IxoA09036@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 #687 TELECOM Digest Tue, 7 Oct 2003 15:00:00 EDT Volume 22 : Issue 687 Inside This Issue: Editor: Patrick A. Townson and: Lisa Minter Book Review: "Intrusion Detection with Snort", Jack Koziol (Rob Slade) Signs of Improvement/Video Conference Programs (Monty Solomon) DVR Industry: The 'D' Stands for 'Dense' (Monty Solomon) Information for Developers About Changes to Internet Explorer (Solomon) School District Sued Over WLAN Planning (Monty Solomon) School District Sued Over W-LAN RF Radiation Fears (Nick Ruark) Re: Bell Specs (Jay R. Ashworth) Re: Bell Specs (Ken Wheatley) Cable Needed: 4 Twisted Pairs, Individually Shielded (Mike Hubert) Re: Canadians Rise-up With Petition For Nextgen Phone/PDA (yeltrabnhoj) Re: VeriSign to Suspend Site Finder at 6 p.m. on Saturday, Oct. 4 (jbl) Re: Card Games/Should Buyers Beware of How Supermarkets Use (Van Nuland) "Loyalty" Cards (Joey Lindstrom) That's (718) 832-6459 (Marcus Didius Falco) Last Laugh! Re: Correction: Dalton Date in 1892 (Al Gillis) All contents here are copyrighted by Patrick Townson and the individual writers/correspondents. Articles may be used in other journals or newsgroups, provided the writer's name and the Digest are included in the fair use quote. By using -any name or email address- included herein for -any- reason other than responding to an article herein, you agree to pay a hundred dollars to the recipients of the email. WE DO NOT PERMIT NAME/EMAIL ADDRESS HARVESTING FROM THIS JOURNAL. 'SALTED' EMAIL ADDRESSES APPEAR HEREIN TO VERIFY THIS. YOU GET SUED IN SMALL CLAIMS COURT IF YOU GET CAUGHT SPAMMING OR SENDING VIRUSES. DON'T DO IT. See the bottom of this issue for subscription and archive details and the name of our lawyer; other stuff of interest. ---------------------------------------------------------------------- From: Rob Slade Organization: Vancouver Institute for Research into User Date: Mon, 6 Oct 2003 21:22:12 -0800 Subject: Book Review: "Intrusion Detection with Snort", Jack Koziol BKINDTSN.RVW 20030901 "Intrusion Detection with Snort", Jack Koziol, 2003, 1-57870-281-X, U$45.00/C$69.99/UK#32.99 %A Jack Koziol %C 201 W. 103rd Street, Indianapolis, IN 46290 %D 2003 %G 1-57870-281-X %I Macmillan Computer Publishing (MCP) %O U$45.00/C$69.99/UK#32.99 800-858-7674 info@mcp.com %O http://www.amazon.com/exec/obidos/ASIN/157870281X/robsladesinterne http://www.amazon.co.uk/exec/obidos/ASIN/157870281X/robsladesinte-21 %O http://www.amazon.ca/exec/obidos/ASIN/157870281X/robsladesin03-20 %P 340 p. %T "Intrusion Detection with Snort" Chapter one is a good introduction to the basics of intrusion detection, although it is odd that the list of detection methods is missing some important entries, such as heuristic rule-based and statistical methods. The background overview of Snort, in chapter two, describes alerts, related applications, and even has recommendations for sensor net architecture. Most of the content in regard to the components of Snort, in chapter three, deals with the preprocessors, and various attack signatures. Chapter four's advice about planning for the installation of Snort is broadly based, addressing policy, architecture, and even incident response, but the material is quite abstract, and could have benefitted from more practical examples. Some of these missing considerations are dealt with in chapter five, which looks at hardware and operating system factors. The text concentrates on server and sensor performance, but also addresses the network connection. Directions on building a Snort server under Red Hat Linux version 7.3 are given in chapter six. The sensor and console instructions are provided in chapters seven and eight, respectively. A few optional architectures are described in chapter nine. Chapter ten deals with tuning various rulesets and components in order to reduce the level of false alarms. Creating real-time alert systems is discussed in chapter eleven. Chapter twelve is a major one, outlining the creation and modification of rules for filtering and analyzing traffic. Chapter thirteen is supposed to be about upgrading and maintaining Snort, but concentrates on ancillary management tools. Advanced or unusual configurations of Snort are described in chapter fourteen. The book is generally lucidly written and easy to study, but it contains many typographical errors and a great deal of clumsy wording in the text. Better copy editing word have improved readability, as well as confidence in the reliability of various commands and settings. However, the meaning is usually clear, even if the expression is sometimes jarring. For those planning to use Snort, this should be a serviceable introduction. copyright Robert M. Slade, 2003 BKINDTSN.RVW 20030901 ====================== (quote inserted randomly by Pegasus Mailer) rslade@vcn.bc.ca slade@victoria.tc.ca rslade@sun.soci.niu.edu Hey, when *you* have the box, *then* you can give us geography lessons. Until then, Tahiti is in Europe. - Sneakers http://victoria.tc.ca/techrev or http://sun.soci.niu.edu/~rslade ------------------------------ Date: Mon, 6 Oct 2003 21:32:17 -0400 From: Monty Solomon Subject: Signs of Improvement/Video Conference Programs Expand Horizons Video conference programs expand horizons for deaf Benny Evangelista, Chronicle Staff Writer Monday, October 6, 2003 For Melvin Patterson, who has been completely deaf since he was a toddler, communication is a visual experience. In the past, conducting a conversation using traditional nonvisual telecommunications tools like telephones and pagers was frustrating. Text messages or sign language conversations on jittery Web video screens were a pale substitute for a face-to-face exchange. But that changed dramatically when Patterson tried iChat AV, new videoconferencing software, and iSight, a new Web camera, which Apple Computer Inc. introduced during the summer. http://www.sfgate.com/cgi-bin/article.cgi?f=/c/a/2003/10/06/BUGUO24GQC1.DTL ------------------------------ Date: Mon, 6 Oct 2003 22:55:23 -0400 From: Monty Solomon Subject: DVR Industry: The 'D' Stands for 'Dense' By Phillip Swann The digital video recorder can pause live TV, fast-forward through commercials and even record more than 300 hours of programming. However, there's one thing it can't do: Put some sense into the heads of the executives who are selling the damn thing. The DVR has been called the next big thing. TiVo, the category's brand leader, has generated more buzz than a case of Red Bull. However, after nearly five years and scores of millions spent on advertising and marketing, DVR services are in just 2.5 million homes. Despite widespread critical praise of the technology, the product has been a failure. http://www.tvweek.com/technology/100603swann.html ------------------------------ Date: Mon, 6 Oct 2003 22:59:10 -0400 From: Monty Solomon Subject: Information for Developers about Changes to Internet Explorer This section describes changes to Internet Explorer's handling of ActiveX controls and Java applets. Developers who build ActiveX controls, Web developers who use ActiveX and Java Applets on their Web sites, and developers who host the Web Browser OC or MSHTML should consult this documentation to understand how the user experience is changing, and also how to modify their pages to manage the user experience for their content. From this site, there are links to Microsoft documentation explaining these changes, a test version of Internet Explorer that shows how it will work when new versions of Windows are released that have this behavior, as well as links to information provided by other companies who produce ActiveX controls or tools. Microsoft expects that new computers and retail purchases of Microsoft Windows XP will have this behavior sometime early next calendar year. Microsoft also expects that new service packs of Windows XP and Internet Explorer will have this behavior starting sometime after that. http://msdn.microsoft.com/ieupdate/ ------------------------------ Date: Tue, 7 Oct 2003 01:38:16 -0400 From: Monty Solomon Subject: School District Sued over WLAN Planning A school district is sued in Illinois over planning a WLAN without addressing a group of parents' concerns over electromagnetic radiation's effects. http://wifinetnews.com/archives/002303.html ------------------------------ From: Nick Ruark Subject: School District Sued Over W-LAN RF Radiation Fears Date: Mon, 6 Oct 2003 21:38:22 -0700 A school district in Illinois has been sued (http://wifinetnews.com/archives/illinoislawsuit.pdf/illinoislawsuit.pdf) over planning a W-LAN without addressing a group of parents' concerns over electromagnetic radiation's effects. The suit claims credible evidence exists and cites 30 studies that connect EMR at high frequencies and signal strengths comparable to WLANs to health problems. The lawsuit also says there are no regulations after 1993 that relate to EMR and its only about thermal emissions even up to that point, even though EPA and FCC regulations seem to indicate otherwise. Forwarded from the Private Wireless Forum for Mobile Communication Prifessionals http://groups.yahoo.com/group/PrivateWirelessForum ------------------------------ From: Jay R. Ashworth Subject: Re: Bell Specs Date: Mon, 06 Oct 2003 21:35:05 GMT Organization: RoadRunner - Central Florida In article , Paul Cook wrote: > boris_badinov2000@yahoo.com (Boris Badinov) wrote: >> Does anybody know if there are any Bell System Tech pubs available >> on-line? I'm specifically looking for standards for residential local >> loops. > I don't think so. What were the Bell Local Switching Systems Generic > Requirements were quite expensive. As I recall, the version in our > lab was 4 or 5 feet thick. I know Bellcore sold them, and I expect > that whatever entity Bellcore has become (I can't recall their > name. Telcordia?) still sells it. I have seen EIA specs for phones > online though. LSSGR is about $18K, on CD-ROM; slightly more on paper. But it's not really what he needs, and parts of it are available fairly cheaply. What, exactly, do you need to know, Boris? Cheers, --jra ------------------------------ From: Ken Wheatley Subject: Re: Bell Specs Date: Tue, 7 Oct 2003 09:32:02 UTC Organization: BT Openworld Paul Cook wrote in message news:telecom22.684.11@telecom-digest.org: > boris_badinov2000@yahoo.com (Boris Badinov) wrote: > I don't think so. What were the Bell Local Switching Systems Generic > Requirements were quite expensive. As I recall, the version in our > lab was 4 or 5 feet thick. I know Bellcore sold them, and I expect > that whatever entity Bellcore has become (I can't recall their > name. Telcordia?) still sells it. I have seen EIA specs for phones > online though. Yes, it is Telcordia. They will make a custom CD for you - i.e. put the specs you want on a CD and mail them. You will then receive junk mail about once a week for life. The specs are expensive. For instance I bought GR866 which describes network CLI, and I think it cost $250. If you can wait 'til February they usually have a Groundhog Day sale, when the prices are reduced. ------------------------------ Subject: Cable Needed: 4 Twisted Pairs, Individually Shielded From: Mike Hubert Organization: Xiphos Technologies Date: Mon, 06 Oct 2003 17:24:11 GMT Hi, I have an application needing a cable with the following rough requirements: -4 twisted pairs, individually shielded (braided). Ideally standed 28AWG, but we could do down to 26 or even 24AWG. Solid conductors could also be acceptable. A foil shield could do as well. -outer shield, ideally braided, but foil could be ok. -outside diameter (O.D.) of the cable 5mm maximum. -cable must be somewhat flexible. The troublesome requirement here is the O.D. of <= 5mm: everything out there seems to be 7mm or more!! I need something quickly, and cannot afford to wait for someone to custom manufacture this for me. Even if I did, there is the additional problem of min orders of 1000-5000ft, I only need something like 100ft. If anyone has anything to suggest, I'd love to hear from you, I am getting desperate! Drop me a note at mph@xiphos.ca Regards, Mike Hubert Xiphos Technologies Inc. www.xiphos.ca ------------------------------ From: yeltrabnhoj@email.com Subject: Re: Canadians Rise-up With Petition For Nextgen Phone/PDA Date: Mon, 06 Oct 2003 18:50:56 GMT Organization: (reverse to reply) (John Bartley, K7AAY, Portland OR) On 4 Oct 2003 11:41:48 -0700, jbuchan@telus.net (John Buchan) wrote: > THIS IS NOT A COMMERCIAL MESSAGE > We have all been waiting for the small form factor cell phone/pda that > actually fits in the palm of our hand - well, it is almost here .. What's wrong with a Treo 180, 270 or 300, or the Kyocera 7135? Nobody but a fool goes into a federal counterrorism operation without duct tape - Richard Preston, THE COBRA EVENT. ------------------------------ From: jbl Subject: Re: VeriSign to Suspend Site Finder at 6 p.m. on Saturday, Oct. 4 Date: Mon, 06 Oct 2003 13:17:14 -0700 Organization: On the desert Reply-To: jbl@spamblocked.com In , Steven J Sobol wrote: > Phil Earnhardt wrote: >> Where exactly is the outrage in the user community that this DNS >> [dis-]service was suspended? > There's plenty, among people like the network engineers on the NANOG > mailing list, and other technically-oriented discussion groups, where > you have people who know the ramifications of Verisquat's stupidity. Actually Phil was being sarcastic, asking to hear about all the dissatisfied internet users who were outraged when ICANN _MADE_ netsol take down the sitefinder hack without so much as a hearing. /JBL ------------------------------ From: Jim Van Nuland Subject: Re: Card Games / Should Buyers Beware of How Supermarkets Use Date: Tue, 7 Oct 2003 08:32:47 +0000 (UTC) Organization: Silicon Valley Public Access Link Kevin Benko wrote: [snip bogus signup] > That sends the message that this sort of card scheme is acceptable, or > at least tolerated. > I wish to send the message that I disagree with these "loyalty" cards, > and I will point out that I will not be doing any business with such > chains. You need to make it explicit. At Safeway, I told the manager that I was unwilling to pay the bogus "regular" price and didn't want a "spy" card; and that I would return only when they decided to charge a fair price to everyone, card or no. Then I handed him my shopping basket and walked out. Jim Van Nuland, San Jose (California) Astronomical Association ------------------------------ From: Joey Lindstrom Date: Mon, 06 Oct 2003 14:45:00 -0600 Subject: "Loyalty" cards Reply-To: joey@telussucks.info Ron Chapman said: > Duh. I just walk in and sign up for a card, using a completely bogus > address. They give me a temporary card that lasts 3 months or so; > when it expires, I sign up for another card. > It's kinda fun coming up with completely random names and street > addresses. Then Kevin Benko said: > No one has any legitimate business tracking my purchasing trends > without my explicit knowledge and consent. If I want someone to know > what my purchasing trends are, I'll tell them. I'd rather tell those > organizations that want to track such things that I think that what > they are doing is *wrong* by not doing business with them *at*all* > than by bypassing their data collection but still giving them my > business. I'd rather give *more* money to their card-less > competitors, except, in the end, the card-less competitors are still > cheaper. And finally, Lisa Minter added: > [Lisa Minter note: Marvin's is as cheap as Walmart, and while I was > mainly using my loyalty card from the old Country Mart at Marvins > to cash personal checks for a few dollars for example late on > Saturday nights or Sunday when Commerce Bank was closed, now that I > have two debit cards (one from Commerce and one from Condon Bank) > I don't need the Country Mart card any longer, but if they want to > give me five percent off on my grocery bill for using the card, who > cares. But now Marvins has cut some deal with Condon Bank to give > free chances in a contest where you use the debit card as a credit > card and sign a slip for purchases rather than enter a pin number. > I think Marvins is going to quit bothering with the old Country Mart > loyalty cards at all; at least one of the guys I know there in the > customer service area told me that. Lisa M.] First off, I'll state that I, too, would much rather do business with businesses that don't use these cards. Thankfully there aren't too many of these card-types here in Calgary. There's "Safeway Club" of course (and I found out once that my Alberta-issued club card works fine in Oregon), and we also have the "Shopper's Optimum" card from Shopper's Drug Mart, the Zeller's (department store) "Club Zed" card, and the "Petro Points" card from Petro Canada (gas station chain). There's probably others but those are the ones that come immediately to mind. As has been pointed out, Safeway's "regular" prices have gone up, in many cases quite dramatically, since the introduction of the Safeway Club card. Now to be fair, their sale priced merchandise, for which you need the card, is actually priced rather well, but generally NO BETTER than any low-price chain such as Real Canadian Superstore - and then you get to pay the hyper-inflated regular price on all other purchases. Shopper's, at least, hasn't gone that route. Their prices are usually quite good to begin with, and if I recall correctly (I'm not a member), their card doesn't get you discounts, it earns you "points" which you can cash in later on. Similarly, there's Petro Points, where you get one point for every 10 cents worth of gas you buy. You can redeem those points for in-store merchandise: wiper fluid, a jug of oil, a window scraper, things like that - but it takes a while to rack up enough points. You get about .1% of the value of your gas purchase in points: hardly worth it. Lately in Calgary, many chains have been playing games with their pricing. They'll have a big sign outside advertising this week's price (and this week the most common price is 66.9 cents per litre), but then you get 3.5 cents off when you actually pump the gas. That is, unless you go to Petro Canada. To get the same 3.5 cent discount that EVERYBODY else offers with no card required, they require that you swipe your Petro Points card. Far from encouraging customer loyalty, this is backfiring on them big-time and is costing them customers. I signed up for the Safeway Club card once, long ago. I've since misplaced the card, but you can just tell the cashier your phone number and your purchases will "connect" to your card membership. But instead of filling out a completely bogus membership, as some are advocating, what I did was gave them my right address, wrong phone number, and partially wrong name. I got my temporary card, and then a short while later, my "real" card came in the mail - this way I don't have to keep re-applying. I get no telemarketing calls as a result, because they don't have my correct phone number. I do get some junkmail from time to time, but even if it's addressed in an envelope (with nothing else to give away the fact that it's junkmail), I can just pitch it into the trash ... because it's addressed to "Juliette" Lindstrom rather than "Joey" Lindstrom. Ain't nobody here by that name. :-) I've only used that particular name with Safeway, so I know for a fact which junkmail is coming to me as a result of this "loyalty" program. The amount is low enough, though, that it's not a problem, and in fact it's a source of great amusement every time one of them comes in. Indeed, they don't seem to be doing that good a job of "mining" my data. The few items I buy from Safeway include things like deli pizzas, diet Coke, cat litter (when on sale), and the occasional loaf of bread. But "Juliette" received a pitch last week for some products from... well, I don't want to embarrass them, but the company name rhymes with "maytex". :-) Now, if I'd been buying lots of feminine hygiene products, this would make sense... I buy most of my groceries from Real Canadian Superstore. Same selection (sometimes better) as Safeway and about 40% cheaper when averaged out across your entire bill. And, in fact, Superstore's pricing is pretty much identical to the prices charged by *THE* biggest purveyor of "loyalty cards": "Costco". They don't call them "loyalty" cards, they call them "membership" cards and they charge you 45 bucks a year for them. And that leads me to this question: We're bitching about the "loyalty" cards that the various supermarkets and other chains have been foisting on us, but how come nobody's mentioned Costco? They've been doing this for a LOT longer, and CHARGING US for the privilege of carrying their card. They've had access to our personal (and business) information for many, many years, doing who knows what with it. Why is all of our anger seemingly reserved only for the purveyors of free "loyalty" cards? At least they give us a choice, when shopping at their stores, whether or not to use the card. With Costco, it's "show yer card or get the hell outta here". I dunno about you, but I prefer to be kissed before I let someone do this to me. ------------------------------ Date: Tue, 07 Oct 2003 01:07:52 -0400 From: Marcus Didius Falco Subject: That's (718) 832-6459 * Original: FROM..... David Bolduc Yet another telephone number outed. ;) http://nypost.com/postopinion/opedcolumnists/7361.htm October 6, 2003 -- WHAT do social insects, Genghis Khan's cavalry and the cyberbullies at MoveOn.org have in common? Swarming. Social insects aren't much on individuality. Gene-driven, they do low-order tasks in the service of an elaborately organized nest - and they do it in large numbers. That is, in swarms. Genghis Khan's Mongol horse soldiers combined technology unknown to the West (composite bows and the stirrup, the "shock-and-awe" of their day) and swarming tactics (surrounding and reducing immobile infantry) to overrun much of Europe and the Mideast in the 13th Century. Indeed, "Back to Baghdad" is the battle cry of the 125-man Mongolian outfit in the Coalition of the Willing - one of the more delicious ironies of Operation Iraqi Freedom. Ah, yes. The war. It was fiercely opposed by MoveOn, a self-described enabler of "electronic advocacy groups." Founded by two software-wealthy dilettantes from the - where else? - West Coast, the organization professes "to bring ordinary people back into politics." Nothing wrong with that. Even if MoveOn's agenda - as laid out on its Web site - mirrors in detail that of the left wing of the Democratic Party. That is, MoveOn's leaders are obsessed with effecting the defeat next year of George W. Bush. And if you get them angry, they will swarm you - like termites. They sure swarmed me. Last week, MoveOn decided that Robert Novak, the syndicated columnist and a long-time colleague, should no longer appear in The Post. Novak, who may (or may not) have blown the identity of a CIA agent, is, in MoveOn's view, unfit to practice his trade. Thus did Noah Weiner, of MoveOn, call last Tuesday afternoon: Does the Post intend to fire Robert Novak? he asked, tendentiously. I responded in that spirit: I said, "No," and I hung up. Silly me. Presently, Weiner stirred MoveOn's rank-and-file. He cast my name, my crime and my office-desk phone number into cyberspace. And for three days, continuing into the weekend, the phone calls arrived - in the aggregate, several hundred. They were depressingly unoriginal, many clearly read from a script. Some calls were angry. Most seemed informed by a befuddled, albeit vaguely self-righteous, sincerity. Okay, maybe not termites. But worker ants, for sure. Each call represented three minutes of individual effort, plus 75 cents or so for the phone company. Cumulatively, they resided somewhere between a substantial annoyance and actionable harassment; a we-know-where-you-live threat of sorts; a whiff of virtual fascism hanging in the air, clearly not by accident. You toe our line, is the message, or we'll stomp on your toes. MoveOn's Weiner, who oozes annoying self-righteousness, is himself angered by the analogy. But it's true. That much became clear during a telephone conversation Friday afternoon. He has a right to marshal his worker ants, he said in words or substance, because he's serving a higher good - in this case, the muzzling of a journalist of 40 years standing. And, by extension, the defeat of President Bush next fall. And I, the target du jour, have no rights worth respecting - certainly not the right to do a day's work without unceasing harassment. Well, that cuts two ways. "This is Noah Weiner of MoveOn.org," he said - in a smug have you had enough yet? tone - into voicemail late Thursday. "Please give me a call at (718)832-6459 . . . " Hmmmm. What the hell. He asked for it. Swarm him. =-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=- *** FAIR USE NOTICE. This message contains copyrighted material the use of which has not been specifically authorized by the copyright owner. This Internet discussion group is making it available without profit to group members who have expressed a prior interest in receiving the included information in their efforts to advance the understanding of literary, educational, political, and economic issues, for non-profit research and educational purposes only. I believe that this constitutes a 'fair use' of the copyrighted material as provided for in section 107 of the U.S. Copyright Law. If you wish to use this copyrighted material for purposes of your own that go beyond 'fair use,' you must obtain permission from the copyright owner. For more information go to: http://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/17/107.shtml [TELECOM Digest Editor's Note: Readers, please bear in mind that anytime you wish to discuss anything on the telephone with anyone, you should always avoid harassment and making a nuisance of yourself. PAT] ------------------------------ From: Al Gillis Subject: Last Laugh! Re: Correction: Dalton Date in 1892 Date: Mon, 6 Oct 2003 19:36:18 -0700 Organization: http://extra.newsguy.com Well, Pat, we officially forgive you! After all, you weren't even there when it all happened! Jonathan Burke wrote in message news:telecom22.686.11@telecom-digest.org: > TELECOM Digest Editor wrote in comp.dcom.telecom: >> Subject: 111 Years Ago This Weekend >> On Saturday, October 4, 1892, the Dalton >> Gang came to Coffeyville > Er; October 4, 1892 was a _Tuesday_, not a Saturday. > But otherwise an interesting bit of history. > Jonathan > [TELECOM Digest Editor's Note: You are right, and I am dumb. Of > curiosity when writing the original piece, it happened to be early > . > . > . > miles) south in Coffeyville. Sorry about that error in days of the > week. PAT] [TELECOM Digest Editor's Note: Well I certainly do not feel 111 years old. But seeing what a mess the Coffeyville downtown area has become made me feel a lot older. :( 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. --------------------------------------------------------------- Finally, the Digest is funded by gifts from generous readers such as yourself who provide funding in amounts deemed appropriate. Your help is important and appreciated. A suggested donation of fifty dollars per year per reader is considered appropriate. See our address above. Please make at least a single donation to cover the cost of processing your name to the mailing list. If you donate at least fifty dollars per year we will send you our two-CD set of the entire Telecom Archives; this is every word published in this Digest since our beginning in 1981. All opinions expressed herein are deemed to be those of the author. Any organizations listed are for identification purposes only and messages should not be considered any official expression by the organization. End of TELECOM Digest V22 #687 ****************************** From editor@telecom-digest.org Tue Oct 7 18:40:08 2003 Received: (from ptownson@localhost) by massis.lcs.mit.edu (8.11.6p2/8.11.3) id h97Me8H11194; Tue, 7 Oct 2003 18:40:08 -0400 (EDT) Date: Tue, 7 Oct 2003 18:40:08 -0400 (EDT) From: editor@telecom-digest.org Message-Id: <200310072240.h97Me8H11194@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 #688 TELECOM Digest Tue, 7 Oct 2003 18:40:00 EDT Volume 22 : Issue 688 Inside This Issue: Editor: Patrick A. Townson and: Lisa Minter Vindigo Delivers MapQuest to Mobile Phone Customers (Monty Solomon) VeriSign Responds to IAB Site Finder Commentary (Monty Solomon) AT&T To End Local Service In Connecticut (Nathan Strom) Radio on Compac Norstar ICS 4.0 (clibert@kim.kaba.com) Symposium Reports "List" (bls212) City Fido Takes to the Streets October 9 in Vancouver (Group Special) SS7 Sample RFP (Vasco Correia) Re: To Cord, or Not to Cord (Jay R. Ashworth) Re: Trillian Plugs Back Into Yahoo, MSN (Dave Phelps) Re: NorVergence SOHO Matrix is Fraudulent (John Dearing) Re: Any Such Thing as a Phone Line Transceiver? (Jim Wall) Re: Any Such Thing as a Phone Line Transceiver? (Dave Temkin) Re: Reminder Ring on Call Forwarding (VP) Re: Reminder Ring on Call Forwarding (Doug) Re: Reminder Ring on Call Forwarding (Mark J Cuccia) Re: Three SIM Card Use on 2G Phones (James) Re: Card Games/Should Buyers Beware of How Supermarkets Use (S Dorsey) Swarming (Joey Lindstrom) Heh heh... (Joey Lindstrom) Last Laugh! Proctor 49200 Wanted (Mark J Cuccia) 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, 7 Oct 2003 14:08:11 -0400 From: Monty Solomon Subject: Vindigo Delivers MapQuest to Mobile Phone Customers World's Leading Online Maps and Directions Resource Now Available On-the-Go NEW YORK--(BUSINESS WIRE)--Oct. 7, 2003--Vindigo Studios, one of the best-known developers and publishers of consumer information and entertainment applications for mobile devices, today announced that they will be the leading developer behind the new MapQuest Mobile Powered by Vindigo, which MapQuest launched on Verizon Wireless, the nation's largest wireless provider. The service will offer consumers MapQuest maps and directions while on-the-go and is currently only available on Verizon Wireless' Get It Now(SM)-capable phones. MapQuest Mobile Powered by Vindigo offers coast-to-coast coverage from the world's leading online map provider. Mobile users can instantly find their way with full-color, interactive maps that pan and zoom. Consumers enter their point of departure and destination by typing in the full address, a city, a zip code, or the nearest intersection. The product's step-by-step driving directions are then displayed in an easy-to-use, tabbed format. Current directions are downloaded and conveniently saved on the phone. Similar to the online service, consumers can also save favorites and recent addresses and calculate reverse directions. - http://finance.lycos.com/home/news/story.asp?story=35959658 ------------------------------ Date: Tue, 7 Oct 2003 14:10:12 -0400 From: Monty Solomon Subject: VeriSign Responds to IAB Site Finder Commentary MOUNTAIN VIEW, Calif., Oct. 7 /PRNewswire-FirstCall/ -- VeriSign, Inc. (Nasdaq: VRSN), the leading provider of critical infrastructure services for the Internet and telecommunications networks, today provided the following response to the Internet Architecture Board's commentary on Site Finder, a service to improve Web navigation for Internet users. VeriSign's Response to IAB Commentary "Architectural Concerns on the Use of DNS Wildcards" dated September 23, 2003 On September 23, 2003, the IAB issued a commentary entitled "Architectural Concerns on the use of DNS Wildcards." This commentary describes various implications of the implementation of DNS wildcards in a zone, paying particular attention to VeriSign's recent deployment of a wildcard A record in the .com and .net zones on September 15, 2003. As with the IAB's review of VeriSign's binary redirect for non-ASCII domain names, VeriSign appreciates the opportunity to comment on the IAB's views on our wildcard implementation and looks forward to continuing an open dialog with the IAB on this and future services. This response will address the IAB commentary, using observed operational data to put the issues into context. This response does not address the wildcard primer nor any non-technical considerations raised in the commentary, which VeriSign believes are more appropriately addressed in a different form. - http://finance.lycos.com/home/news/story.asp?story=35957491 ------------------------------ From: nstrom@ananzi.co.za (Nathan Strom) Subject: AT&T To End Local Service In Connecticut Date: 7 Oct 2003 07:07:32 -0700 Organization: http://groups.google.com From the Hartford Courant at http://www.ctnow.com/business/hc-phone1007.artoct07,1,6890.story (free registration possibly required): AT&T To End Local Service In State; Connecticut Telephone Could Be Big Winner By JOHN M. MORAN, Courant Staff Writer AT&T is getting out of the local telephone market in Connecticut, transferring its 5,000 state customers to either Connecticut Telephone Co., an independent provider, or other carriers by December at no cost to the customers. An AT&T spokesman said the company was discontinuing its local telephone service because it was unable to operate profitably in the state. Connecticut Telephone, a privately held company, does not release subscriber numbers. But Rust Muirhead, its chief executive, said the expected influx of former AT&T customers is "certainly a significant addition to our base." Muirhead said most of the customers who are transferred from AT&T are likely to see lower costs for local "landline" telephone service - especially those who buy such advanced services as call-waiting, caller ID and call- forwarding. Some customers may see a slight increase of as much as 22 cents a month, he said. Affected AT&T customers, who are scattered throughout the state, may also choose among the other competing providers of local phone service -- including SBC SNET and, in some locations, the local cable TV company. AT&T "was reluctant to discontinue a service that 5,000 people depended on," company spokesman Ed Bergstraesser said. But the company decided to exit the market after determining that it is unable to make a fair return on its investment in the state, he said. AT&T's departure is a setback to efforts by the state Department of Public Utility Control to create a more competitive market for local telephone services in Connecticut. "We hate to see competitors who have solid experience in the industry leave the market," said Beryl Lyons, a spokeswoman for the agency. But, she added, "this is a business decision on AT&T's part, and that's going to happen in a competitive marketplace." William Vallee, a lawyer for the state Office of Consumer Counsel, said AT&T's exodus will hurt competition in the state. "It's always disappointing to see a carrier with that reputation and status and size depart," he said. Muirhead said AT&T's exit leaves Connecticut Telephone as the only competitor to SBC SNET in offering landline local phone service to all residences and businesses statewide. Founded in 1984, Connecticut Telephone employs 50 and offers a full range of telecommunications services. In addition to landline phone service, the company offers long-distance service, cellular telephone plans, paging, dial-up Internet service and business-class DSL Internet service. Connecticut Telephone is also one of the state's leading providers of Wi-Fi wireless Internet services, operating some 20 Wi-Fi-equipped "hotspots." Muirhead acknowledged that the pending acquisition of former AT&T customers strengthens his company's business and introduces it to a new audience to which it can pitch its other telecommunications services. "It's our hope that the vast majority [of AT&T customers] decide to stay with us," Muirhead said. ------------------------------ Subject: Radio on Compac Norstar ICS 4.0 From: clibert@kim.kaba.com Date: Tue, 7 Oct 2003 12:23:54 -0400 Hi, I want to connect the radio on this system, but the installer guide don't give much info on the wiring. Do you have some details that I can see how to do it. Thank you. ------------------------------ From: bls212@yahoo.com (bls212) Subject: Symposium Reports "List" Date: 7 Oct 2003 13:35:59 -0700 Organization: http://groups.google.com Hello, I have been asked numerous times by end-users if a document exists that summarizes Symposium reports. What end users are looking for is a quick way to pick the appropriate report, according to what information they want to retrieve; such as 'number of abandoned calls' or 'longest wait time'. I have MERL and within there is a PDF that contains EVERYTHING but its way too much information, it's over 50 pages long. Does anyone know of a simple list, doc or website that has this kind of information? I am trying to save some time, rather than going in and editing the PDF and creating the list on my own. Especially since Nortel documents everything -- it may already exist and it seems like it should. Thanks for your time. bls212@yahoo.com ------------------------------ From: Group Special Mobile Subject: City Fido Takes to the Streets in Vancouver: Microcell Launches Date: Tue, 07 Oct 2003 14:18:06 -0700 Organization: Posted via Supernews, http://www.supernews.com Reply-To: look@signature_for_reply_instructions MONTREAL--(BUSINESS WIRE)--Oct. 6, 2003--Microcell Solutions Inc., the national provider of Personal Communications Services (PCS) under the Fido(R) brand name, today announced the upcoming launch of City Fido(TM), the true alternative to traditional wireline telephone service. "Since its inception, Microcell has pursued a path of innovation and built new ways for Canadians to use wireless technology as their preferred everyday communications tool," stated Andre Tremblay, President and Chief Executive Officer of Microcell Telecommunications Inc. "Our vision has always been to give Canadians an alternative to traditional wireline telephone service, and City Fido does just that. This new initiative is supported by various market studies that indicate that a growing number of people are now ready to go completely wireless, and Microcell is proud to be spearheading this new category of service in Canada. It's an enormous leap forward for our company and a critical stage in the evolution of Canada's wireless industry." For a price comparable to that of their current local service, customers can now have a home phone that is also a mobile phone. Attractively priced at $40 per month, City Fido provides unlimited anytime local calling in the Greater Vancouver area. As with Fido Service, customers receive a number of Included Services, such as Call Waiting, Call Forwarding and Conference Call. Other valuable services, such as Text Messaging, Call Display, Voice Messaging, long distance, mobile Internet and data transmission, national roaming on Fido's network and international roaming in 139 countries, are also available at affordable prices with City Fido. http://home.businesswire.com/portal/site/google/index.jsp?ndmViewId=news_view&newsId=20031006005409&newsLang=en To send an email reply send to GSMthemobilestandard (@) yahoo.com ------------------------------ From: Vasco Correia Subject: SS7 Sample RFP Date: Tue, 7 Oct 2003 19:57:55 +0100 I'm looking for sample SS7 RFP's ... (with all the related parts within -- Number Translation, Routing, etc) Does anyone can help me on this? ------------------------------ From: Jay R. Ashworth Subject: Re: To Cord, or Not to Cord Date: Mon, 06 Oct 2003 22:29:11 GMT Organization: RoadRunner - Central Florida In article , Neal McLain wrote: > CATV cables are supported by tensioned strands just like telco cables > (in fact, the cable industry uses the same pole hardware that telcos > use). > Power conductors are also tensioned, which is why they are sometimes > called "high tension lines." Aw, Neal ... and you were doing so well. High tension lines are called that because an archaic synonym for "voltage" was ... "tension". Cheers, -- jra ------------------------------ From: Dave Phelps Subject: Re: Trillian Plugs Back Into Yahoo, MSN Date: Mon, 6 Oct 2003 19:34:52 -0500 Organization: Posted via Supernews, http://www.supernews.com In article , tester123@fastmail.fm says: > Trillian Pro 2.0, the most recent version of the for-pay service, > phones home and should never be purchased. I'm a huge fan of Trillian. The phone home (what they call "anonymous usage statistics") can be disabled. It is enabled by default, although I'm of the opinion it should be disabled by default. Dave Phelps DD Networks www.ddnets.com deadspam=tippenring ------------------------------ From: John Dearing Subject: Re: NorVergence SOHO Matrix is Fraudulent Date: Tue, 07 Oct 2003 01:36:27 GMT Satchel Paige wrote: > If you were sold or have been pitched the Matrix SOHO product from > NorVergence, you have been defrauded. I currently have no opinion one way or the other but here is another datapoint for the discussion. I was installing a new Qwest T-1 today for a customer in PA and I actually got to see a Matrix box "up close and personal". Even though it says Norvergence and Martrix on it, it looks an awful lot like the Adtran TA-850 channel banks I've seen so many CLEC's use to deliver dialtone and/or data to a customer. This particular box had two 4 port FXS card installed along with an "echo cancelling card" and a BCU T-1 interface card. For those that are pricing this out, I can't see that this "box" is worth more than $2,000 - $3,000 tops. This will vary a little depending on exactly what cards the unit is equipped with. A quick check on Ebay shows nearly new Adtran 850's going for under $1,000 so there you go ... John ------------------------------ From: jimwall2000@yahoo.com (Jim Wall) Subject: Re: Any Such Thing as a Phone Line Transceiver? Date: 6 Oct 2003 14:22:10 -0700 Organization: http://groups.google.com I have never heard of one, but it might exist. If it does, it will be expensive. This is actually quite a tricky problem. The end of the line closest to the telephone needs a piece of equipment that acts as a cental office, recognizing the line voltage (current if you are a purist) conditions as well as passing the audio to the other end of the fiber. It also needs to be able to generate a legal ring voltage to any attached devices. So there is a significant amount of out of band signalling that must be done between the two transceivers. It gets more complicated it you allow for phone equipment on each side of fiber as opposed to just on the downstream side. -Jim Ed Clarke wrote in message news:: > I'm looking for something that plugs into a standard residential phone > line, converts to multimode fiber and has a duplicate on the other end > to convert back to a phone line. Should be full duplex. > Does anyone make such a thing? The purpose is to avoid the excitement > involved in running a long stretch of wire between buildings in a > lightning prone area. I've got spare fiber already installed. ------------------------------ From: dave@ordinaryworld.com (Dave Temkin) Subject: Re: Any Such Thing as a Phone Line Transceiver? Date: 7 Oct 2003 07:38:46 -0700 Organization: http://groups.google.com Ed Clarke wrote in message news:: > I'm looking for something that plugs into a standard residential phone > line, converts to multimode fiber and has a duplicate on the other end > to convert back to a phone line. Should be full duplex. > Does anyone make such a thing? The purpose is to avoid the excitement > involved in running a long stretch of wire between buildings in a > lightning prone area. I've got spare fiber already installed. Don't know if this is overkill or not, but the RAD IPMux-1 will do this -- you can have up to 4 FXO/FXS ports and either copper or fiber connectivity (it's ethernet, but that doesn't matter much if it's just point to point). http://www.rad-direct.com/Product-TDM-over-IP-Gateway-IPMUX-1--APP--tdmoip-voice.htm http://www.rad-direct.com/datasheet/IPMUX-1.pdf ------------------------------ From: VP Subject: Re: Reminder Ring on Call Forwarding Date: Tue, 7 Oct 2003 03:18:14 -0400 Technically possible ... yes. Tarriffed service and saleable maybe ... 5ESS set BSRING (Base Station Ring) to "NO" EWSD change RRNG (Reminder Ring) to NORRNG Sorry ... don't know the DMS option Victor web+google@ivrl.com (Paul Crick) inquired about Reminder Ring on Call Forwarding on 5 Oct 2003 20:28:02 -0700: > If I forward all calls using *72 to another number, every time a call > is forwarded my phone gives a short little reminder ring to remind me > that a divert is in operation. > Is it technically possible within the CO switch to disable this > feature on a line by line basis? (Telco politics is a completely > different matter of course) ;-) > What I'd like to do is have calls to my regular number divert > immediately to another number, with no local indication, and for calls > to my smart ring number which doesn't follow call forwarding to ring > in the regular fashion. > Any switch techs care to comment? > Thanks in advance, > Paul ------------------------------ From: Doug Subject: Re: Reminder Ring on Call Forwarding Date: Tue, 7 Oct 2003 06:36:10 -0400 Organization: None whatsoever Paul, could you turn the phone's ringer off or unplug the phone instead of having telco change the line? Just a suggestion. Doug in Delaware Paul Crick wrote in message news:telecom22.686.10@telecom-digest.org: > If I forward all calls using *72 to another number, every time a call > is forwarded my phone gives a short little reminder ring to remind me > that a divert is in operation. > Is it technically possible within the CO switch to disable this > feature on a line by line basis? (Telco politics is a completely > different matter of course) ;-) > What I'd like to do is have calls to my regular number divert > immediately to another number, with no local indication, and for calls > to my smart ring number which doesn't follow call forwarding to ring > in the regular fashion. > Any switch techs care to comment? > Thanks in advance, > Paul ------------------------------ Date: Tue, 7 Oct 2003 06:00:16 CDT From: Mark J Cuccia Subject: Re: Reminder Ring on Call Forwarding Paul Crick wrote: > If I forward all calls using *72 to another number, every time a call is > forwarded my phone gives a short little reminder ring to remind me that > a divert is in operation. > Is it technically possible within the CO switch to disable this feature > on a line by line basis? (Telco politics is a completely different > matter of course) ;-) > What I'd like to do is have calls to my regular number divert immediately > to another number, with no local indication, and for calls to my smart > ring number which doesn't follow call forwarding to ring in the regular > fashion. In THEORY, just about anything is possible. As for actual practice, it would depend on what type of switch you have, and the generics. i.e., is it a Lucent 5ESS, Nortel DMS-10, Nortel DMS-100, Stromberg DCO, Siemens EWSD, Ericcson, etc? I used to think that "anything" in the way of feature modification would be easily possible on any type of elecetronic/digital/etc. "stored program control" switch, but there are frequently "hard coded" things which prevent such "customization" without major internal re-encoding of programming, if even possible by techs from the manufacturer. When you have *72 "all calls forward" turned on (as *72+etc), ALL incoming calls ARE being immediately diverted to the forward-to number. The "ping" ring you hear is simply a reminder that *72 forarding IS turned on. You still can NOT answer those calls. If the rining was turned off, the rate of time to forward those calls would still be the same as with the "ping" ring activated. The incoming call to your number is NOT really ever connected to your line itself. As for having the "main" number forward while your alternate-ring numbers actually get through to that line while *72 is turned on, that again COULD be possible "in theory", but again, it all depends on what can easily be programmed or modified depending on manufactuer/model /generic. I do know that with BellSouth and the 5ESS I'm served from, I seem to think that with "Ringmaster" (tm) numbers, ALL incoming calls to all numbers get forwarded when *72 is turned on. I could be wrong, but I don't think one has an "upfront choice" as to whether or not the Ringmaster number(s) will forward when *72 is turned on at the "main" line. However, with Call-Forward-Busy and Call-Forward-Don't Answer, I do have the choice, when both CF-B/CF-DA and Ringmaster are both active on the same line, at the time I have both ordered from the Business Office, as to whether or not the Ringmaster number(s) will also forward over. However, any change to that would have to be made thru the Business Office, and if I have TWO Ringmaster numbers associated with my main line number, BOTH have to do the same thing, I can't have one Ringmaster number forward with the other not forward. And you are SO right -- telco's "policies" IS a completely different matter, and frequently fly in the face of basic logic!!! Mark J. Cuccia mcuccia@tulane.edu New Orleans LA USA NWORLASKDS0 (BellSouth #5ESS Cl.5 Local "Seabrook" 504-24x-) NWORLAIYCM3 (BellSouth-Mobility Ericsson Cellular-MTSO NOL) NWORLAMT01T (BellSouth DMS-100 "Metairie" Tndm; Cellular routes thru) NWORLAMA0GT (BellSouth DMS-100/200 inTRA-LATA/fg.B-C-D Tndm "Main" 504+) NWORLAMA20T (BellSouth DMS-200 TOPS:inLATA Opr.Svc.Tndm "Main" 504+053+) NWORLAMA04T (AT&T #4ESS Class-2 Toll 060-T / 504-2T "Main" 504+) JCSNMSPS06T (AT&T #5ESS OSPS:Operator-Services-Tandem 601-0T 601+121) JCSNMSPS14T (AT&T #4ESS Class-3 Toll 040-T / 601-2T; OSPS routes thru) NWORLAELH01 (Tulane U PBX NEC-2400 broken down to the following 504-NXXes and thousands-blocks: 865-4/5/6xxx, 862-3/8xxx, 314-2/7xxx, 247-1xxx) NWORLACADS0 (BellSo.DMS-100 Cl.5 Lcl "Carrollton" 504-86x-;PBX 'homes' on) [TELECOM Digest Editor's Note: When I used to have Southwestern Bell as my local carrier here in Independence, the *one* service rep I got once who had some intelligence and interest in her job fixed up my forwarding on busy/no answer to work that same way. The main listed number went on delayed forwarding to my cell phone while the secondary number (the ring-ring number, mainly used to accept my toll free calls from an 800 number so I could tell who was paying for the call) rang through to my answering machine all the time. She claimed that 'most reps do not know how to write the order which is why they claim it cannot be done.' However when I switched my local service to Prairie Stream (by far superior and much less expensive than Southwestern Bell) *they* claimed it could not be done, regardless of what SBC had claimed. So now, both delay forward to my cell phone again. PAT] ------------------------------ From: james@Talkpeople.com (James) Subject: Re: Three SIM Card Use on 2G Phones Date: 7 Oct 2003 11:06:22 -0700 Organization: http://groups.google.com Group Special Mobile wrote in message news:: > On 1 Oct 2003 11:32:55 -0700, crookie74@hotmail.com > (crookie74@hotmail.com) wrote: >> Is there a way I can make calls from from a non-Three phone (in the >> UK)but using Three sim card? I put the card in a Motorola V66 and it >> worked for a while but then went to a screen saying check sim. The >> people in the Three shop said that it is not supposed to work in >> non-Three phones but it will in some but it is pot luck. Does anyone >> know what phones it will work in as I dodn't want to carry a big >> phone, I just want the cheap calls. > Generally if a wireless operator "locks" the handsets they market you > cannot use another operator's SIM in your handset. If however your > carrier is a "virtual" carrier using another network e.g. Virgin > Mobile in the UK uses the T-Mobile network so handsets bought from > either Virgin Mobile or T-Mobile will work. An O2 SIM will not work > in a Virgin or T-Mobile handset. If Three is also a virtual network > (which I believe it is) then you can only use it with handsets sold by > three or by the network they use. I believe Three is a virtual > operator as well though I'm not sure which network they use. > http://www.uk-three-mobile-phones.co.uk/ > To send an email reply send to > GSMthemobilestandard (@) yahoo.com 3 Is owned by Hutchison, who also owns Orange. 3 Is a new network which is currently being implemented across the United Kingdom, so there is no way near 100% coverage. Consequently, Three users have to operate under the o2 network when not in range of a 3 transmitter. When you are out of range and on O2 you can not use video phone services, just talk. So I assume o2 would work. james from deagio.com ------------------------------ From: kludge@panix.com (Scott Dorsey) Subject: Re: Card Games / Should Buyers Beware of How Supermarkets Use Date: 7 Oct 2003 14:35:06 -0400 Organization: Former users of Netcom shell (1989-2000) Kevin Benko wrote: > In article , siegman@stanford.edu > says: >> At some of the major markets where we shop, if you just look sad and >> say, "Oh, I left my card at home" or "Oh, my wife has it", the >> checkout person will pull a dummy card out of a drawer, swipe it, and >> you get the discounts with no data collection. > That sends the message that this sort of card scheme is acceptable, or > at least tolerated. I was in California. I bought a case of champagne at the supermarket there, since I was helping host a friend's wedding. The checkout clerk asked if I had a card, and I said I didn't, so the helpful person behind me in line handed his card to her, and I got about twenty dollars off on the whole thing. God only knows what the database now says about the other person behind me. If the clerk is willing to do this, then clearly he or she does not care about the database being accurate. And if the databases aren't accurate, there's no point in collecting the data. > I wish to send the message that I disagree with these "loyalty" cards, > and I will point out that I will not be doing any business with such > chains. I would think the best thing to do would be to do as much business as possible with them, using clearly invalid cards, and to make as great a mess of their database as possible. If the cards do not make it easier for them to get valid marketing data, they'll stop using them. Be sure to sign your neighbor's cat up too. --scott "C'est un Nagra. C'est suisse, et tres, tres precis." ------------------------------ From: Joey Lindstrom Date: Tue, 07 Oct 2003 13:23:47 -0600 Subject: Swarming Reply-To: joey@telussucks.info On Tue, 7 Oct 2003 14:59:50 -0400 (EDT), a Digester wrote: > "This is Noah Weiner of MoveOn.org," he said - in a smug have you had > enough yet? tone - into voicemail late Thursday. "Please give me a > call at (718)832-6459 ... " > Hmmmm. > What the hell. > He asked for it. > Swarm him. After six rings, I got "I'm sorry, there is no room to record your message right now, please try again later." He did indeed ask for it. ------------------------------ From: Joey Lindstrom Date: Tue, 07 Oct 2003 13:33:47 -0600 Subject: Heh heh ... Reply-To: joey@telussucks.info ... speaking of moveon.org, I just visited it for the first time. Y'know, for a bunch of people trying hard to seem intellectual and enlightened, there sure are a lot of spelling mistakes on this website. The California Recall does indeed seem to be "to close to call", but I'm not really all that concerned about "the fate of the Artic National Wildlife Refuge". Anyone know where the Artic is? :-) (and, come to think of it, if we're going to discuss the ArCtic, shouldn't we include Canada in that discussion? Much of the ArCtic in this hemisphere is Canadian ... What a buncha yahoos ... obTelecom: I intentionally mistyped this website as "www.loonyleftiesunited.com" (hey, it's an easy mistake to make) into my browser in order to see if NetSol had really withdrawn their SiteFinder service. Looks like they have, though I'm sure that I got it a couple of times over the weekend (ie: after the ICANN-imposed deadline). Amen. ------------------------------ Date: Tue, 7 Oct 2003 06:09:49 CDT From: Mark J Cuccia Subject: Last Laugh! Proctor 49200 Wanted Paul Cook (pcook@proctorinc.com) wrote: > Does anyone know where I can get a Proctor 49200 Telephone > Demonstrator (a line simulator) in great condition? Well, why don't you just *DIAL THAT NUMBER* ... PRoctor 4-9200 ! :) > I have someone who wants the 9-1-1 version If 911 isn't yet set up, and you don't want to call the seven-digit police/fire number, just call the '0' Operator! :) Sorry, I just couldn't resist! :) mjc ------------------------------ 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. --------------------------------------------------------------- Finally, the Digest is funded by gifts from generous readers such as yourself who provide funding in amounts deemed appropriate. Your help is important and appreciated. A suggested donation of fifty dollars per year per reader is considered appropriate. See our address above. Please make at least a single donation to cover the cost of processing your name to the mailing list. If you donate at least fifty dollars per year we will send you our two-CD set of the entire Telecom Archives; this is every word published in this Digest since our beginning in 1981. All opinions expressed herein are deemed to be those of the author. Any organizations listed are for identification purposes only and messages should not be considered any official expression by the organization. End of TELECOM Digest V22 #688 ****************************** From editor@telecom-digest.org Tue Oct 7 19:23:40 2003 Received: (from ptownson@localhost) by massis.lcs.mit.edu (8.11.6p2/8.11.3) id h97NNej11620; Tue, 7 Oct 2003 19:23:40 -0400 (EDT) Date: Tue, 7 Oct 2003 19:23:40 -0400 (EDT) From: editor@telecom-digest.org Message-Id: <200310072323.h97NNej11620@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 #689 TELECOM Digest Tue, 7 Oct 2003 19:23:00 EDT Volume 22 : Issue 689 Inside This Issue: Editor: Patrick A. Townson and: Lisa Minter Return of the Bozo Bit ... (Marcus Didius Falco) 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, 07 Oct 2003 01:42:37 -0400 From: Marcus Didius Falco Subject: Return of the Bozo Bit ... The Digital Millenium Copyright Act (DMCA) may make illegal (for Americans) some discussion of methods of circumventing copy protection. I believe that Dr. Halderman (or maybe one of his colleagues at Princeton) ran into a legal buzz saw a few years ago when the movie industry (I think it was) tried to suppress one of his mathematical papers. (The following paper is NOT mathematical.) * Original: FROM..... Mr. Lizard For those wondering about the title of this message ... if you were a Mac programmer in days gone by, you were probably familiar with a flag visible to the resource editor (Resedit) called "Bozo". This was the built-in "copy protection" mechanism shipped with the original Macintosh. If that bit was set, the file could not be copied. The bit was so-named because, apparently, it was noted during systems development that "Any bozo could get around that!" And today, we have record companies spending millions on "copy protection" technologies that are, as the following article shows, equally as trivial to defeat. Technology isn't the answer to piracy. The answer is two-edged. First, media companies need to realize the old model has failed and find ways to make money using, rather than opposing, technology. Secondly, the culture of entitlement which allows people to feel they have a 'right' to something merely because they want it needs to be eliminated on every level. (Caveat: I have not verified the procedure described in this article.) ========================================================== http://www.cs.princeton.edu/~jhalderm/cd3/ Analysis of the MediaMax CD3 Copy-Prevention System John A. Halderman Department of Computer Science Princeton University October 6, 2003 Abstract. MediaMax CD3 is a new copy-prevention technique from SunnComm Technologies that is designed to prevent unauthorized copying of audio CDs using personal computers. SunnComm claims its product facilitates "a verifiable and commendable level of security," but in tests on a newly-released album, I find that the protections have no effect on a large fraction of deployed PCs, and that most affected users can bypass the system entirely by holding the shift key while inserting the CD. I explain that MediaMax interferes with audio copying by installing a device driver when software from the CD is executed, but I show that this provides only minimal protection because the driver can easily be disabled. I also examine the digital rights management system used to control access to a set of encrypted, compressed audio files distributed on the CD. Although restrictions on these files are more relaxed than in prior copy protected discs, they still prohibit many uses permitted by the law. I conclude that MediaMax and similar copy-prevention systems are irreparably flawed but predict that record companies will find success with more customer-friendly alternatives for reducing infringement. This document can be referenced as Princeton University Computer Science Technical Report TR-679-03. The most recent version is available online at http://www.cs.princeton.edu/~jhalderm/cd3/. 1. INTRODUCTION Several recent news reports (AFP [1], Washington Post [2], USA Today [3], AP [4], Arizona Republic [5], LA Times [6], CNet News [7]) describe a new copy-prevention method that has been applied to an album by Anthony Hamilton released by BMG on September 23. This system, called MediaMax CD3, was created by SunnComm Technologies, the producers of the first-generation copy-prevention system MediaCloQ. Discs manufactured with SunnComm's new technique include two versions of the music, each protected in a different way. One set of songs are CD audio tracks that play in standard CD players but are supposed to be difficult for computers to copy. The second set are compressed, encrypted Windows Media files that employ digital rights management (DRM) to restrict how they are used. Music producers hope that the combination of these technologies will help reduce illegal copying while still allowing legitimate customers to play songs on their PCs, but this can only be achieved if both components are secure. In this report, I explain how MediaMax functions, analyze the weaknesses of its design, and discuss its implications for the debate about CD copy protection and the problem of copyright infringement. I find that although SunnComm has gone to great lengths to respond to criticisms of earlier systems, MediaMax still prohibits many uses of the recording that are allowed under law. At the same time, the system's protections are so weak that they are unlikely to cause any significant reduction in copying. 2. PHYSICAL DESCRIPTION I bought the recording Comin' From Where I'm From by Anthony Hamilton (Arista Records/BMG) from Amazon.com and received it on September 25. The disc contains twelve tracks for approximately 52 minutes of listening time. The album cover has a sticker with this message: This CD is protected against unauthorized duplication. It is designed to play on standard playback devices and an appropriately configured computer (see system requirements on back). If you have questions or concerns visit www.sunncomm.com/support/bmg. The hyperlink points to a FAQ that explains that the audio tracks are protected against copying and provides solutions for common problems accessing the disc's DRM-controlled content. The following text is printed at the bottom of the back cover: THIS CD IS ENHANCED WITH MEDIAMAX SOFTWARE. Windows Compatible Instructions: Insert disc into CD-ROM drive. Software will automatically install. If it doesn't, click on "LaunchCd.exe." MacOS Instructions: Insert disc into CD-ROM drive. Click on "Start." Usage of the CD on your computer requires your acceptance of the End User License Agreement and installation of specific software contained on the CD. Windows System Requirements: Windows 98/2000/XP, Internet Explorer 5.5 or later, Windows Media Player 7.1 or compatible player. Mac System Requirements: Mac OSX 10.1, Power Mac G3/G4, iMac, eMac, Powerbook G3/G4, iBook with 128 Mb of RAM, Windows Media Player for Mac OSX, Internet Explorer 5.2, Monitor capable of displaying 800x600 screen resolution & 256 colors (64K colors recommended), 12x or faster multi-session-enabled CD-ROM drive, Flash Player 6. Digital files on this CD will also play on portable devices supporting secure WMA files. Certain computers may not be able to access the enhanced portion of this disc. None of the manufacturers, developers, or distributor make any representation or warranty, or assumes any responsibility, with respect to the enhanced portion of this disc. The "Compact Disc Digital Audio" logo is absent from the printed jacket and the face of the disc, but it is embossed in the plastic on the inside of the jewel case. The CD itself bears the warning: "This disc is protected against unauthorized duplication." 3. THE ANTI-COPY SYSTEM One component of the MediaMax system is designed to make it difficult to extract CD audio tracks as unprotected audio files using a PC. Thwarting extraction would prevent users from copying the CD or uploading tracks to peer-to-peer networks. SunnComm has published strong-sounding but carefully worded statements about this technology's effectiveness. In a press release [8] dated August 27, they cite "external testing" that demonstrated "'an incredible level of security for the music,'": CD copy protection robustness tests were performed to determine the security level of the product against unauthorized copying of the digital content. This was completed using a large set of Microsoft Windows and Apple Macintosh computer systems in tandem with many of the known ripper programs available on the market today. The PMTC [Professional Media Test Center] determined that none of the ripper programs used in the testing process was able to produce a usable unauthorized copy of the protected CD yielding a verifiable and commendable level of security for the SunnComm product. [Emphasis added.] I assert that these claims are patently deceptive. In practice, many users who try to copy the disc will succeed without even noticing that it's protected, and all others can bypass the protections with as little as a single keystroke. To understand why, we can compare MediaMax to prior anti-copy systems like the ones I studied in my earlier report, "Evaluating New Copy-Prevention Techniques for Audio CDs" [9]. These systems rendered CDs incompatible with most computers by modifying the table of contents (TOC) or other data structures on the discs in ways that deviate from published standards. Although this effectively prevented copying in many PC configurations, it also reportedly caused incompatibility with some DVD players, video game systems, and car CD players. The resulting public outcry over these "broken" recordings forced manufacturers to redesign the protections. MediaMax is a second generation copy-prevention system, and SunnComm claims in the same press release [8] that it "provide[s] playability on any consumer's playback system without exceptions or limitations." Such perfect compatibility can only be achieved by leaving the standard CD audio portion of the disc unprotected, so MediaMax uses another method to block PC-based copying. Analysis of the Anthony Hamilton album shows that this method is special software loaded from the CD that interferes with copy attempts. Windows has a feature called "autorun" that automatically starts programs from CDs when they are inserted into the computer. If a MediaMax-protected CD is placed in a PC that has autorun enabled, Windows runs a file called LaunchCD.exe located on the disc. This program provides access to the DRM-controlled encrypted content, but it also loads a special device driver into the system's memory. On Windows 2000/XP, this driver is called SbcpHid. It remains active until the computer is rebooted and examines each CD placed in the machine. When the driver recognizes the protected title, it actively interferes with read operations on the audio content. Similar methods are used to protect the tracks on Windows 98/ME and Mac OSX systems. This behavior can be verified by following these instructions: Start with a Windows 2000/XP system with empty CD drives. Be sure to reboot the computer first to ensure MediaMax is not running. Click the Start button and select Control Panel from the Start Menu. Double-click on the System control panel icon. Select the Hardware tab and click the Device Manager button. Configure Device Manager by clicking "Show hidden devices" and "Devices by connection," both from the View menu. Insert the Anthony Hamilton CD into the computer and allow the SunnComm software to start. Observe that the SbcpHid device driver is added to the Device Manager list when MediaMax runs for the first time. At this point you can attempt to copy tracks from the CD with applications like MusicMatch Jukebox or Windows Media Player. Copies made while the driver is active will sound badly garbled, as in this 9-second clip [10]. Next, follow these additional steps to disable MediaMax: Select the SbcpHid driver from the Device Manager list and click "Properties" from the Action Menu. Click the Driver tab and click the Stop button to disable the driver. With the driver stopped, you can verify that the same applications copy every track successfully. MediaMax's protections are ineffective because the driver program can easily be disabled or, depending on the system configuration, it might never be installed to begin with. As a result, audio content is vulnerable to copying in virtually 100% of deployed systems. SunnComm's press release may be technically correct -- if their testers always ran the MediaMax application before trying to copy audio, they likely would see protection in every case. However, in practice the software often fails to start, and when it does start, users can manually suppress it. Here are some examples: Computers running Linux or Mac OS 9 can't run the MediaMax software at all, so they can always copy the recording. Many users disable the autorun feature [11] (autostart on Mac OS), so their systems will be able to copy the disc unless the user manually launches MediaMax. Windows users who haven't disabled autorun can suspend it when they play a SunnComm-protected disc by holding down the shift key for a few seconds while inserting the CD. They can then copy the data normally. In all these cases, the audio tracks are left completely unprotected. These vulnerabilities will be difficult or impossible to repair. SunnComm's software can't take any corrective action if it isn't started, and all these flaws involve ways that it is prevented from running in the first place. To make matters worse, MediaMax, unlike earlier copy-prevention techniques, works entirely in software. This means a moderately skilled programmer could, in only a few minutes, write an application to watch for and unload the SbcpHid driver, neutralizing MediaMax's copy resistance while leaving all the disc's other features intact. SunnComm's claims of robust protection collapse when subjected to scrutiny, and their system's weaknesses are not only academic. The Washington Post story [2] notes that a key test of the disc's copy-prevention abilities would be how long after its release the tracks appeared on peer-to-peer music trading networks. I searched Kazaa on September 27, when the album had only been on sale for four days, and already all the songs were available for download. If SunnComm or BMG really believed this disc was difficult to copy, then its actual weakness should be as embarrassing as the discovery in 2002 that Sony's key2audio scheme can be defeated using only a felt-tipped pen [12]. 4. THE DRM RESTRICTIONS While one component of the MediaMax system tries to protect the disc's audio tracks from copying, a second component permits limited use of the recording subject to the control of a digital rights management framework. Some earlier anti-copy schemes also allowed playback of encrypted tracks, but these employed less sophisticated content protection methods. Users were generally restricted to playing the tracks through a proprietary player and only while the disc was in the drive. MediaMax allows a broader range of uses by employing true DRM techniques. The protected disc includes Windows and Mac formatted data sessions that contain compressed, encrypted Windows Media audio (WMA) recordings of the tracks along with SunnComm's proprietary MediaMax software. After launching the driver software discussed in the previous section, the MediaMax application obtains and manages digital "licenses" the allow playback and other limited operations on the WMA files. When MediaMax loads, it presents an end user license agreement (EULA) [10]. If the user declines the EULA or closes the window, the software ejects the CD. However, users can simply ignore the EULA window and start other applications on top of MediaMax. For the time being I've decided not to accept the EULA, so I can't access the software to evaluate it further. The agreement contains a number of terms that are undesirable from my position as a security researcher, including: II. You will not reverse engineer, decompile, disassemble or otherwise tamper with or modify the Digital Content; and 1.3. Except as expressly provided herein, you shall not copy, modify, reproduce, sell, distribute or otherwise transfer the Digital Content. You may not reverse engineer, decompile, translate, adapt or disassemble the Digital Content or the software contained in it and/or on this CD. Interestingly, the EULA also states: 1.2. Your rights to use the Digital Content are conditioned on your ownership of a license to use and possession of the original Compact Disc (CD) media and are terminated in the event you no longer own or possess the original CD media. This apparently prohibits using copied tracks as backups in case the original disc is lost, stolen, or destroyed. The SunnComm privacy policy [10] is featured prominently among the documents included on the disc. It promises: "No personal information is required from you. Since we don't collect it, we cannot store it or sell it." However, SunnComm also reserves the right to modify the policy, and it's unclear whether they are the only party with an opportunity to gather data when users download playback licenses. Without accepting the EULA I can't personally evaluate the rights and restrictions placed on the WMA files. However, SunnComm's documentation and reports in the press indicate that users are permitted to: Copy tracks to the hard drive for playback without the original CD; Burn tracks to CDs up to 3 times; Share the songs with others by emailing them links to DRM-controlled tracks that expire after 10 days; Download tracks to DRM-enabled portable players; The disc also contains a readme file [10] that describes some restrictions in more detail: 1. You may only download and use the digital keys [licenses] on a personal computer designated for your own private use. 2. Other than your PC, you may only use the content on compliant software players and/or compliant portable devices. 3. The PC, software players, and portable devices must be compliant with current security standards and compatible with the technology that is used to access, deliver, and secure the content. It also mentions the capability to download to portable players, but this seems to be limited by a "Check-In - Check-Out" process to only three tracks at a time. I'd appreciate detailed reports about the restrictions from others who choose to accept the license agreement. It would be especially interesting to know how much effort it takes to use the DRM system on typical PCs (i.e., whether additional software needs to be downloaded and installed, whether there are compatibility problems, etc.). I'm also curious if and how the MediaMax software restricts users from loading encrypted tracks onto multiple PCs from the original disc. Since I haven't tried it myself, I can't comment on the security of SunnComm's DRM protections except to say that they are a misplaced effort. Even if MediaMax employs foolproof DRM to protect the encrypted files, its impact on illegal copying will be limited, since any user can work around the restrictions by copying the CD audio tracks. This should serve as a reminder for future DRM implementors that a security design is only as strong as its weakest component. 5. DISCUSSION The anti-copying technology used on this CD can be broken with only minimal effort, but the album remains a landmark as one of the first widely distributed recordings to combine DRM technology with copy prevention software. In my view, it can be seen simultaneously as an olive branch for those who oppose CD copy prevention and a trojan horse to encourage wider acceptance of DRM. Critics of copy-resistant CDs should acknowledge that this system differs from earlier products in several positive ways, though notable drawbacks certainly persist: MediaMax supports both Windows and Mac platforms, rather than only Windows (although Linux users are still locked out of the WMA content) The system distributes media in a standard format, WMA, enabling playback on multiple applications rather than a single proprietary player (though WMA is a closed standard, and the disc still includes a restrictive EULA that must be accepted before the files can be accessed) The CD audio portion of the disc is compatible with a wider range of playback devices than earlier protections since the tracks themselves are unmodified (although the WMA files can only be used on a limited number of devices that qualify as "secure") MediaMax allows users to copy the WMA files to their PCs so the songs can be played without the original disc (but the EULA seems to forbid using these files as backups in case the CD is lost) SunnComm has included a privacy policy that promises not to collect or sell user data (but it's unclear whether this data actually is being collected) The DRM controls permit burning tracks to CDs and downloading them to digital devices for time and space shifting (although the number of burned copies and downloaded tracks are severely limited). Perhaps most intriguingly, the system grants a small number of rights beyond what is generally regarded as fair use, allowing users to legally share trial copies of the songs by emailing links to time-limited downloads (but like any DRM system, the rights permitted by the software fall short of the flexible, evolving permissions understood as fair use, which necessarily depend on human judgment) These concessions aside, MediaMax can also be viewed as an attempt to condition music customers to accept a greater level of industry control over how they use the recordings they buy. SunnComm CEO William Whitmore addressed concerns about MediaMax's restrictions in an article in the Washington Post [2]: People may say, 'Why would you restrict me to three copies?' Well, we could have made it zero copies. You have to balance your rights and privileges versus your obligations and responsibilities. Most people agree that such a balance is essential to copyright, but many believe setting the balance should be the purview of courts and legislatures rather than media companies. Opponents of DRM worry that CDs with permissive rights management may lead to wider public acceptance of restricted recordings. Once the technology is accepted, the skeptics fear, record companies could tighten the restrictions with each new release until no fair use is permitted, and ultimately they could charge for every time a recording is played. This outcome would not be balance but unilateral producer control. 6. CONCLUSIONS Record companies will evaluate anti-copy technologies by weighing their ability to reduce infringement against their drawbacks. For customers who prize fair use rights -- like the ability to time and space shift recordings and to create compilations of the music they own -- the limitations SunnComm's system places on these rights undermine the value of purchased music. This loss in value for music customers may fail to yield any benefit for the industry because of the weakness of anti-copy technologies. CD copy-prevention schemes that depends solely on software, as SunnComm's does, will be trivial to disable, and alternative strategies that modify the CD data format will invariably cause public outcry over incompatibility with legitimate playback devices. Even if copy-resistant CDs make it harder for users to illicitly copy CDs they own, the technology will not necessarily reduce the overall incidence of copyright violation. Peter Biddle et al. of Microsoft have much to say about this topic in their paper, "The Darknet and the Future of Content Distribution" [13]. "Increased security (e.g. stronger DRM systems) may act as a disincentive to legal commerce," they suggest, by driving would-be customers to underground sources, such as peer-to-peer file trading networks, that provide media in unrestricted forms. No existing security technology can prevent copying in every case, so protected recordings will inevitably become available from these so-called "darknet" sources. Biddle concludes that for content producers to effectively compete against illicit distribution, they must work to provide "convenience and low cost rather than additional security." If this theory is correct, the industry has the best chance of accomplishing its goals by giving customers more for their money and making it easier for them to buy music. I believe anti-copy CD technologies will prove unfruitful, and will therefore eventually be abandoned by record companies. There firms may take a cue from the movie industry and increase the value of CDs by bundling interesting bonus features rather than restrictive copy-control software. It seems likely that they will also capitalize on the popularity of digital distribution by aggressively supporting online services like Apple's successful iTunes Music Store. These strategies likely will pave the way to reduced infringement by enticing more listeners to pay for recordings. 7. REFERENCES "US firm hopes anti-piracy CD will rock blackmarket." AFP via Yahoo News, September 24, 2003. http://story.news.yahoo.com/news?tmpl=story&u=/afp/20030924/tc_afp/us_music_piracy_030924221124 Frank Ahrens. "BMG Offers Legal Song Sharing." Washington Post, September 23, 2003. http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/articles/A49456-2003Sep22.html Mike Snider. "Anti-swap CD hits the racks." USA Today, September 22, 2003. http://www.usatoday.com/tech/news/techinnovations/2003-09-22-copycd_x.htm Alex Veiga. "Recording Industry Eyes 'Smart' CDs." Associated Press via Excite News, September 18, 2003. http://apnews.excite.com/article/20030918/D7TL3G4O0.html Glen Creno. "Phoenix firm gets CD-piracy contract." Arizona Republic, September 13, 2003. http://www.azcentral.com/arizonarepublic/business/articles/0913sunncomm13.html Jon Healey. "BMG is Releasing Copy-Protected CDs." LA Times, September 13, 2003. http://www.latimes.com/business/la-fi-cd13sep13,1,578082.story John Borland. "Copy-protected CDs take step forward." CNET News.com, September 12, 2003. http://news.com.com/2100-1027-5075656.html "SunnComm's MediaMax CD-3 Technology Passes International Test with 'Flying Colors.'" SunnComm press release, August 27, 2003. http://www.sunncomm.com/press/pressrelease.asp?prid=20030827630 John A. Halderman. "Evaluating New Copy-Prevention Techniques for Audio CDs." In Proc. ACM Workshop on Digital Rights Management, Washington, DC, November 2002. http://www.cs.princeton.edu/~jhalderm/papers/drm2002.pdf The following materials related to the MediaMax-protected Anthony Hamilton CD are available on my homepage: sample of garbled audio, http://www.cs.princeton.edu/~jhalderm/cd3/cd3-sample.mp3 BMG end user license agreement (EULA), http://www.cs.princeton.edu/~jhalderm/cd3/bmg-eula.html SunnComm privacy policy, http://www.cs.princeton.edu/~jhalderm/cd3/sunn-privacy.html SunnComm readme file, http://www.cs.princeton.edu/~jhalderm/cd3/sunn-readme.html "How to Enable or Disable Automatically Running CD-ROMs." Microsoft Knowledge Base Article 155217. http://support.microsoft.com/support/kb/articles/Q155/2/17.ASP "CD Crack: Magic Marker Indeed." Reuters via Wired News, May 20, 2002. http://www.wired.com/news/technology/0,1282,52665,00.html P. Biddle, P. England, M. Peinado, and B. Willman. "The Darknet and the Future of Content Distribution." In Proc. ACM Workshop on Digital Rights Management, Washington DC, November 2002. http://crypto.stanford.edu/DRM2002/darknet5.doc Acknowledgments I'd like to thank Ed Felten, David Robinson, and Fred von Lohmann for making insightful contributions to this report. John A. Halderman (jhalderm@cs.princeton.edu) Last modified: Mon Oct 6 15:31:08 EDT 2003 ------------------------------ 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. --------------------------------------------------------------- Finally, the Digest is funded by gifts from generous readers such as yourself who provide funding in amounts deemed appropriate. Your help is important and appreciated. A suggested donation of fifty dollars per year per reader is considered appropriate. See our address above. Please make at least a single donation to cover the cost of processing your name to the mailing list. If you donate at least fifty dollars per year we will send you our two-CD set of the entire Telecom Archives; this is every word published in this Digest since our beginning in 1981. All opinions expressed herein are deemed to be those of the author. Any organizations listed are for identification purposes only and messages should not be considered any official expression by the organization. End of TELECOM Digest V22 #689 ****************************** From editor@telecom-digest.org Wed Oct 8 00:22:11 2003 Received: (from ptownson@localhost) by massis.lcs.mit.edu (8.11.6p2/8.11.3) id h984MB513262; Wed, 8 Oct 2003 00:22:11 -0400 (EDT) Date: Wed, 8 Oct 2003 00:22:11 -0400 (EDT) From: editor@telecom-digest.org Message-Id: <200310080422.h984MB513262@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 #690 TELECOM Digest Wed, 8 Oct 2003 00:21:00 EDT Volume 22 : Issue 690 Inside This Issue: Editor: Patrick A. Townson and: Lisa Minter Experts Discuss Mistyped Web Addresses (Monty Solomon) 10th Circuit "No Call List" Stay Order (Monty Solomon) FCC Issues Cell-Swapping Guidelines (Monty Solomon) Address the Norvergence Fraud With Their Executives (Dola Duncan) Here's the Norvergence "Matrix Box" on Adtran's Website (Dola Duncan) Big Win For Brand X (Eric Friedebach) Re: To Cord or Not to Cord (Neal McLain) Newbie Questions (Mike Roman) Re: DVR Industry: The 'D' Stands for 'Dense' (Clark W. Griswold, Jr.) Re: Reminder Ring on Call Forwarding (Al Gillis) Good Connection But no Internet Pages (Al Loy) Re: Card Games/Should Buyers Beware of How Supermarkets Use (D Garland) 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, 7 Oct 2003 18:56:37 -0400 From: Monty Solomon Subject: Experts Discuss Mistyped Web Addresses By TED BRIDIS AP Technology Writer WASHINGTON (AP) -- Experts told the Internet's primary oversight body Tuesday of technical problems created when VeriSign Inc. _ a controller of most of the world's Web addresses _ made changes affecting computer users who mistype the address of some Web sites. The concerns expressed during the unusual meeting suggest that VeriSign, which manages all addresses ending in ".com" and ".net," could run into difficulty reintroducing the modifications it made weeks ago to the Internet's architecture. The company agreed last week to temporarily suspend those changes under the threat of legal action from the Internet Corporation for Assigned Names and Numbers, an international regulatory body. Tuesday's meeting was organized by the group's committee on Internet stability and security. VeriSign has launched a campaign to defend its so-called "Site Finder" service, which directs mistyped e-mail and Web site addresses to a search page it controls. The company acknowledged it activated its new service Sept. 15 without permission from the Internet's oversight body or U.S. government regulators. VeriSign earns money each time a computer user visits its new search site and clicks on some sponsored links. But it has declined to say how much it expects to earn, citing regulatory restrictions on such disclosures in the weeks before its next public financial filings. - http://finance.lycos.com/home/news/story.asp?story=35967107 ------------------------------ Date: Tue, 7 Oct 2003 19:26:09 -0400 From: Monty Solomon Subject: 10th Circuit "No Call List" Stay Order http://www.ck10.uscourts.gov/circuit/031429.pdf http://www.ck10.uscourts.gov/circuit/031429.doc ------------------------------ Date: Tue, 7 Oct 2003 19:42:29 -0400 From: Monty Solomon Subject: FCC Issues Cell-Swapping Guidelines By Ben Charny Staff Writer, CNET News.com Telephone regulators issued a series of guidelines Tuesday to help cell phone carriers meet an upcoming deadline to let customers switch to rival companies but keep their old phone numbers. The Federal Communications Commission (FCC) said carriers should let defecting customers keep their old number even if their account has an unpaid balance. The FCC also found "no technical reason" why switching subscribers should have to wait longer than two-and-a-half hours before their old number is "ported" to their new dialing plan. The FCC's guidelines, which are not binding, came under immediate attack by the telephone industry. Cell phone industry lobbyists the Cellular Telecommunications & Internet Association (CTIA) claimed the FCC failed to address key questions that carriers need answered in order to meet the Nov. 24 deadline. ------------------------------ From: doladuncan@hotmail.com (Dola Duncan) Subject: Address the Norvergence Fraud With Their Executives Date: 6 Oct 2003 23:04:07 -0700 Organization: http://groups.google.com All, Some of the decision makers at Norvergence are willing to address all of the recent fraud that thier organization is being accused of. It's a Shame that Tom & Peter Salzano wouldn't provide their information, however, here is everyone else that you can contact at Norvergence and ask them to explain how the Matrix T-1 and Matrix SOHO is not fraud even though you do not even get a Matrix Box with the SOHO product: Jim Smith - VP of Sales, Office: 973-242-7500 ext. 181, Cell: 917-972-8217, e-mail: jim.smith@norvergence.com Art Scuttaro - VP Of Marketing, Office: 973-242-7500 ext. 110, Cell: 973-477-5466, e-mail: art.scuttaro@norvergence.com Debra Santa Lucia - VP of Administration, Office: 973-242-7500 ext. 100, Cell: 973-208-1246, e-mail: debra.sl@norvergence.com Ivel Turner - VP of Trainning, Office: 973-242-7500 ext. 121, Cell: 973-447-9140, e-mail: ivel.turner@norvergence.com Mike Misiaszek - VP of Facilities Allocations, Office: 973-242-7500 ext. 120, Cell: 732-241-6220, e-mail: mike.misiaszek@norvergence.com Roe Ventola - VP of Sales Support, Office: 973-242-7500 ext. 191, Cell: 973-743-8919, e-mail: roe.ventola@norvergence.com Don't let these individuals tap dance thier way around answers to your questions. Remember, they are now at a disadvantage. ------------------------------ From: doladuncan@hotmail.com (Dola Duncan) Subject: Here's the Norvergence "Matrix Box" Directly on Adtran's Website Date: 7 Oct 2003 19:07:11 -0700 Organization: http://groups.google.com To all of those who are currently being defrauded into paying a $200 to $1500 (or even higher) per month charge for the rental of a "Matrix Box" from Norvergence to change your calls from "voice to high speed data, therefore, eliminating the cost per minute". Here is the Matrix Box as shown in Norvergence's brochures, only, without the Norvergence stickers. It is NOT manufactured by Nortel Networks, it is manufactured by Adtran. Further, it is being sold on Ebay (for a one time charge) for about $750. Follow this link: http://www.adtran.com/adtranpx/Rooms/DisplayPages/LayoutInitial?Container=com.webridge.entity.Entity%5BOID%5BAE86D31AE4969244B30D5DF88FAC9BD3%5D%5D Folks, the Matrix Box is just an Adtran TA-850 channel bank with Norvergence stickers on it. ------------------------------ From: Eric Friedebach Subject: Big Win For Brand X Date: Tue, 7 Oct 2003 18:02:15 -0500 Organization: What the Hell is Wall Drug? Dan Ackman, 10.07.03, Forbes.com NEW YORK - The list of names on the appeals court decision that may require cable companies to open their networks to rival high-speed Internet service providers goes on for 2 1/2 pages. But at the top is Brand X, which sounds like a John Doe, but is not. The ruling by the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals strikes down a U.S. Federal Communications Commission rule and concludes that cable television companies like AOL Time Warner and Comcast should be treated like telephone companies such as SBC Communications, which likely means that they will lease their lines to a variety of Internet service providers, not just their own or a favored contractor. The judges held that cable broadband services are not "information services" as the FCC concluded, but "telecommunications services," which would make them subject to the open-access rules that govern the telephone industry. The FCC had voted in March 2002 to treat the cable companies as information services, saying such a rule was necessary to spur more investment in high-speed Internet services. This interpretation angered telephone companies that compete with the cable outfits in supplying high-speed Internet services through digital subscriber lines (DSL). http://www.forbes.com/2003/10/07/cx_da_1007topnews.html Eric Friedebach ------------------------------ Date: Tue, 07 Oct 2003 17:25:42 -0600 From: Neal McLain Reply-To: nmclain@annsgarden.com Subject: Re: To Cord or Not to Cord I wrote: > Power conductors are also tensioned, which is why they are sometimes > called "high tension lines." Whereupon Jay R. Ashworth wrote: Aw, Neal ... and you were doing so well. > High tension lines are called that because an archaic synonym for > "voltage" was ... "tension". Hmmm ... Well, I've learned a lot from the list over the years, and this isn't the first time I've learned something because I made a stupid mistake. Thanks for the clarification. Neal ------------------------------ From: Mike Roman Subject: Newbie Questions Date: Tue, 07 Oct 2003 21:05:48 -0400 I've been asked by a local non-profit to look into finding a replacement for their antique Macrotel phone system. A local vendor has proposed a VODAVI STS system and in the desired configuration (6 phones, voicemail), it comes to just under $3800 to purchase. However, VODAVI has a website -- http://www.vodavitelephonesystems.com/sts_telephones.htm That lists prices that are significantly less that our vendor's. So my first question is (for someone who is willing to look at that site), are my vendor's prices out of line? He came in at about $650 more than the prices on that site. I'm assuming that VODAVI's prices to him are less than what shows on that site because, as far as I can tell, even non-dealers can buy from that site. Second, what's the difference between a "station" and a "telephone"? Our vendor has configured the system to support 24 stations but is "equipped" for 8 "digital telephones". He quoted 6 digital telephones in the package. What does he mean by that? Third, the Macrotel phones we have now can access each of our four central office lines. Do we need "4-line" phones to match that? Thanks, Pete PS: Feel free to email me at pjh@mccc.edu if you think your answer will bore other readers. ------------------------------ From: Clark W. Griswold, Jr. <73115.1041remove@compuserve.com> Subject: Re: DVR Industry: The 'D' Stands for 'Dense' Date: Tue, 07 Oct 2003 19:15:06 -0600 Organization: Posted via Supernews, http://www.supernews.com Monty Solomon wrote: > The digital video recorder can pause live TV, fast-forward through > commercials and even record more than 300 hours of programming. > However, there's one thing it can't do: Put some sense into the heads > of the executives who are selling the damn thing. Thought the column was good, but I think Phil missed the major reason that DVRs haven't replaced VCRs: The requirement to subscribe. The MBAs that run most public companies and Wall Street have been going gaga over subscription revenue for several years now. They perceive the margins on subscriptions to be higher than straight sales, and so every company is being pressured to show how they plan on implementing a subscription business model. Even private and OTC companies want to get in on the subscription bandwagon. I'll be darned if I will pay a monthly fee to use a VCR replacement. I know most people feel the same way. While TIVO might feel like they can justify the fee, their standalone sales have been relatively stagnant for years. The only growth they are seeing is in DirecTivo sales, and that is because they have cut a deal that generates a token amount of subscription revenue from those boxes. The argument that the fee is required to cover the cost of maintaining the guide is specious -- for satellite services the guide is already there and built into the standard service. Unfortunately, Dish Network who long been a holdout and had been providing their slightly less capable versions of the TIVO at no additional charge, has decided to join the bandwagon and will be charging a DVR fee to all new customers (discounts available for larger programming packages). While I really like my Dish DVR, should the day come that I need to replace it, I will look at some of the non-monthly charge alternatives. ------------------------------ From: Al Gillis Subject: Re: Reminder Ring on Call Forwarding Date: Tue, 7 Oct 2003 19:33:41 -0700 Organization: http://extra.newsguy.com As Victor and Mark have pointed out, most anything is possible (given enough time and money!). I once worked for a pretty smart guy who loved to say (tongue in cheek, of course) that such and such an endeavor was a SMOP - a "simple matter of programming"! The real system programmers on his staff would , of course, roll their eyes and groan while most of the rest of us belly laughed. I'm sure many of us have phrases or acronyms we use that poke fun at ourselves or those technologically related to our own fields ... Anyone care to offer an example? VP wrote in message news:telecom22.688.13@telecom-digest.org: > Technically possible ... yes. Tarriffed service and saleable maybe ... > 5ESS set BSRING (Base Station Ring) to "NO" EWSD change RRNG (Reminder > Ring) to NORRNG Sorry ... don't know the DMS option > Victor > web+google@ivrl.com (Paul Crick) inquired about Reminder Ring on Call > Forwarding on 5 Oct 2003 20:28:02 -0700: >> If I forward all calls using *72 to another number, every time a call >> is forwarded my phone gives a short little reminder ring to remind me >> that a divert is in operation. >> Is it technically possible within the CO switch to disable this >> feature on a line by line basis? (Telco politics is a completely >> different matter of course) ;-) >> What I'd like to do is have calls to my regular number divert >> immediately to another number, with no local indication, and for calls >> to my smart ring number which doesn't follow call forwarding to ring >> in the regular fashion. >> Any switch techs care to comment? >> Thanks in advance, >> Paul ------------------------------ From: albertoa33@yahoo.com (Al Loy) Subject: Good Connection But no Internet Pages Date: 7 Oct 2003 19:55:44 -0700 Organization: http://groups.google.com I live in a house that has a wireless network, Linksys router, Lucent Wireless Access Point and a Comcast Cable Modem. We have a bunch of Wavelan Orinoco cards that were here when I got here that work properly. Recently we needed to get more cards so more people could connect. The new cards get a good connection. The signal strength is good. However, when I try to bring up pages in Internet Explorer, I get a page not found error. Do I need to register the new cards with the router? How do I do this? Thanks. ------------------------------ From: Dave Garland Subject: Re: Card Games / Should Buyers Beware of How Supermarkets Use Date: Tue, 07 Oct 2003 22:46:28 -0500 Organization: Wizard Information The last time I was faced with a loyalty card, I went over to the customer service desk to register for it. The only thing on the form that I filled out was an illegible signature. The clerk looked at it, said "You don't want to fill in the other stuff?", shrugged, and accepted it. I doubt if any of the line-level workers cares one way or another, it's just another PITA as far as they're concerned. I wonder if I could have used the card to cash checks. I'll never know, because that chain went out of business. ------------------------------ 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. --------------------------------------------------------------- Finally, the Digest is funded by gifts from generous readers such as yourself who provide funding in amounts deemed appropriate. Your help is important and appreciated. A suggested donation of fifty dollars per year per reader is considered appropriate. See our address above. Please make at least a single donation to cover the cost of processing your name to the mailing list. If you donate at least fifty dollars per year we will send you our two-CD set of the entire Telecom Archives; this is every word published in this Digest since our beginning in 1981. All opinions expressed herein are deemed to be those of the author. Any organizations listed are for identification purposes only and messages should not be considered any official expression by the organization. End of TELECOM Digest V22 #690 ****************************** From editor@telecom-digest.org Wed Oct 8 12:27:19 2003 Received: (from ptownson@localhost) by massis.lcs.mit.edu (8.11.6p2/8.11.3) id h98GRJx17111; Wed, 8 Oct 2003 12:27:19 -0400 (EDT) Date: Wed, 8 Oct 2003 12:27:19 -0400 (EDT) From: editor@telecom-digest.org Message-Id: <200310081627.h98GRJx17111@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 #691 TELECOM Digest Wed, 8 Oct 2003 12:27:00 EDT Volume 22 : Issue 691 Inside This Issue: Editor: Patrick A. Townson and: Lisa Minter Judge Suspends Vonage Order (Monty Solomon) Microsoft Granted an IM Patent (Monty Solomon) Which TiVo Is the Right One for You? (Monty Solomon) TiVo, Fox Announce Promotional Partnership (Monty Solomon) Apple Releases New Versions of iCal & iSync (Monty Solomon) Re: DVR Industry: The 'D' Stands for 'Dense' (Carl Navarro) Re: DVR Industry: The 'D' Stands for 'Dense' (Barry Margolin) Re: DVR Industry: The 'D' Stands for 'Dense' (Garrett Wollman) Re: Card Games/Should Buyers Beware of How Supermarkets Use (Herb Stein) Re: Card Games/Should Buyers Beware of How Supermarkets Use (T Rathkopf) Telecom Link Request (LongDistanceWorld.com - Links) Re: Reminder Ring on Call Forwarding (Owain) Re: Good Connection But no Internet Pages (Al Loy) Re: Verizon [Charges for Everything Lately] (Paul A Lee) 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, 8 Oct 2003 03:18:16 -0400 From: Monty Solomon Subject: Judge Suspends Vonage Order By Ben Charny Staff Writer, CNET News.com A federal judge on Tuesday ordered Minnesota regulators to stop forcing Internet phone provider Vonage to abide by state telephone operator rules. http://news.com.com/2100-7352-5088114.html ------------------------------ Date: Wed, 8 Oct 2003 03:20:06 -0400 From: Monty Solomon Subject: Microsoft Granted an IM Patent By Jim Hu Staff Writer, CNET News.com Microsoft has won a patent for an instant messaging feature that notifies users when the person they are communicating with is typing a message. The patent encompasses a feature that's not only on Microsoft's IM products but also on those of its rivals America Online and Yahoo. The patent was granted on Tuesday. Patent No. 6,631,412 could serve as a weapon in Microsoft's battle for IM market share. Microsoft is investing heavily in IM as a springboard for selling communication software to businesses. Later this year, Microsoft plans to launch Live Communications Server, a software product that will initially offer IM for the enterprise and then expand into Internet voice calling and video services. http://news.com.com/2100-1028-5088150.html ------------------------------ Date: Wed, 8 Oct 2003 03:24:22 -0400 From: Monty Solomon Subject: Which TiVo Is the Right One for You? (Or, so you want to hack a TiVo...) by Raffi Krikorian, author of TiVo Hacks 10/02/2003 You're ready to throw out those clunky VHS tapes; you're ready to hear that satisfying "be boop, be boop" sounds when you hit the fast-forward button on your TiVo; you're ready to have TV your way. And you're ready to spend the two hundred dollars burning a hole in your pocket, so the million dollar question is, "Which TiVo should you buy?" http://www.onlamp.com/pub/a/onlamp/2003/10/02/TiVoHacks.html ------------------------------ Date: Wed, 8 Oct 2003 08:48:28 -0400 From: Monty Solomon Subject: TiVo, Fox Announce Promotional Partnership FOX Will Promote '24,' 'The O.C.,' 'Skin' and 'Arrested Development' Programs in TiVo(R) Showcases that Will Air Throughout October SAN JOSE, Calif., Oct. 8 /PRNewswire-FirstCall/ -- TiVo (Nasdaq: TIVO), creator of television services for digital video recorders (DVRs), and the FOX Broadcasting Company announced today that the network will promote key shows in its fall lineup in a month long TiVo Showcase that will air in October. Emmy Award winner '24,' the new hit 'The OC' and fall premieres 'Skin' and 'Arrested Development' are the shows FOX will promote in the TiVo Showcase. The Showcase for '24' will also promote the DVD of the show's first season. In addition to the Showcase promotion, FOX has also secured the license to utilize a TiVo recording tag during all promotions for these shows and others. The recording tag will be displayed on the television screen whenever the network promotions appear during a live broadcast. Viewers who click the remote while the tag is on the screen will be transported to the Showcase content stored on the hard drive. Once they've finished viewing the promotional content, they'll be returned to the show they were watching right where they left off, without missing a second of the action. - http://finance.lycos.com/home/news/story.asp?story=35976287 ------------------------------ Date: Wed, 8 Oct 2003 08:53:43 -0400 From: Monty Solomon Subject: Apple Releases New Versions of iCal & iSync iCal Adds Improved Interface & Time Zone Support; iSync Adds Calendar Synchronization for Symbian Phones CUPERTINO, Calif., Oct. 8 /PRNewswire-FirstCall/ -- Apple(R) (Nasdaq: AAPL) today announced the immediate availability of iCal(TM) 1.5.1, an update to Apple's powerful and easy to use calendar program, and iSync 1.2.1, an update to Apple's breakthrough synchronization software. In addition to managing multiple calendars and sharing them over the Internet, iCal now includes an all-new interface for creating and managing event details and improved support for working across time zones. iSync, which allows users to instantly sync their Mac address book and calendars with their mobile phone, Palm OS device, iPod(TM) and other Macs, now delivers calendar support for Symbian-based smartphones and supports new mobile phones from Sony Ericsson, extending Apple's lead in integrating with Bluetooth-enabled phones. - http://finance.lycos.com/home/news/story.asp?story=35976990 ------------------------------ From: Carl Navarro Subject: Re: DVR Industry: The 'D' Stands for 'Dense' Reply-To: cnavarro@wcnet.org Date: Wed, 08 Oct 2003 08:31:03 GMT Organization: Road Runner High Speed Online -- Northeast Ohio On Mon, 6 Oct 2003 22:55:23 -0400, Monty Solomon wrote: > By Phillip Swann > The digital video recorder can pause live TV, fast-forward through > commercials and even record more than 300 hours of programming. > However, there's one thing it can't do: Put some sense into the heads > of the executives who are selling the damn thing. > The DVR has been called the next big thing. TiVo, the category's > brand leader, has generated more buzz than a case of Red Bull. > However, after nearly five years and scores of millions spent on > advertising and marketing, DVR services are in just 2.5 million > homes. Despite widespread critical praise of the technology, the > product has been a failure. We got one of those DVR's during the summer and I STILL record my programs the old fashioned way. I have a VCR and a VCR+ external box programmed to tape my 7+ hours a week. I cycle 12 tapes and I don't have to worry about a show being available for "about a week" or "less than a day". I still use the DVR for quick taping, movies, or 2 shows at a time, but I prefer the "hard copy" VCR as my main recording medium. I don't know. I guess it's easier to exchange programs :-) Carl Navarro ------------------------------ From: Barry Margolin Subject: Re: DVR Industry: The 'D' Stands for 'Dense' Organization: Level(3) Communications, Woburn, MA Date: Wed, 08 Oct 2003 14:55:53 GMT In article , Clark W. Griswold, Jr. <73115.1041remove@compuserve.com> wrote: > Thought the column was good, but I think Phil missed the major reason > that DVRs haven't replaced VCRs: The requirement to subscribe. Since both TiVo and ReplayTV offer the option of a one-time fee, the argument that the montly fee is the problem doesn't really hold water. I think the problem is that most consumers don't realize that DVRs are more than just a fancy VCR that's likely to be even more confusing to use. They're a quantum leap ahead. Price is likely an issue as well. With VCRs now costing under $100, it's hard to justify spending $400+ (when you include the lifetime subscription fee) for what seems like a fancy VCR. I don't see them really taking off until the total purchase cost gets under $200. Barry Margolin, barry.margolin@level3.com Level(3), Woburn, MA *** DON'T SEND TECHNICAL QUESTIONS DIRECTLY TO ME, post them to newsgroups. Please DON'T copy followups to me -- I'll assume it wasn't posted to the group. ------------------------------ From: wollman@lcs.mit.edu (Garrett Wollman) Subject: Re: DVR Industry: The 'D' Stands for 'Dense' Date: Wed, 8 Oct 2003 15:19:29 UTC Organization: MIT Laboratory for Computer Science In article , Clark W. Griswold, Jr. <73115.1041remove@compuserve.com> wrote: > I'll be darned if I will pay a monthly fee to use a VCR replacement. I've been very happy with my (admittedly expensive) Panasonic DMR-HS2. Not only can it record any programming I wish on its internal hard disk, but it can also write to DVD-R and DVD-RAM. While it has some annoying, IP-industry-mandated quirks, it has served very well to stabilize my decaying tape library. -- Garrett A. Wollman | As the Constitution endures, persons in every wollman@lcs.mit.edu | generation can invoke its principles in their own Opinions not those of| search for greater freedom. MIT, LCS, CRS, or NSA| - A. Kennedy, Lawrence v. Texas, 539 U.S. ___ (2003) ------------------------------ From: Herb Stein Subject: Re: Card Games / Should Buyers Beware of How Supermarkets Use Date: Tue, 7 Oct 2003 23:41:10 -0500 Scott Dorsey wrote in message news:telecom22.688.17@telecom-digest.org: > Kevin Benko wrote: >> In article , siegman@stanford.edu >> says: >>> At some of the major markets where we shop, if you just look sad and >>> say, "Oh, I left my card at home" or "Oh, my wife has it", the >>> checkout person will pull a dummy card out of a drawer, swipe it, and >>> you get the discounts with no data collection. >> That sends the message that this sort of card scheme is acceptable, or >> at least tolerated. > I was in California. I bought a case of champagne at the supermarket > there, since I was helping host a friend's wedding. The checkout > clerk asked if I had a card, and I said I didn't, so the helpful > person behind me in line handed his card to her, and I got about > twenty dollars off on the whole thing. God only knows what the > database now says about the other person behind me. > If the clerk is willing to do this, then clearly he or she does not > care about the database being accurate. And if the databases aren't > accurate, there's no point in collecting the data. >> I wish to send the message that I disagree with these "loyalty" cards, >> and I will point out that I will not be doing any business with such >> chains. > I would think the best thing to do would be to do as much business as > possible with them, using clearly invalid cards, and to make as great > a mess of their database as possible. If the cards do not make it > easier for them to get valid marketing data, they'll stop using them. > Be sure to sign your neighbor's cat up too. > --scott > "C'est un Nagra. C'est suisse, et tres, tres precis." And on a related note, when a telemarketer calls with survey questions, lie though your teeth. Herb Stein The Herb Stein Group www.herbstein.com herb@herbstein.com 314 952-4601 ------------------------------ Subject: Re: Card Games / Should Buyers Beware of How Supermarkets Use From: Seises de Corazones Date: Wed, 08 Oct 2003 16:09:17 GMT Organization: EarthLink Inc. -- http://www.EarthLink.net Aaarr, Kevin Benko What ye be sayin'? > On www.nocards.org, they give real empirical evidence that stores that > have gone over to using those "loyalty" cards have raised their prices > such that even with the illusionary discount from the "loyalty" card, > the prices are higher than before going over to the card. Last weekend, my family was visiting my in-laws out of state, and I had to go to the store to get some medicine for my sick daughter. On the way in, there was a display of Coke 12-packs for $1.98. I didn't see the "with advantage card." When I checked out, the 12-pack rang up as $4.59, since I was just visiting and didn't have one of the things. I have NEVER seen a 12 pack as high as $4.59 before. My local grocery store does not use loyalty cards, but it doesn't really need to since it's a city-wide monopoly. (grrrrrr.) Ted Rathkopf ------------------------------ From: LongDistanceWorld.com - Links Subject: Telecom Link Request Date: Wed, 8 Oct 2003 02:31:04 -0500 I visited your site (http://mirror.lcs.mit.edu/telecom-archives/linkspage.html) and noticed that you have a few telecom related links. If possible, we would like to have our site included in your link directory. If you would like to add our link to your site we request that you use the following link information. Link Text: Long Distance World Link URL: http://www.longdistanceworld.com/ Description: long distance phone rate comparison, calling cards, cellular phones, and more. Thank you for your consideration, Rob from LongDistanceWorld.com http://www.longdistanceworld.com/ ------------------------------ From: spuorgelgoog@gowanhill.com (Owain) Subject: Re: Reminder Ring on Call Forwarding Date: 8 Oct 2003 02:40:22 -0700 Organization: http://groups.google.com Paul Crick wrote: > What I'd like to do is have calls to my regular number divert > immediately to another number, with no local indication, and for calls > to my smart ring number which doesn't follow call forwarding to ring > in the regular fashion. Call Diversion usually is a per line option, so will affect your standard and distinctive ringing numbers. However is is possible (for varying values of possible) to get a Call Diversion Bypass Number which will over-ride the diversion on the line. Whether it is possible to have the Call Diversion Bypass number also appear with distinctive ringing is another question. Regardless of what options the exchange itself offers, getting something that doesn't appear on the customer service teletubbies' screens will be almost impossible unless you have considerable clout with the organisation. Owain ------------------------------ From: albertoa33@yahoo.com (Al Loy) Subject: Re: Good Connection But no Internet Pages Date: 8 Oct 2003 04:34:51 -0700 Organization: http://groups.google.com An update. When I run ipconfig for a card that works I get: Ethernet adapter Local Area Connection: Ethernet adapter Wireless Network Connection: Connection-specific DNS Suffix . : comcast.net IP Address. . . . . . . . . . . . : 192.168.1.101 Subnet Mask . . . . . . . . . . . : 255.255.255.0 Default Gateway . . . . . . . . . : 192.168.1.1 When I run ipconfig for a card that does not work I get: Ethernet adapter Local Area Connection: Ethernet adapter Wireless Network Connection: Connection-specific DNS Suffix . : IP Address. . . . . . . . . . . . : 0.0.0.0 Subnet Mask . . . . . . . . . . . : 0.0.0.0 Default Gateway . . . . . . . . . : albertoa33@yahoo.com (Al Loy) wrote in message news:: > I live in a house that has a wireless network, Linksys router, Lucent > Wireless Access Point and a Comcast Cable Modem. We have a bunch of > Wavelan Orinoco cards that were here when I got here that work > properly. Recently we needed to get more cards so more people could > connect. The new cards get a good connection. The signal strength is > good. However, when I try to bring up pages in Internet Explorer, I > get a page not found error. Do I need to register the new cards with > the router? How do I do this? > Thanks. ------------------------------ From: Paul A Lee Subject: Re: Verizon [Charges for Everything Lately] Date: Wed, 8 Oct 2003 11:08:49 -0400 In TELECOM Digest V22 #683, jbl wrote (in part): > *BellAtlantic was made from a number of the original local Bells and > may have absorbed some other companies before this point; I don't > know, exactly, so I'm leaving that out. Having lived most of my life in Pennsylvania, with family ties and frequent trips to Maryland and DC, I can offer the following: The Bell System companies that initially made up Bell Atlantic were/are: The Bell Telephone Company of Pennsylvania The Diamond State Telephone Company [Delaware] New Jersey Bell Telephone Company The Chesapeake & Potomac Telephone Company of Maryland The Chesapeake & Potomac Telephone Company of Virginia The Chesapeake & Potomac Telephone Company of West Virginia The Chesapeake & Potomac Telephone Company (DC) They were commonly referred to as, respectively: Bell of PA [say 'P' 'A', as is customary for the abbreviation] Diamond State [no mention of "Bell" or "telephone"] Jersey Bell C and P Maryland C and P Virginia C and P West Virginia C and P Tel (or) C and P in the District Quite often, any of the C&P companies was just called "C and P". I also occasionally heard it called "ChessPot". Some of the individual companies apparently still have their Bell System names as their legal names in their respective states. I haven't investigated just which ones they are. Of course, those Bell System companies consisted of numerous local companies that were merged or acquired over the years prior to 1984, when they were gathered into Bell Atlantic. Paul A Lee Voice: +1 717 730-8355 Sr Telecom Engineer [Voice & Transmission] Fax: +1 717 975-3789 Rite Aid Corporation, Telecomm, 30 Hunter Lane, Camp Hill, PA 17011-2410 ------------------------------ TELECOM Digest 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. --------------------------------------------------------------- Finally, the Digest is funded by gifts from generous readers such as yourself who provide funding in amounts deemed appropriate. Your help is important and appreciated. A suggested donation of fifty dollars per year per reader is considered appropriate. See our address above. Please make at least a single donation to cover the cost of processing your name to the mailing list. If you donate at least fifty dollars per year we will send you our two-CD set of the entire Telecom Archives; this is every word published in this Digest since our beginning in 1981. All opinions expressed herein are deemed to be those of the author. Any organizations listed are for identification purposes only and messages should not be considered any official expression by the organization. End of TELECOM Digest V22 #691 ****************************** From editor@telecom-digest.org Thu Oct 9 00:04:35 2003 Received: (from ptownson@localhost) by massis.lcs.mit.edu (8.11.6p2/8.11.3) id h9944Z020188; Thu, 9 Oct 2003 00:04:35 -0400 (EDT) Date: Thu, 9 Oct 2003 00:04:35 -0400 (EDT) From: editor@telecom-digest.org Message-Id: <200310090404.h9944Z020188@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 #692 TELECOM Digest Wed, 8 Oct 2003 23:59:00 EDT Volume 22 : Issue 692 Inside This Issue: Editor: Patrick A. Townson and: Lisa Minter Vivendi, NBC Sign Agreement to Merge (Monty Solomon) NBC, Vivendi Merger Creates Media Giant (Monty Solomon) Juggling With Packets - Floating Data Storage (Monty Solomon) Re: DVR Industry: The 'D' Stands for Dense (Thomas A. Horsley) Screaming Match (Eric Friedebach) DVR Hits CNN Tech (John Hines) Re: DVR Industry: The 'D' Stands for 'Dense' (yeltrabnhoj@email.com) Re: Any Such Thing as a Phone Line Transceiver? (Ed Clarke) Re: Any Such Thing as a Phone Line Transceiver? (Fritz Whittington) Re: Three SIM Card Use on 2G Phones (Charles Cryderman) Re: "Loyalty" Cards (Paul Robinson) Re: Good Connection But no Internet Pages (jmeissen@aracnet.com) New Wrinkle - Nigerian Scam (Paul Cook) Is LNP Available For Cellular Phone Numbers? (David Nesbitt) Re: Trillian Plugs Back Into Yahoo, MSN (Geoffrey Welsh) A.Word.A.Day -- Octothorpe (fwd) (jmayson@nyx.net) Re: Reminder Ring on Call Forwarding (Paul Crick) 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, 8 Oct 2003 21:38:36 -0400 From: Monty Solomon Subject: Vivendi, NBC Sign Agreement to Merge By JAMEY KEATEN Associated Press Writer PARIS (AP) -- Vivendi Universal and General Electric Co. have reached an agreement to merge the French company's Hollywood studio, cable TV networks and theme parks with GE's NBC business, creating a media giant with about $13 billion in annual revenue. The terms of the deal announced Wednesday were largely unchanged from a preliminary agreement reached a month ago, when the two companies entered exclusive talks about a merger and sketched out broad outlines for a combined company to be called NBC Universal. The deal will give NBC more weight in competing for audiences and advertising with bigger media heavyweights such as AOL Time Warner Inc., Viacom Inc. and Walt Disney Co. Vivendi gets help in its effort to reduce the heavy debt accumulated under former management while keeping a stake in the potential growth of the media business. - http://finance.lycos.com/home/news/story.asp?story=35980554 ------------------------------ Date: Wed, 8 Oct 2003 21:59:31 -0400 From: Monty Solomon Subject: NBC, Vivendi Merger Creates Media Giant By SETH SUTEL AP Business Writer NEW YORK (AP) -- After months of negotiations, NBC is getting its prize: Membership in the Big Media Club. NBC, a unit of General Electric Co., sealed a deal to merge with the entertainment businesses of Vivendi Universal, the companies announced Wednesday, creating a media conglomerate in the same class as giants like Viacom Inc. and Walt Disney Co. The new company, to be called NBC Universal, will have a leading broadcast network, the Universal movie and television studios, 14 local TV stations, an array of cable networks including USA, CNBC and Bravo, and interests in five theme parks. With $13 billion in annual revenues, NBC Universal will still be small compared to the largest media conglomerates like AOL Time Warner Inc., which had revenues of $41 billion in revenues last year or Walt Disney Co.'s $25 billion. But the deal gives NBC something it has long desired: more clout with competitors, audiences and advertisers. Jean-Rene Fourtou told reporters in a conference call that its U.S. television holdings "were too small to be really competitive on the American television scene." - http://finance.lycos.com/home/news/story.asp?story=35985191 ------------------------------ Date: Wed, 8 Oct 2003 23:10:53 -0400 From: Monty Solomon Subject: [PAPER] Juggling With Packets: Floating Data Storage From: Wojciech Purczynski Subject: [PAPER] Juggling with packets: floating data storage Date: Mon, 6 Oct 2003 10:59:54 +0200 (CEST) The following paper explores the possibilities of using certain properties of the Internet or any other large network to create a reliable, volatile distributed data storage of a large capacity. 10) Availability You may always find this paper under following locations: http://isec.pl/papers/juggling_with_packets.txt http://lcamtuf.coredump.cx/juggling_with_packets.txt Wojciech Purczynski iSEC Security Research http://isec.pl/ ------------------------------ Subject: Re: DVR Industry: The 'D' Stands for 'Dense' From: tom.horsley@att.net (Thomas A. Horsley) Organization: AT&T Worldnet Date: Thu, 09 Oct 2003 03:42:38 GMT > Thought the column was good, but I think Phil missed the major reason > that DVRs haven't replaced VCRs: The requirement to subscribe. That and the smart-ass software that is always trying to be "helpful" on the TiVo. That's why I have a Panasonic DMR-E80H. It records what I want, when I want it to. No idiot subscriptions, no tracking of my viewing habits and sending the info back to the marketing folks (only for my convenience, of course :-). Plus, I can dub the recordings to DVD-RAM and transfer them to my computer for editing, permanent storage to DVD-R, etc. If you want to get the digital data off a TiVo, you have to open it up and hack it. >>==>> The *Best* political site >>==+ email: Tom.Horsley@worldnet.att.net icbm: Delray Beach, FL | Free Software and Politics <<==+ ------------------------------ From: Eric Friedebach Subject: Screaming Match Date: Wed, 8 Oct 2003 21:29:39 -0500 Organization: What the Hell is Wall Drug? Neil Weinberg, 10.13.03 print issue, Forbes.com Mike Capellas has done a remarkable job reviving MCI and giving it a future. Now if only rivals would let the company move beyond its fraudulent past. Michael Capellas has moved damned fast since taking over the scandal-scarred, left-for-dead remains of the former WorldCom less than a year ago. He has killed the old name and readopted MCI, pushed through a bankruptcy plan that will wipe out all but $5.5 billion of what had been $41 billion in debt and agreed to pay $750 million to settle civil fraud charges. He also has replaced the entire 11-member board, half a dozen senior executives and a hundred accounting people on duty when WorldCom ginned up $11 billion in false profits. And Capellas has set up a $200 million autopsy by 600 outside consultants, who are studying how it all happened--and putting in safeguards to ensure it can't happen again. Impressed, a federal judge in July rhapsodized that he had never seen a large company "so rapidly and so completely divorce itself from the misdeeds of the immediate past" and take "such extraordinary steps to prevent" a relapse. So here's the troubling part: It may not be enough. For MCI to recover -- and for Capellas to build his own legacy as a can-do cleaner-upper -- he must navigate 15 pending investigations and reviews, and whip into shape a firm that even admirers admit is a sloppy patchwork of 70 acquisitions. Worse yet, MCI's new chief must fend off a torrent of attacks from rivals eager to see the company punished for past misbehavior; and they are working overtime to prove that MCI has continued its wayward practices even on Capellas' watch. "I did expect it to be noisy," he admits, "but no sane person could anticipate it would get this noisy." The sniping from rivals began as soon as the company filed for Chapter 11 protection from creditors in July 2002. Verizon, in U.S. Senate testimony, labeled MCI a criminal enterprise -- akin to a mafia clan -- and urged liquidation. AT&T and others encouraged a federal court to reject MCI's big civil settlement with the Securities & Exchange Commission as insufficient, and filed a flurry of objections to its reorganization plan. AT&T lobbied to get MCI cut off from government work, and subsequently it was. SBC encouraged the Oklahoma State attorney general to file a criminal indictment against the reeling giant, and on Aug. 27 he did. Verizon funded a group that supported anti-MCI ads and protests on courthouse steps during MCI's SEC hearings. Verizon even distributed PowerPoint printouts at a recent national governors' conference, urging state leaders to oppose MCI's reorg because it dodged local taxes. http://www.forbes.com/free_forbes/2003/1013/062.html Eric Friedebach ------------------------------ From: John Hines Subject: DVR Hits CNN Tech Date: Wed, 08 Oct 2003 11:53:19 -0500 Organization: www.jhines.org Reply-To: john@jhines.org "Review: Software offers TiVo-like recording at lower price" http://www.cnn.com/2003/TECH/ptech/10/08/tv.recording/index.html The way I see it, there is a matter of getting TV tuner cards in mass marketed PC. That and dual headed video cards, so that one can connect the PC up to that fancy TV you just bought. For mass market appeal, think of Joe Six-pack, the big game on TV, and his need to imbibe/urinate during this. He needs to see the benefit of a PC in the media room. ------------------------------ From: yeltrabnhoj@email.com Subject: Re: DVR Industry: The 'D' Stands for 'Dense' Date: Wed, 08 Oct 2003 16:51:20 GMT Organization: (reverse to reply) (John Bartley, K7AAY, Portland OR) > Monty Solomon wrote: >> The digital video recorder can pause live TV, fast-forward through >> commercials and even record more than 300 hours of programming. >> However, there's one thing it can't do: Put some sense into the heads >> of the executives who are selling the damn thing. On Tue, 07 Oct 2003 19:15:06 -0600, Clark W. Griswold, Jr. <73115.1041remove@compuserve.com> wrote: > Thought the column was good, but I think Phil missed the major reason > that DVRs haven't replaced VCRs: The requirement to subscribe. Hit the nail on the head. I only buy DISH PVRs when DISH offers them with free access to the channel guides. The primary advantage of DISH and DirecTV in urban areas is lower cost than cable, and the PVR guide service fee kills that advantage. When DISH forces me to pay a fee for PVR guides, I will build my own PVR. http://pvr.forceconstant.com/ Nobody but a fool goes into a federal counterrorism operation without duct tape - Richard Preston, THE COBRA EVENT. ------------------------------ From: Ed Clarke Subject: Re: Any Such Thing as a Phone Line Transceiver? Date: 8 Oct 2003 16:49:23 GMT Organization: Ciliophora Associates, Inc. Reply-To: clarke@cilia.org In article , Dave Temkin wrote: > Ed Clarke wrote in message > news:: >> I'm looking for something that plugs into a standard residential phone >> line, converts to multimode fiber and has a duplicate on the other end >> to convert back to a phone line. Should be full duplex. > Don't know if this is overkill or not, but the RAD IPMux-1 will do > this -- you can have up to 4 FXO/FXS ports and either copper or fiber > connectivity (it's ethernet, but that doesn't matter much if it's just > point to point). It turns out that yes, there are a lot of manufacturers out there who sell these things. HOWEVER -- You need two (different kinds but same price) They cost > $600 each. I can buy many cases of normal phones for that - and discard them when they get fried It's a technical success and a convenience, but financially ruinous. Oh well ... Thanks for all the help finding these things and I'll keep them in mind for future work. ------------------------------ From: Fritz Whittington Subject: Re: Any Such Thing as a Phone Line Transceiver? Date: Wed, 08 Oct 2003 17:36:45 GMT Organization: AT&T Worldnet On or about 2003-10-06 16:22, Jim Wall whipped out a trusty #2 pencil and scribbled: > I have never heard of one, but it might exist. If it does, it will be > expensive. This is actually quite a tricky problem. The end of the > line closest to the telephone needs a piece of equipment that acts as > a cental office, recognizing the line voltage (current if you are a > purist) conditions as well as passing the audio to the other end of > the fiber. It also needs to be able to generate a legal ring voltage > to any attached devices. So there is a significant amount of out of > band signalling that must be done between the two transceivers. It > gets more complicated it you allow for phone equipment on each side of > fiber as opposed to just on the downstream side. > -Jim SBC has done this and the techs call it an ONU (Optical Network Unit). I have one sitting in my alley about 300 feet from my demarc. They effectively just stretched a piece of the CO out along a fiber and into the alley, serving about 100 homes (generally with more than one line each). The only way I can get DSL is to pay SBC about $250 for them to install the DSL modem at the ONU. (We're about 22,000 feet from the real CO. If we were close enough, the DSL modem on the CO end of my pair would not be directly charged to me.) The good news is that my DSL would work really well, since I'm only 300 feet of copper away. The bad news is, during a neighborhood-wide power outage last August, all our phones were dead. Well, we had battery, of course, provided by the mini-CO in the alley, but the rest of the ONU had no power to talk to the real CO. SBC had routed their own underground AC supply for the ONU along with the fiber, but it was fed by the neighborhood substation. Fritz Whittington Let each man exercise the art he knows. (Aristophanes, Wasps, 422 B.C.) ------------------------------ From: Cryderman, Charles Subject: Three SIM Card Use on 2G Phones Date: Wed, 8 Oct 2003 12:32:18 -0400 james@Talkpeople.com (James) said in TD V22 #688 > 3 Is owned by Hutchison, who also owns Orange. This is incorrect. Hutchison sold Orange many years ago. The profit from the sale is how they built the 3G networks they are now using. Chip Cryderman ------------------------------ From: Paul Robinson Organization: elusive-butterfly.net Subject: Re: "Loyalty" cards Date: Wed, 08 Oct 2003 16:56:09 GMT If you don't have a card, many loyalty programs will let you use a phone number. I tried a phone number of someone I know of, and it works with both the Safeway and Giant Food (of Maryland) loyalty cards. His Name is George Bush Jr. and his phone number is 202-456-1414. I figure the White House can use the extra points. ------------------------------ From: jmeissen@aracnet.com Subject: Re: Good Connection But no Internet Pages Date: 8 Oct 2003 17:06:33 GMT Organization: http://extra.newsguy.com In article , Al Loy wrote: > I live in a house that has a wireless network, Linksys router, Lucent > Wireless Access Point and a Comcast Cable Modem. We have a bunch of > Wavelan Orinoco cards that were here when I got here that work > properly. Recently we needed to get more cards so more people could > connect. The new cards get a good connection. The signal strength is > good. However, when I try to bring up pages in Internet Explorer, I > get a page not found error. Do I need to register the new cards with > the router? How do I do this? You aren't communicating with the access point. More than likely you don't have the encryption configured properly, or the AP is configured to filter on MAC address. The card shouldn't show a good connection under those circumstances, but I've seen cards act that way. Probably the driver software gets confused. John Meissen jmeissen@aracnet.com ------------------------------ Reply-To: Paul Cook From: Paul Cook Subject: New Wrinkle - Nigerian Scam Date: Wed, 8 Oct 2003 10:39:53 -0700 Organization: Proctor & Associates, Inc. When I saw the name and title (URGENT RESPONSE!) in my inbox, I was sure it was the Nigerian scam. I get many of these every day. Here is a new twist. Gosh, they are holding a lottery ticket in my name (!), and want to give me lots of money! All I have to do is call the guy. Of course, he'll need my bank account number so he can transfer the funds, and then of course there will be taxes to pay up front, handling costs, etc, which I am sure Mr. Humphrey will be glad to handle for me if I give him everything he wants. Paul Cook Proctor & Associates Redmond, WA 425-881-7000 pcook@proctorinc.cmo ----- Original Message ----- From: "IMUST LOTTO" To: Subject: URGENT RESPONSE Sent: Wednesday, October 08, 2003 10:19 AM IMUST INTERNATIONAL LOTTERY FROM: INTERNATIONAL PROMOTION/PRIZE AWARD DEPT. REF: 2671550937-046 BATCH: 000656/03 RE: WINNING NOTIFICATION/FINAL NOTICE: X-MAX BONAZA We are pleased to inform you of the result of the IMUST International Lottery programs held on the 31st Semptember,2003. Your e-mail address attached to ticket number 2671550937-046 with game number 23431 drew lucky numbers 19,23,30,32,43,56 which consequently won. You have therefore been approved for a lump sum pay of Five hundred thousand Fifty Thousand Euros ( 550,000.00 Euros ). CONGRATULATIONS!! All participants were selected through a computer ballot system drawn from our sponsors' databases, including over 250,000 company and individual email addresses and names submitted by our agents from all over the world.To file for your claim, please contact:our fiduciary agent Mr. Curtis Humphrey Financial Services in The Netherlands; Tel: +31 630 047 280 or humphreycurtis@spinfinder.com Due to mix up of some numbers and names, we ask that you keep your winning information confidential until your claims have been processed.This is part of our security protocol to avoid double claiming and unwarranted abuse of this program by some participants. Please not that all winnings must be claimed not later than 10th November,2003. After this date all unclaimed winnings will be null and void.In order to avoid unnecessary delays and complications remember to quote your reference number and batch numbers in all correspondence. Furthermore,should there be any change of address do inform our agents as soon as possible. Congratulations once more and thank you for being part of our promotional program. Sincerely yours, M.D. (Winning Co-ordinator IMUST Lottery) [TELECOM Digest Editor's Note: I've received several of those notices about my winnings myself, and just as Mister M.D. asked you to keep this matter strictly confidential until they straighten out the mixup they are having and getting so many 'false claims' from those of us in the unwashed masses; he asked me the very same thing. So let's do what he asked Paul, and just keep this to ourselves. You don't want someone else to steal your prize money do you? PAT] ------------------------------ Reply-To: From: David Nesbitt Subject: Is LNP Available For Cellular Phone Numbers? Date: Wed, 8 Oct 2003 13:55:18 -0700 Organization: Revere Transducers Inc Does the Telecom Act address this? David Nesbitt [TELECOM Digest Editor's Note: I believe cell phones become eligible theoretically around the end of November, in a month and a half. I say 'theoretically' since it is likely the cellular carriers will play games, claiming that the phone you have (whichever company and whichever model) will not be compatible with their system and excellent service unless you buy a new phone from them at a high price with a new umpty-year contract. But check and see for yourself in couple months when it happens, under the law. PAT] ------------------------------ From: Geoffrey Welsh Subject: Re: Trillian Plugs Back Into Yahoo, MSN Date: Wed, 8 Oct 2003 15:35:21 -0400 Organization: Bell Sympatico Dave Phelps wrote: > I'm a huge fan of Trillian. The phone home (what they call "anonymous > usage statistics") can be disabled. It is enabled by default, although > I'm of the opinion it should be disabled by default. Does that (the option to disable uploading of any information to the publisher or sponsor) apply to both Trillian and Trillian Pro? The product page for "Trillian Basic" says "Trillian 0.74 is completely free, with no spyware and no ads." Geoffrey Welsh This address is not to be added to any mailing list, nor to be sold or given away without explicit written consent. Unsolicited bulk mail is spam, no matter what regulations (real or imagined) it complies with! FIGHT SPAM AND SCAMS: DISCONNECT CHINA FROM THE INTERNET! ------------------------------ From: jmayson@nyx.net Subject: A.Word.A.Day -- Octothorpe (fwd) Date: Wed, 08 Oct 2003 23:50:51 GMT Organization: Road Runner - Texas This might interest comp.dcom.telecom members. Or maybe you're all sick of hearing about it. :-) ----------- Forwarded message ---------- Date: Wed, 8 Oct 2003 00:06:47 -0400 From: Wordsmith To: linguaphile@wordsmith.org Subject: A.Word.A.Day--octothorpe octothorpe (OK-tuh-thorp) noun The symbol #. [The symbol # is derived from a shorthand way of writing lb, the abbreviation for the Latin libra (balance), just as $ is a shorthand way of writing US. Octothorpe is an alteration, influenced by octo-, of earlier octalthorpe, probably a humorous blend of octal (an eight-point pin used in electronic connections) and someone whose last name was or ended in "thorpe", and whose identity is subject to speculation. It may be James Edward Oglethorpe, an eighteenth century English philanthropist, but more likely it is an Olympic athlete, Jim Thorpe. In the early 1960s, Bell Labs introduced two special keys in its innovative touch-tone telephone keypads, "#" and "*", for which it needed fresh names. Having eight points, "octo-" was an obvious first element. Since the engineer involved in introducing this innovation was active in a group seeking the return of Jim Thorpe's medals from Sweden, he whimsically added "-thorpe", creating octothorpe. (Jim Thorpe was disqualified because of his professional status, but his medals were restored posthumously.) The "#" is also known as a pound sign, crosshatch, number sign, sharp, hash, crunch, mesh, hex, flash, grid, pig-pen, gate, hak, oof, rake, fence, gate, grid, gridlet, square, and widget mark.] Some other eight-based words, other than the obvious octagon, octave, and octopus, are octamerous, having eight parts or organs; octane, a type of hydrocarbon in fuel and solvents; octant, the eighth part of a circle; octonare and octapody, a verse of eight feet; and octonary, pertaining to the number eight. "In Boise, Idaho, US West is testing a system it calls Voice Interactive Phone, or VIP. By dialing the octothorpe (#) and 44, then saying 'Messages,' a subscriber can retrieve voice mail." Gene Bylinsky and Alicia Hills Moore; Fortune (New York); At Last! Computers You Can Talk to; May 3, 1993. This week's theme: words based on numbers by guest wordsmith Stewart Edelstein (stewartedelstein@sbcglobal.net). Literature is my Utopia. Here I am not disenfranchised. No barrier of the sense shuts me out from the sweet, gracious discourse of my book friends. They talk to me without embarrassment or awkwardness. -Helen Adams Keller, lecturer and author (1880-1968) What to give to the person who has everything? Give the gift of words. Here is a gift that keeps on giving. To enter a gift subscription of A.Word.A.Day, please visit http://wordsmith.org/awad/gift.html To subscribe yourself, use http://wordsmith.org/awad/subscribe.html Pronunciation: http://wordsmith.org/words/octothorpe.wav http://wordsmith.org/words/octothorpe.ram [TELECOM Digest Editor's Note: Sometime back in the late eighties or early nineties I did one or two special issues of the Digest on the topic of Octothorpes. If anyone is interested, I will find what was printed at the time and run it again. PAT] ------------------------------ From: web+google@ivrl.com (Paul Crick) Subject: Re: Reminder Ring on Call Forwarding Date: 8 Oct 2003 17:18:26 -0700 Organization: http://groups.google.com Mark J Cuccia wrote: > When you have *72 "all calls forward" turned on (as *72+etc), ALL > incoming calls ARE being immediately diverted to the forward-to > number. The "ping" ring you hear is simply a reminder that *72 > forarding IS turned on. You still can NOT answer those calls. If the > rining was turned off, the rate of time to forward those calls would > still be the same as with the "ping" ring activated. The incoming call > to your number is NOT really ever connected to your line itself. This is where it gets interesting! I'm able to pick up my phone and monitor the diverted call. I think it's a switch feature that ties in with voicemail too -- if I let a call go to voicemail on CF no answer, my phone stops ringing, then gives a chirp. If I pick the phone up, I can hear my outgoing greeting then the person leaving their message. If I hit flash/hookswitch, voicemail drops out and I'm in conversation with the caller. I guess this raises a new question ... if they can turn the reminder ring off, will I also lose my voicemail screening option? My distinctive ringing works exactly as I want it right now, it overides any call forward immediate. If I can just lose the reminder ring, I can have my DR number be answered by an IVR system I want to demo, while calls to my regular line happily go off to voicemail for the duration that I'm demoing ... That's why turning the ringer off isn't a solution -- I need to stop the reminder ring (otherwise the IVR answers but there's no one there, and it ties up the line for a little bit). > As for having the "main" number forward while your alternate-ring > numbers actually get through to that line while *72 is turned on, that > again COULD be possible "in theory", but again, it all depends on what > can easily be programmed or modified depending on manufactuer/model > /generic. > I do know that with BellSouth and the 5ESS I'm served from, I seem to > think that with "Ringmaster" (tm) numbers, ALL incoming calls to all > numbers get forwarded when *72 is turned on. I could be wrong, but I > don't think one has an "upfront choice" as to whether or not the > Ringmaster number(s) will forward when *72 is turned on at the "main" > line. > However, with Call-Forward-Busy and Call-Forward-Don't Answer, I do > have the choice, when both CF-B/CF-DA and Ringmaster are both active > on the same line, at the time I have both ordered from the Business > Office, as to whether or not the Ringmaster number(s) will also > forward over. However, any change to that would have to be made thru > the Business Office, and if I have TWO Ringmaster numbers associated > with my main line number, BOTH have to do the same thing, I can't have > one Ringmaster number forward with the other not forward. > And you are SO right -- telco's "policies" IS a completely different > matter, and frequently fly in the face of basic logic!!! > Mark J. Cuccia > mcuccia@tulane.edu > New Orleans LA USA Doug wrote: > Paul, could you turn the phone's ringer off or unplug the phone instead of > having telco change the line? Just a suggestion. I wish it was that easy ... The ring isn't annoying me, I need to connect some IVR equipment to my line to demonstrate. It would answer the call on the reminder ring, which is not what I want. I want my regular number to go straight to voicemail, with me blissfully unaware. Meanwhile my distinctive ringing number will override the call forward immediate and ring through to my equipment (which is does quite happily right now -- it's just the reminder ring that needs to die.) Owain wrote: > Whether it is possible to have the Call Diversion Bypass number also > appear with distinctive ringing is another question. Yeah, no that's fine -- I've got that right now. The distinctive ringing number isn't affected by any of my diversions. The fact that you called it a "call diversion bypass number" made me grin -- are you from the UK? (s'what we called it when I was still living there, and working for the telco) > Regardless of what options the exchange itself offers, getting > something that doesn't appear on the customer service teletubbies' > screens will be almost impossible unless you have considerable clout > with the organisation. Yeah, always the way isn't it ... and having worked for the telco I know the attitude the guys on the inside tend to have towards the "customers" ... The guy in the switch room would probably be more than happy to help, it's a 30 second job to change a service parameter on your line ... but try getting the sales people to understand what you want, then get it actioned through their work management system! We can but try ... :-) Cheers, Paul ------------------------------ 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. --------------------------------------------------------------- Finally, the Digest is funded by gifts from generous readers such as yourself who provide funding in amounts deemed appropriate. Your help is important and appreciated. A suggested donation of fifty dollars per year per reader is considered appropriate. See our address above. Please make at least a single donation to cover the cost of processing your name to the mailing list. If you donate at least fifty dollars per year we will send you our two-CD set of the entire Telecom Archives; this is every word published in this Digest since our beginning in 1981. All opinions expressed herein are deemed to be those of the author. Any organizations listed are for identification purposes only and messages should not be considered any official expression by the organization. End of TELECOM Digest V22 #692 ****************************** From editor@telecom-digest.org Thu Oct 9 13:27:56 2003 Received: (from ptownson@localhost) by massis.lcs.mit.edu (8.11.6p2/8.11.3) id h99HRtD24257; Thu, 9 Oct 2003 13:27:56 -0400 (EDT) Date: Thu, 9 Oct 2003 13:27:56 -0400 (EDT) From: editor@telecom-digest.org Message-Id: <200310091727.h99HRtD24257@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 #693 TELECOM Digest Thu, 9 Oct 2003 13:28:00 EDT Volume 22 : Issue 693 Inside This Issue: Editor: Patrick A. Townson and: Lisa Minter Cloaking Device Made For Spammers (Monty Solomon) Re: A.Word.A.Day -- Octothorpe (George Mitchell) Re: A.Word.A.Day -- Octothorpe (Justin Time) Re: A.Word.A.Day -- Octothorpe (Marcus Didius Falco) Intertel Phone System Question (Technical Guy) Re: Trillian Plugs Back Into Yahoo, MSN (Dave Phelps) Re: "Loyalty" Cards (jbl) Re: Disney's Pirate Fight (Linc Madison) Re: Is LNP Available For Cellular Phone Numbers? (Michael D. Sullivan) Re: Screaming Match (Justin Time) Re: Verizon [Charges for Everything Lately] (Justin Time) PLOC Freezes (Howie) Last Laugh! Re: New Wrinkle - Nigerian Scam (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. ---------------------------------------------------------------------- Reply-To: Monty Solomon From: Monty Solomon Subject: Cloaking Device Made for Spammers Date: Thu, 9 Oct 2003 12:53:16 -0400 By Brian McWilliams Call them spackers -- they're the new breed of computer crackers who earn a living in cahoots with spammers. The latest innovations developed by such mercenary hackers on behalf of the junk e-mail profession are techniques that enable spammers -- or scam artists for that matter -- to create websites that are essentially untraceable. One group in Poland is currently advertising "invisible bulletproof hosting" in online forums for spammers. For $1,500 per month, the group says it can protect a site from network sleuthing tools used by spam opponents, such as traceroute and whois. http://www.wired.com/news/business/0,1367,60747,00.html ------------------------------ From: George Mitchell Subject: Re: A.Word.A.Day -- Octothorpe Date: Wed, 08 Oct 2003 22:14:01 -0700 Organization: Posted via Supernews, http://www.supernews.com jmayson@nyx.net wrote: > In the early 1960s, Bell Labs introduced two special keys in its > innovative touch-tone telephone keypads, "#" and "*", for which it > needed fresh names. The first twelve-key touch-tone keypads had a hollow five-pointed star and a hollow diamond in these positions. I've always wondered why they changed to the current symbols. -- George Mitchell (obfuscated email address) ------------------------------ From: a_user2000@yahoo.com (Justin Time) Subject: Re: A.Word.A.Day -- Octothorpe Date: 9 Oct 2003 05:40:27 -0700 Organization: http://groups.google.com jmayson@nyx.net wrote in message news:: > This might interest comp.dcom.telecom members. Or maybe you're all sick > of hearing about it. :-) > ----------- Forwarded message ---------- > Date: Wed, 8 Oct 2003 00:06:47 -0400 > From: Wordsmith > To: linguaphile@wordsmith.org > Subject: A.Word.A.Day--octothorpe > octothorpe (OK-tuh-thorp) noun > The symbol #. > [The symbol # is derived from a shorthand way of writing lb, the > abbreviation for the Latin libra (balance), just as $ is a shorthand > way of writing US. Octothorpe is an alteration, influenced by octo-, > of earlier octalthorpe, probably a humorous blend of octal (an > eight-point pin used in electronic connections) and someone whose last > name was or ended in "thorpe", and whose identity is subject to > speculation. It may be James Edward Oglethorpe, an eighteenth century > English philanthropist, but more likely it is an Olympic athlete, Jim > Thorpe. > <> > [TELECOM Digest Editor's Note: Sometime back in the late eighties or > early nineties I did one or two special issues of the Digest on the > topic of Octothorpes. If anyone is interested, I will find what was > printed at the time and run it again. PAT] Pat, I remember some of those articles you had done on the origination of octothorpe, and they most certainly are more belivable than this drivel. "Octal (an eight-point pin used in electronic connections)" fails to mention that octal refers to eight, and the base 8 numbering system used in many early computer systems (as three bits represent a maximum of 8 discrete states,) was the source. About the time octothorpe made its way into the English language from the people at Bell Labs -- according to popular belief -- the most common large scale processors used the octal, base 8, number system. The fact the character had 8 points, just as an octopus -- oops, there's a form of octal again -- has 8 tentacles would have a lot more credibility than "an eight-point pin" I guess being cursed with 40 plus years working in computers and telephony has some disadvantages. We tend to remember esoteric stuff like this. (And yes, its true. They used to use a forklift to replace rectifier tubes for the Univac I computer.) Rodgers Platt ------------------------------ Date: Thu, 09 Oct 2003 01:21:27 -0400 From: Marcus Didius Falco Subject: Re: A.Word.A.Day -- Octothorpe jmayson@nyx.net wrote about A.Word.A.Day -- Octothorpe (fwd) in the Digest on Wed, 08 Oct 2003 23:50:51 > This might interest comp.dcom.telecom members. Or maybe you're all sick > of hearing about it. :-) >octothorpe (OK-tuh-thorp) noun > The symbol #. > [The symbol # is derived from a shorthand way of writing lb, the > abbreviation for the Latin libra (balance), just as $ is a shorthand > way of writing US. Octothorpe is an alteration, influenced by octo-, > of earlier octalthorpe, probably a humorous blend of octal (an > eight-point pin used in electronic connections) and someone whose last > name was or ended in "thorpe", and whose identity is subject to > speculation. It may be James Edward Oglethorpe, an eighteenth century > English philanthropist, but more likely it is an Olympic athlete, Jim > Thorpe. Not quite. The first question is whether the word actually exists in English. It doesn't appear to be in actual use. I checked two dictionaries and didn't find it. And, as of 1999, it was not in the Oxford English Dictionary, which is generally considered authoritative. The definition and derivation above can be found at http://www.sigtel.com/tel_tech_octothorpe.html It is actually from the Telecom Archives ftp://lcs.mit.edu/telecom-archives/history/octothorpe.gets.its.name (or if that doesn't work, try: http://web.ask.com/redir?bpg=http%3a%2f%2fweb.ask.com%2fweb%3fq%3doctothorpe%26o%3d4%26page%3d2&q=octothorpe&u=http%3a%2f%2ftm.wc.ask.com%2fr%3ft%3dan%26s%3da%26uid%3d0089BC29A1F9E48F3%26sid%3d1A3E0D29A1F9E48F3%26qid%3d6C042F2473710540A869C2FCDFEDA483%26io%3d2%26sv%3dza5cb0dbb%26ask%3doctothorpe%26uip%3d42d9816b%26en%3dte%26eo%3d-100%26pt%3dthe%2bOctothorpe%2bStory%26ac%3d24%26qs%3d0%26pg%3d2%26u%3dhttp%3a%2f%2fmassis.lcs.mit.edu%2ftelecom-archives%2farchives%2fhistory%2foctothorpe.the.real.story&s=a&bu=http%3a%2f%2fmassis.lcs.mit.edu%2ftelecom-archives%2farchives%2fhistory%2foctothorpe.the.real.story Dictionary.com http://dictionary.reference.com/search?r=2&q=octothorpe says the American Heritage gives a slightly different derivation, and argues for Oglethorpe, rather than Jim Thorpe. Ask Jeeves http://web.ask.com/web?q=octothorpe&o=8002 has a number of derivations. Most refer to the Carlsen message in the Telecom Archives or the American Heritage definition and derivation. Another alternative derivation about someone named Thorpe who had eight children is apparently a confusion with an old word octotherp, which is apparently unrelated and was, itself, a coinage. http://www.raycomm.com/techwhirl/archives/9608/techwhirl-9608-00461.html Alternatively, some claim it is an old symbol for a village on maps, and refers to the eight fields associated with a village (the center box representing the village). However, I have not found a reference for this derivation, and suspect it's specious. > Pronunciation: > http://wordsmith.org/words/octothorpe.wav > http://wordsmith.org/words/octothorpe.ram > [TELECOM Digest Editor's Note: Sometime back in the late eighties or Apparently, November 19, 1988, when a query appeared, or shortly thereafter. Or November 28, 1995, when the Carlsen article appeared in comp.dcom.telecom. > early nineties I did one or two special issues of the Digest on the > topic of Octothorpes. If anyone is interested, I will find what was > printed at the time and run it again. PAT] ------------------------------ From: techintx@yahoo.com (Technical Guy) Subject: Intertel Phone System Question Date: 9 Oct 2003 08:30:19 -0700 Organization: http://groups.google.com We have an Intertel Axxess 6.x system and I want to know if it's possible to change the "on hold rollover" to NOT roll the call back to the operator. Each time someone calls in and is put on hold for the max on-hold time, which we have set to 4 minutes (or 240 seconds), they roll back over to the operator. It happens even if the call didn't come through the operator. I'd like it to go to the person's voicemail box or roll back to their extension. Does anyone know how to fix this? Thanks. ------------------------------ From: Dave Phelps Subject: Re: Trillian Plugs Back Into Yahoo, MSN Date: Thu, 9 Oct 2003 00:14:07 -0500 Organization: Posted via Supernews, http://www.supernews.com In article , reply@newsgroup.please says: > Does that (the option to disable uploading of any information to the > publisher or sponsor) apply to both Trillian and Trillian Pro? The > product page for "Trillian Basic" says "Trillian 0.74 is completely > free, with no spyware and no ads." Yes. I used Trillian for a couple of years. I finally broke down and bought Trillian Pro when I heard about a few cool plug-ins and other nice features that weren't in the basic. IMHO, the developers deserve a paycheck just for putting up with all the trouble from MSN, AOL, and Yahoo. Pro also has a Jabber plug-in, but I haven't tried it. (Jabber is a free IM server that frequently comes with Linux distributions.) Dave Phelps DD Networks www.ddnets.com deadspam=tippenring ------------------------------ From: jbl Subject: Re: "Loyalty" Cards Date: Wed, 08 Oct 2003 22:35:58 -0700 Organization: On the desert Reply-To: jbl@spamblocked.com In , Paul Robinson wrote: > If you don't have a card, many loyalty programs will let you use a > phone number. I tried a phone number of someone I know of, and it > works with both the Safeway and Giant Food (of Maryland) loyalty > cards. His Name is George Bush Jr. and his phone number is > 202-456-1414. I figure the White House can use the extra points. At Safeway, you'll know if they tell you as they hand you the receipt, "Mr. Bush, you've saved $8.46 today". Actually, I'll bet that number is in the system because some other annoyed consumer used it instead of his own number when he picked up one of those cards. After all, it's a well known number and hardly random. /JBL ------------------------------ Subject: Re: Disney's Pirate Fight From: Linc Madison Date: Thu, 09 Oct 2003 05:42:25 GMT Organization: EarthLink Inc. -- http://www.EarthLink.net In article , AES/newspost wrote: > [Description of Disney MovieBeam, where Disney will send you a > digital copy of your movie rental to play, rewind, fast-forward, > etc., for 24 hours, all for "just" $4 for the rental plus $7/month > maintenance fee plus $30 activation fee.] > Sounds like a pretty good service, but for several reasons my > household thinks NetFlix is better, and will stick with it. Sounds every bit as good as DiVX, and I predict that it will meet the same end. There is no way in hell that I'm going to pay $7/month for the privilege of renting movies from only one studio, and $4 for a 24-hour rental is way too high. Plus a selection of only 100 movies is way too limited. Besides that, I'm sure the hackers will be all over the boxes, liberating the content from its 24-hour expiration clock. The writing on the wall is clear: this service won't ever show a profit, and Disney will quietly kill it, certainly in 2005 if not by the end of 2004. ------------------------------ From: Michael D. Sullivan Subject: Re: Is LNP Available For Cellular Phone Numbers? Date: Thu, 09 Oct 2003 06:57:53 GMT On Wed, 8 Oct 2003 13:55:18 -0700, David Nesbitt posted the following to comp.dcom.telecom: > Does the Telecom Act address this? > David Nesbitt > [TELECOM Digest Editor's Note: I believe cell phones become eligible > theoretically around the end of November, in a month and a half. I > say 'theoretically' since it is likely the cellular carriers will > play games, claiming that the phone you have (whichever company and > whichever model) will not be compatible with their system and > excellent service unless you buy a new phone from them at a high > price with a new umpty-year contract. But check and see for yourself > in couple months when it happens, under the law. PAT] The Telecom Act divides carriers into telecom carriers, some of whome are LECs, and some of the latter are ILECs. Congress decided that only LECs (and ILECs) were required to provide LNP and told the FCC to prescribe rules. Shortly before the Telecom Act, the FCC had started a rulemaking to subject wireless (cellular, PCS, and Nextel SMR) carriers and LECs to LNP. After the Telecom Act, wireless carriers said that Congress had foreclosed subjecting them to LNP, but the FCC decided that even though Congress had not subjected wireless carriers to LNP it would do so anyway, relying on its "independent" rulemaking authority under various sections of the Communications Act. An appeal of this decision was dropped when the FCC extended the date (as described below). Originally the date for wireless LNP was set to be in 1998, but that proved impossible for technical reasons, and it was extended to 11/24/2002. Thereafter, Verizon asked that the FCC forbear from requiring wireless LNP permanently, because (among other things) the level of competition in the wireless industry without LNP (roughly 30% of wireless customers change carriers each year) showed that it wasn't necessary for competition. The FCC, however, forbore for only a year and denied Verizon's request. The date was set at 11/24/2003. Verizon and CTIA appealed the denial of permanent forbearance, raising the issue of the FCC's authority to require it a bit tangentially, in the course of challenging the FCC's satisfaction of the critera for forbearance. The DC Circuit recently denied review, saying (among other things) that the issue of the FCC's authority wasn't properly before it, since it had been decided years ago, but added that it could be raised in a petition for elimination of the rule, and an appeal from an FCC denial of the petition. Several wireless carriers then filed a petition to eliminate the rule, but the FCC hasn't acted on it, nor has it acted on their request for a stay of the 11/24/03 deadline. They went to court on 9/29/03 and asked the DC Circuit for a writ of mandamus to stay the onset of wireless LNP until its legality had been reviewed. (I'm one of the attorneys handling the case for the wireless carriers.) Action on the mandamus petition should be coming in the next few weeks. Short answer to David: There is disagreement as to whether the Telecom Act addresses the issue. Short answer to PAT: It isn't "playing games" when a new carrier can't serve your old phone and makes you buy a new one, at least most of the time. If the Cubs switch from an AM station to an FM station, you can't continue to use an AM radio to hear the game. Similarly, you can't use a CDMA phone on a GSM network, and vice versa. And even the carriers using a particular technology may have customized software in their phones (e.g., Sprint and Verizon both use CDMA, but use different methods of updating and storing their preferred-carrier roaming list; carriers may also have different software for special features, such as photo/ringtone/game download). As to paying megabux and having to sign up for multiyears, shop around. If what you want is a phone, plain and simple, most carriers offer cheap or free phones with a 1- or 2-year contract, or a bit more without. The contract subsidizes the phone, which is a pretty expensive piece of sophisticated technology. And haggle. Even though wireless carriers are "common carriers," they do make deals -- especially when they can get a customer away from a competitor. The FCC approved of haggling in the _Orloff_ case, which was before the DC Circuit earlier this week and looks to be affirmed. Michael D. Sullivan Bethesda, MD, USA Delete nospam from my address and it won't work. ------------------------------ From: a_user2000@yahoo.com (Justin Time) Subject: Re: Screaming Match Date: 9 Oct 2003 05:58:34 -0700 Organization: http://groups.google.com Eric Friedebach wrote in message news:: > Neil Weinberg, 10.13.03 print issue, Forbes.com > Mike Capellas has done a remarkable job reviving MCI and giving it a > future. Now if only rivals would let the company move beyond its > fraudulent past. And all those people and companies that bought into the lie that was Worldcom should forget about the damage done to them. All those companies that were damaged by the fraudulent claims, unkept promises, billing errors and poor service should also let bygones be bygones. Is this what they are asking? I just happen to agree with the Federal Government's General Services Agency (GSA). The company is a corrupt enterprise that has not proven itself to act in a responsible and ethical manner and deserves to be barred from all contract work with the federal government until it can prove that it has put into place the necessary controls to prevent similar activities in the future. To rebuild trust will take time, and if it takes more time than Worldcom can exist, then so be it. I, for one, will not subject my clients to a company that has a track record of unethical dealings until it proves that it has moved beyond its past. At this point, it deserves to die -- because of its past sins. Yes, to forgive is divine, but that also involves repentance on the part of the sinner -- and Worldcom (even if it is calling itself MCI these days) hasn't shown repentance at this point. Rodgers Platt ------------------------------ From: a_user2000@yahoo.com (Justin Time) Subject: Re: Verizon [Charges for Everything Lately] Date: 9 Oct 2003 06:01:56 -0700 Organization: http://groups.google.com Paul A Lee wrote in message news:: > In TELECOM Digest V22 #683, jbl wrote (in part): >> *BellAtlantic was made from a number of the original local Bells and >> may have absorbed some other companies before this point; I don't >> know, exactly, so I'm leaving that out. > Having lived most of my life in Pennsylvania, with family ties and > frequent trips to Maryland and DC, I can offer the following: The > Bell System companies that initially made up Bell Atlantic were/are: > The Bell Telephone Company of Pennsylvania > The Diamond State Telephone Company [Delaware] > New Jersey Bell Telephone Company > The Chesapeake & Potomac Telephone Company of Maryland > The Chesapeake & Potomac Telephone Company of Virginia > The Chesapeake & Potomac Telephone Company of West Virginia > The Chesapeake & Potomac Telephone Company (DC) > They were commonly referred to as, respectively: > Bell of PA [say 'P' 'A', as is customary for the abbreviation] > Diamond State [no mention of "Bell" or "telephone"] > Jersey Bell > C and P Maryland > C and P Virginia > C and P West Virginia > C and P Tel (or) C and P in the District > Quite often, any of the C&P companies was just called "C and P". I > also occasionally heard it called "ChessPot". We just referred to them as "Cheat and Plunder." It seemed only the media and company employees said C & P. Rodgers Platt ------------------------------ From: honda_civic_lover@yahoo.com (Howie) Subject: PLOC Freezes Date: 9 Oct 2003 06:15:12 -0700 Organization: http://groups.google.com What is a PLOC freeze and how do I find out if my local carrier offers this? ------------------------------ From: Carl Navarro Subject: Last Laugh! Re: New Wrinkle - Nigerian Scam Reply-To: cnavarro@wcnet.org Date: Thu, 09 Oct 2003 05:54:34 GMT Organization: Road Runner High Speed Online -- Northeast Ohio On Wed, 8 Oct 2003 10:39:53 -0700, Paul Cook wrote: > When I saw the name and title (URGENT RESPONSE!) in my inbox, I was > sure it was the Nigerian scam. I get many of these every day. > Here is a new twist. Gosh, they are holding a lottery ticket in my > name (!), and want to give me lots of money! All I have to do is call > the guy. Of course, he'll need my bank account number so he can > transfer the funds, and then of course there will be taxes to pay up > front, handling costs, etc, which I am sure Mr. Humphrey will be glad > to handle for me if I give him everything he wants. > Paul Cook Proctor & Associates Redmond, WA > 425-881-7000 pcook@proctorinc.cmo > ----- Original Message ----- > From: "IMUST LOTTO" > To: > Subject: URGENT RESPONSE > Sent: Wednesday, October 08, 2003 10:19 AM > IMUST INTERNATIONAL LOTTERY > FROM: INTERNATIONAL PROMOTION/PRIZE AWARD DEPT. > REF: 2671550937-046 > BATCH: 000656/03 > RE: WINNING NOTIFICATION/FINAL NOTICE: X-MAX BONAZA > We are pleased to inform you of the result of the IMUST International > Lottery programs held on the 31st Semptember,2003. Your e-mail address > attached to ticket number 2671550937-046 with game number 23431 drew > lucky numbers 19,23,30,32,43,56 which consequently won. You have > therefore been approved for a lump sum pay of Five hundred thousand > Fifty Thousand Euros ( 550,000.00 Euros ). CONGRATULATIONS!! Let me see. Yep, the first line of the poem is THIRTY DAYS HATH SEPTEMBER. And no, I didn't get my confidential notfication, but I was e-mailed off eBay to participate in a sale until 9/31. Geeze, Carl "hi Paul no 911 anymore" Navarro ------------------------------ 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. --------------------------------------------------------------- Finally, the Digest is funded by gifts from generous readers such as yourself who provide funding in amounts deemed appropriate. Your help is important and appreciated. A suggested donation of fifty dollars per year per reader is considered appropriate. See our address above. Please make at least a single donation to cover the cost of processing your name to the mailing list. If you donate at least fifty dollars per year we will send you our two-CD set of the entire Telecom Archives; this is every word published in this Digest since our beginning in 1981. All opinions expressed herein are deemed to be those of the author. Any organizations listed are for identification purposes only and messages should not be considered any official expression by the organization. End of TELECOM Digest V22 #693 ****************************** From editor@telecom-digest.org Fri Oct 10 02:12:42 2003 Received: (from ptownson@localhost) by massis.lcs.mit.edu (8.11.6p2/8.11.3) id h9A6Cga27343; Fri, 10 Oct 2003 02:12:42 -0400 (EDT) Date: Fri, 10 Oct 2003 02:12:42 -0400 (EDT) From: editor@telecom-digest.org Message-Id: <200310100612.h9A6Cga27343@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 #694 TELECOM Digest Fri, 10 Oct 2003 02:12:00 EDT Volume 22 : Issue 694 Inside This Issue: Editor: Patrick A. Townson and: Lisa Minter So Much for Michael Powell's Net Vision (Monty Solomon) Microsoft TV Announces Plans for Complete IP-Based Television (Solomon) U.S. Teen Charged With Hacking Brokerage Account (Monty Solomon) Eolas Files Motion to Enjoin IE (Monty Solomon) War Nibbling: Bluetooth Insecurity (Monty Solomon) GSM Gaining Ground in North America (Group Special Mobile) Any Cell Carriers Delivering ANI When CallerID Fails (R H) Difference Between FX & FGA? (Scott Ables) Transmission Levels (Dana) DMCA Violation Notice (Marcus Didius Falco) Interesting RIAA Quote (Marcus Didius Falco) Re: A.Word.A.Day -- Octothorpe (Bob Goudreau) Re: A.Word.A.Day -- Octothorpe (Mark Brader) Re: Screaming Match (Me) Re: Screaming Match (Tony Pelliccio) Re: Is LNP Available For Cellular Phone Numbers? (Marcus Didius Falco) Re: PLOC Freezes (Mark J Cuccia) Re: Good Connection But no Internet Pages (Al Loy) Re: DVR Industry: The 'D' Stands for Dense (Greg Boop) All contents here are copyrighted by Patrick Townson and the individual writers/correspondents. Articles may be used in other journals or newsgroups, provided the writer's name and the Digest are included in the fair use quote. By using -any name or email address- included herein for -any- reason other than responding to an article herein, you agree to pay a hundred dollars to the recipients of the email. WE DO NOT PERMIT NAME/EMAIL ADDRESS HARVESTING FROM THIS JOURNAL. 'SALTED' EMAIL ADDRESSES APPEAR HEREIN TO VERIFY THIS. YOU GET SUED IN SMALL CLAIMS COURT IF YOU GET CAUGHT SPAMMING OR SENDING VIRUSES. DON'T DO IT. See the bottom of this issue for subscription and archive details and the name of our lawyer; other stuff of interest. ---------------------------------------------------------------------- Reply-To: Monty Solomon From: Monty Solomon Subject: So Much for Michael Powell's Net Vision Date: Thu, 9 Oct 2003 17:13:55 -0400 NEWS ANALYSIS:TECHNOLOGY By Alex Salkever A ruling obliging cable companies to grant ISPs access to their systems is the latest blow to the FCC chief's deregulation efforts. The unraveling of Federal Communications Commissioner Michael Powell's grand plan for the Internet continued on Oct. 6 with a ruling from a U.S. court in San Francisco. A three-judge panel on the 9th Circuit Court of Appeals found unanimously that cable-TV companies should allow competing Internet service providers (ISPs) to sell Web access over broadband cable networks. Powell had long asserted that cable outfits and phone companies should not be forced to open their networks and let competitors get a free ride on infrastructure improvements paid for by the incumbents. Allowing access, he claimed, would dissuade cable outfits and phone giants from investing in further technology upgrades that would improve U.S. broadband infrastructure. http://businessweek.com/technology/content/oct2003/tc2003108_1029_tc119.htm ------------------------------ Date: Thu, 9 Oct 2003 22:33:50 -0400 From: Monty Solomon Subject: Microsoft TV Announces Plans for Complete IP-Based Television New End-to-End Solution Will Utilize Today's Broadband Networks to Deliver a Better TV Experience REDMOND, Wash., Oct. 9 /PRNewswire-FirstCall/ -- Microsoft Corp.'s (Nasdaq: MSFT) Microsoft TV Division today announced plans for the development of a new Internet Protocol television (IPTV) delivery solution designed to enable cable and telecommunications operators to more easily and efficiently offer improved and next-generation TV services over existing broadband networks. This new initiative will bring together state-of-the-art technologies from Microsoft and other industry leaders into an integrated, end-to-end solution that will support the full range of pay-TV services while scaling to millions of TV subscribers. In separate announcements made today, Bell Canada and Reliance Intercomm announced plans to jointly create and test new IPTV services with Microsoft TV, using the new Microsoft(R) TV IPTV solution. A prototype of the Microsoft TV IPTV solution will be demonstrated publicly for the first time starting this weekend at ITU Telecom World 2003 in Geneva, in the Microsoft booth in Hall 4, Stand 4100. Better Viewer Experiences Microsoft TV will work closely with network operators and industry partners to develop compelling viewer experiences that deliver improvements on traditional digital TV services as well as next-generation ones. Planned features include instant channel changing, multimedia programming guides with integrated video, and multiple picture-in-picture capability on standard television sets. High-definition television, next-generation digital video recording and video on demand (VOD) functionality also will be supported. - http://finance.lycos.com/home/news/story.asp?story=35999724 ------------------------------ Date: Thu, 9 Oct 2003 22:46:51 -0400 From: Monty Solomon Subject: U.S. Teen Charged With Hacking Brokerage Account By John Poirier WASHINGTON, Oct 9 (Reuters) - A Pennsylvania teenager hacked into another person's online brokerage account to trade options, U.S. officials charged on Thursday, raising questions about the security of online trading accounts. The U.S. Attorney's Office in Boston and the Securities and Exchange Commission said they filed criminal and civil securities fraud charges against Van Dinh, a 19-year-old resident of Phoenixville, Pennsylvania. Concealing his identity to remotely capture other people's usernames and passwords, Dinh tapped into the TD Waterhouse account of a 34-year-old Boston-area man. Dinh then used the account and the man's identity to buy put options -- which are contracts to sell a stock -- in common shares of Cisco Systems Inc. (NASDAQ:CSCO) that Dinh owned and wanted to sell, officials alleged. - http://finance.lycos.com/home/news/story.asp?story=36009651 ------------------------------ Date: Fri, 10 Oct 2003 00:33:53 -0400 From: Monty Solomon Subject: Eolas Files Motion to Enjoin IE By Paul Festa Staff Writer, CNET News.com Eolas Technologies has filed a motion to permanently enjoin Microsoft's distribution of its Internet Explorer browser amid a flurry of court filings by both sides in the pivotal patent infringement case. Eolas, the sole licensee and sublicensor of a browser plug-in patent owned by the University of California, on Monday asked the U.S. District Court in Chicago for an injunction against distributing copies of IE capable of running plug-in applications in a way the Eolas patent covers. http://news.com.com/2100-1028-5088349.html ------------------------------ Date: Thu, 9 Oct 2003 23:15:36 -0400 From: Monty Solomon Subject: War Nibbling: Bluetooth Insecurity Ollie Whitehouse Director of Security Architecture @stake The Bluetooth protocol, which is deployed in millions of products ranging from cellular telephones to laptops, is quickly becoming the new standard for intra-device wireless communications. This paper examines methods of assessing the security of Bluetooth devices in relation to the protocol's design and implementation flaws. We will also discuss ways to proactively approach Bluetooth security and what security professionals can do to defend their organizations against unwanted compromise. http://www.atstake.com/research/reports/acrobat/atstake_war_nibbling.pdf ------------------------------ From: Group Special Mobile Subject: GSM Gaining Ground in North America Date: Thu, 09 Oct 2003 12:27:06 -0700 Organization: Posted via Supernews, http://www.supernews.com Reply-To: look@signature_for_reply_instructions A cell phone technology that dominates Europe is now the fastest-growing standard in North America, according to a trade group. Chris Pearson, executive vice president of mobile trade organization 3G Americas on Wednesday said North American use of the Global System for Mobile Communications (GSM) standard increased 57 percent from June 2002 to June 2003. That's three times faster than the growth of Qualcomm's Code Division Multiple Access (CDMA), which has dominated the North American market. He cited new cell phone market data from EMC, which publishes the EMC World Cellular Database. The news is troubling for Qualcomm, Pearson said, because GSM apparently is beginning to challenge CDMA's stranglehold on the North America cell phone market. However, he conceded that GSM has a long way to go, because there are 71 million North American CDMA phones versus GSM's 22 million. http://news.com.com/2100-1039-5088920.html?tag=sas_email To send an email reply send to GSMthemobilestandard (@) yahoo.com ------------------------------ From: rant@picrad.com (R H) Subject: Any Cell Carriers Delivering ANI When CallerID Fails Date: 9 Oct 2003 16:19:13 -0700 Organization: http://groups.google.com I use T-mobile cellular services, and was suprised when I started receiving messages that I had faxes in my voicemail messages in September. I printed out one of the faxes, but then I discovered the removal number (800) 390-XXXX was associated with a well-known Fax-spam service. However, the call was delivered to my cell phone with no caller ID information. I'm interested in taking a multi-pronged approach: A) stop and/or block the calls. Are there cell carriers which will refuse to deliver unidentified calls, as land-line companies do? Or, is there a cell carrier that will deliver ANI information in place of caller-ID information is not present? I don't want to change cell numbers, but T-mobile's decision to start accepting faxes on my behalf without my consent has angered me, so I may change carriers after Nov 1. B) punish the perpetrator. I'm not a lawyer, but I was wondering how I could go about getting ANI information, as there are several phone companies involved. I'm trying to make a case that the repeated calls, over and over again, to multiple cell numbers I own constitute illegal telephone harassment. I'm hoping this will be treated as a criminal matter. ------------------------------ From: Scott Ables Subject: Difference Between FX & FGA? Date: Thu, 9 Oct 2003 17:32:39 -0700 Organization: Posted via Supernews, http://www.supernews.com What is the difference between FX and FGA? Both appear to be offered by Qwest or Verizon, but the service descriptions look like they are the same thing, although FX seems to be tariffed on the local exchange tariff while fga is on the access tariff. Why? Scott ------------------------------ From: Dana <***@&^&.com> Subject: Transmission Levels Date: Thu, 9 Oct 2003 17:28:46 -0800 Organization: Posted via Supernews, http://www.supernews.com While it is obvious that each situation will be a bit different, are there any standard transmissions levels used on the Tx and Rx lines. What would be a safe level from a modem onto a transmission line. And what if you use a microwave link, and at the repeater sites you have D4 channel banks with both digital cards, and 4w FXS thype of circuits. Thanks. ------------------------------ Date: Thu, 09 Oct 2003 23:40:31 -0400 From: Marcus Didius Falco Subject: [CGUYS] DMCA Violation Notice > Reply-To: WAMU-FM Computer Guys Announcements and Discussion List > From: Allen Firstenberg > Subject: [CGUYS] DMCA violation notice > Tom, > Looks like you were wrong about allowing people to discuss the CD Copy > Protection circumvention. > http://home.businesswire.com/portal/site/home/index.jsp?epi-content=GENERIC&newsId=20031009005573&newsLang=en&beanID=202776713&viewID=news_view > "SunnComm believes that Halderman has violated the Digital Millennium > Copyright Act (DMCA) by disclosing unpublished MediaMax management > files placed on a user's computer after user approval is granted." > Allen ------------------------------ Date: Thu, 09 Oct 2003 23:40:13 -0400 From: Marcus Didius Falco Subject: [CGUYS] Interesting RIAA Quote > Date: Thu, 9 Oct 2003 11:42:48 -0400 > Reply-To: WAMU-FM Computer Guys Announcements and Discussion List > From: "Jacoby, Robert A" > Subject: [CGUYS] Interesting RIAA quote > Read this item on a law professor's blog: > AT LUNCHTIME TODAY, I moderated a panel discussion on digital > downloading and music, featuring a bunch of musicians, songwriters, > and industry people from Nashville. Here's the scary bit: one of the > industry guys said that their big legislative priority is to try to > create a regime where you have to register with a unique, verifiable > ID to access the Internet. > http://instapundit.com/#011909 > Dunno if he was trying to be funny or no, but given the RIAA's track > record, I'd believe it was serious. > Robert Jacoby ------------------------------ From: Withheld at Reader's Request Subject: Re: A.Word.A.Day -- Octothorpe Date: Thu, 9 Oct 2003 13:49:15 -0400 [Mr. Editor, if you do choose to publish this submission, please remove or obfuscate my email address to help foil the spammers. Thank you.] George Mitchell wrote: > jmayson@nyx.net wrote: >> In the early 1960s, Bell Labs introduced two special keys in its >> innovative touch-tone telephone keypads, "#" and "*", for which it >> needed fresh names. > The first twelve-key touch-tone keypads had a hollow five-pointed > star and a hollow diamond in these positions. I've always wondered > why they changed to the current symbols. If I had to guess, I would speculate that it was because very few keyboards have those two characters, while many keyboards of that time already included "*" and "#". Why make it harder to document dialing sequences (both internal to telco and externally in customer-visible publications, newspaper stories, etc.) by inventing new non-standard glyphs when perfectly good easily-typed symbols like the number-sign and asterisk were already available? Bob Goudreau Cary, NC ------------------------------ Subject: Re: A.Word.A.Day -- Octothorpe Date: 10 Oct 2003 00:34:00 EDT From: msb@vex.net (Mark Brader) > [The symbol # is derived from a shorthand way of writing lb, the > abbreviation for the Latin libra (balance), just as $ is a shorthand > way of writing US...] And thus we see how reliable this source is. The $ sign, whether written with one or two vertical strokes, is in fact a shorthand way of writing Ps (pesos). For cite and further details see my old article at . Mark Brader, Toronto cat>/dev/null got your tongue? msb@vex.net -- Jutta Degener My text in this article is in the public domain. ------------------------------ Reply-To: Me From: Me Subject: Re: Screaming Match Date: Thu, 09 Oct 2003 21:58:30 GMT Justin Time wrote in message news:telecom22.693.10@telecom-digest.org: > Eric Friedebach wrote in message > news:: >> Neil Weinberg, 10.13.03 print issue, Forbes.com >> Mike Capellas has done a remarkable job reviving MCI and giving it a >> future. Now if only rivals would let the company move beyond its >> fraudulent past. > And all those people and companies that bought into the lie that was > Worldcom should forget about the damage done to them. All those > companies that were damaged by the fraudulent claims, unkept promises, > billing errors and poor service should also let bygones be bygones. > Is this what they are asking? > I just happen to agree with the Federal Government's General Services > Agency (GSA). The company is a corrupt enterprise that has not proven > itself to act in a responsible and ethical manner and deserves to be > barred from all contract work with the federal government until it can > prove that it has put into place the necessary controls to prevent > similar activities in the future. > To rebuild trust will take time, and if it takes more time than > Worldcom can exist, then so be it. I, for one, will not subject my > clients to a company that has a track record of unethical dealings > until it proves that it has moved beyond its past. At this point, it > deserves to die -- because of its past sins. > Yes, to forgive is divine, but that also involves repentance on the > part of the sinner -- and Worldcom (even if it is calling itself MCI > these days) hasn't shown repentance at this point. > Rodgers Platt Hear Hear! I for one have no sympathy what-so-ever for MCI/WorldCon. I know people who were let go at Sprint and AT&T because they couldn't match WorldCons numbers. Well guess what? They lost their jobs trying to compete legitimately with MCI's lies and corrupt practices. No, it wasn't just the top level people that knew what was going on it *must have* gone *much* deeper. I agree with Rodger's sentiment; make them *earn* the trust, otherwise there is an implicit reward for doing business this way. ------------------------------ From: Tony Pelliccio Subject: Re: Screaming Match Organization: The Ace Tomato and Cement Company Date: Thu, 9 Oct 2003 16:25:25 -0500 In article , a_user2000@yahoo.com says: > Eric Friedebach wrote in message > news:: >> Neil Weinberg, 10.13.03 print issue, Forbes.com >> Mike Capellas has done a remarkable job reviving MCI and giving it a >> future. Now if only rivals would let the company move beyond its >> fraudulent past. > And all those people and companies that bought into the lie that was > Worldcom should forget about the damage done to them. All those > companies that were damaged by the fraudulent claims, unkept promises, > billing errors and poor service should also let bygones be bygones. > Is this what they are asking? > I just happen to agree with the Federal Government's General Services > Agency (GSA). The company is a corrupt enterprise that has not proven > itself to act in a responsible and ethical manner and deserves to be > barred from all contract work with the federal government until it can > prove that it has put into place the necessary controls to prevent > similar activities in the future. One of the issues that I believe contributed to the fraud is the number of different billing and a/p systems. One a/p-a/r system should be enough for most any company as most have an ability to switch between operating units to track revenue and expense. > To rebuild trust will take time, and if it takes more time than > Worldcom can exist, then so be it. I, for one, will not subject my > clients to a company that has a track record of unethical dealings > until it proves that it has moved beyond its past. At this point, it > deserves to die -- because of its past sins. The motive of companies like SBC, Verizon, etc. is to kill a long distance competitor. Then they can divvy up the assets among themselves and watch out, because here comes Ma Bell with a vengeance. > Yes, to forgive is divine, but that also involves repentance on the > part of the sinner -- and Worldcom (even if it is calling itself MCI > these days) hasn't shown repentance at this point. I found it interesting that they're routing traffic via TCP/IP but still paying terminating end charges. You cannot expect a culture of corruption (Though I doubt it was intentional corruption for the most part.) to change overnight. And it won't. Granted, some of the accounting practices were serious deviations from GAP. I worked for a local company that played that game and know what -- even when you tell the regulatory agencies they look at the balance sheet and based on the company cash position decide whether to aggressively pursue it, or let it die a quiet death. So let's blame the government oversight boys, particularly the IRS. They should have spotted the crap long before it happened and they didn't. ------------------------------ Date: Thu, 09 Oct 2003 23:25:18 -0400 From: Marcus Didius Falco Subject: Re: Is LNP Available For Cellular Phone Numbers? Michael D. Sullivan wrote about Re: Is LNP Available For Cellular Phone Numbers? > On Wed, 8 Oct 2003 13:55:18 -0700, David Nesbitt posted the following to > comp.dcom.telecom: >> Does the Telecom Act address this? > Short answer to PAT: It isn't "playing games" when a new carrier can't > serve your old phone and makes you buy a new one, at least most of the > time. If the Cubs switch from an AM station to an FM station, you > can't continue to use an AM radio to hear the game. Similarly, you > can't use a CDMA phone on a GSM network, and vice versa. And even the > carriers using a particular technology may have customized software in > their phones (e.g., Sprint and Verizon both use CDMA, but use > different methods of updating and storing their preferred-carrier > roaming list; carriers may also have different software for special > features, such as photo/ringtone/game download). In fact, you can get "unlocked" phones. In the US they are MUCH more expensive (generally $400-$450 or so for a bare-bones model that is about $150 when bought with an annual service contract), and you usually have to get them from the manufacturer. There are also sites that will tell you how to "unlock" the phone so you can use it on the other network. However, if you want a refurbished older phone, you can often get it unlocked from a third party supplier. My experience with unlocked phones is with GSM. The largest GSM carrier in the US is T-Mobile, but Cingular and AT&T also have GSM networks and there are some local GSM carriers. You can get a GSM phone from any of them, but then you can't use it on any of the others, or on any of the GSM networks in hundreds of foreign countries, except in "roaming mode" (assuming you have tri-band phone that is useable on the different frequency bands used abroad). I needed a phone for use in the US and abroad, and after some search found that I could buy such a phone abroad, where nearly all phones are sold "unlocked" or I could buy an unlocked phone in the US, on Ebay or from some suppliers. The unlocked phones on Ebay were usually older, reconditioned models. A third alternative would be to buy from T-Mobile. After about a month on a 1-year contract (see below on the misinformation I got -- this is the answer I got from an employee who seemed to have done it for a customer), T-Mobile will send you the code to unlock the phone. Once the phone is unlocked (or was never locked) you can plug in the SIM chip from any other network, including any foreign network. Thus, if you go to a foreign country for a month or more you can buy a local pre-paid chip and get cheap local calling (and sometimes cheaper calling back to the US than offered by the US carrier of your choice). It is also possible to buy international pre-paid chips from various suppliers on the internet (or Ebay). These allow you an international phone number and calling plans. I am aware of such chips from Switzerland or Monte Carlo that are readily available in the US. My own analysis of the rates offered by these chips/plans is that they are roughly comparable to the international roaming rates offered by T-Mobile (which are actually quite good), but they offer the possible advantage of giving your phone a local number in Switzerland or Monte Carlo, which may be an advantage if you are in Europe for extended periods. Moreover, it is possible to purchase, for some phone models, alternative batteries or battery doors that allow you to have two or more SIMs in the phone at the same time. Thus you could have your regular phone number and a pre-paid local plan whereever you are, thus allowing cheap local calling, and possibly better rates to the US, and also giving your local callers a local number to reach you. These dual-SIMs work so that when you have SIM A active, callers to SIM B leave a message in your voice-mail (essentially, SIM B and the phone associated with it is not on the network). > As to paying megabux and having to sign up for multiyears, shop > around. If what you want is a phone, plain and simple, most carriers > offer cheap or free phones with a 1- or 2-year contract, or a bit more > without. The contract subsidizes the phone, which is a pretty > expensive piece of sophisticated technology. Moreover, phone technology is advancing pretty rapidly. A phone you bought a year or two ago will not have the latest features, and may also be less useable in other ways. (Some of the older phones have MUCH less readable displays, and few phones more than a year or two old have color displays.) Thus, regardless of what the tax people may think, the useful life of a phone might be even less than that of a computer! However, as I said, refurbished phones are readily available, and these will usually be unlocked older models. If this meets your needs and preferences, then you'll be fine. Some of us keep our computers for years. > And haggle. Even though wireless carriers are "common carriers," they > do make deals -- especially when they can get a customer away from a > competitor. The FCC approved of haggling in the _Orloff_ case, which > was before the DC Circuit earlier this week and looks to be affirmed. I have had some independent resellers offer to sell an unlocked phone or unlock the phone immediately. Other resellers have referred me to someone who can unlock the phone. And others told me that they had turned down large multi-phone orders when the customer demanded an unlocked phone. I have not found that the phone stores operated by the companies are nearly so willing to deal (but I am a pretty small customer). On the other hand, I have gotten a LOT of misinformation from employees at phone stores, most of whom seem to have only a few weeks or months on the job. This includes wrong information on such basic questions as, "what time to weekend hours begin on plan A?" > Michael D. Sullivan > Bethesda, MD, USA > Delete nospam from my address and it won't work. ------------------------------ Date: Thu, 9 Oct 2003 12:43:09 CDT From: Mark J Cuccia Subject: Re: PLOC Freezes On Thursday 9 Oct 2003 06:15:12 -0700, Howie wrote: > What is a PLOC freeze I've never heard of that acronym, but I would *assume* that it stands for Primary Local Operating Company freeze: i.e., your line would be flagged by your local telco as NOT to be "ported over" to some other local telco on just "someone's" verbal say-so, but there would be more specific verification procedures before having your number "ported over". i.e., a way to help reduce the chance of you getting slammed to another (competitive) lcoal telco in your market. In Louisiana, BellSouth refers to this as an LSP Freeze, Local Service Provider. > and how do I find out if my local carrier offers this? Just simply CALL THEM UP and ASK! You might also want to check out their website as well as local regulatory's website ... for tariffs, rules and regulations and such. Mark J. Cuccia mcuccia (AT) tulane (DOT) edu New Orleans LA USA ------------------------------ From: albertoa33@yahoo.com (Al Loy) Subject: Re: Good Connection But no Internet Pages Date: 9 Oct 2003 19:54:23 -0700 Organization: http://groups.google.com John, thank you for your response. Encryption is turned off. Can you please tell me how I could change the configuration on the Access Point so that it does not filter out MAC addresses or so that I can add the new cards? I know that to change the configuration on the router you can access 192.168.1.1 through the browser. I am waiting till Saturday to try resetting the password using the router's pin hole so I can see what settings it has. I want to make sure that I have the whole day to fix things in case everything get screwed up. Is there another IP for the Access Point that I can access through the browser? ------------------------------ From: Greg Boop Subject: Re: DVR Industry: The 'D' Stands for 'Dense' Date: Fri, 10 Oct 2003 01:44:44 GMT Organization: Road Runner - NC Barry Margolin wrote in message news:telecom22.691.7@telecom-digest.org: > In article , Clark W. Griswold, > Jr. <73115.1041remove@compuserve.com> wrote: >> Thought the column was good, but I think Phil missed the major reason >> that DVRs haven't replaced VCRs: The requirement to subscribe. > Since both TiVo and ReplayTV offer the option of a one-time fee, the > argument that the montly fee is the problem doesn't really hold water. > I think the problem is that most consumers don't realize that DVRs are > more than just a fancy VCR that's likely to be even more confusing to > use. They're a quantum leap ahead. You are trying to sell this product to the 70% of America that still has "12:00" flashing on their VCRs. :-) - GB ------------------------------ 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. --------------------------------------------------------------- Finally, the Digest is funded by gifts from generous readers such as yourself who provide funding in amounts deemed appropriate. Your help is important and appreciated. A suggested donation of fifty dollars per year per reader is considered appropriate. See our address above. Please make at least a single donation to cover the cost of processing your name to the mailing list. If you donate at least fifty dollars per year we will send you our two-CD set of the entire Telecom Archives; this is every word published in this Digest since our beginning in 1981. All opinions expressed herein are deemed to be those of the author. Any organizations listed are for identification purposes only and messages should not be considered any official expression by the organization. End of TELECOM Digest V22 #694 ****************************** From editor@telecom-digest.org Fri Oct 10 17:57:21 2003 Received: (from ptownson@localhost) by massis.lcs.mit.edu (8.11.6p2/8.11.3) id h9ALvKL02638; Fri, 10 Oct 2003 17:57:21 -0400 (EDT) Date: Fri, 10 Oct 2003 17:57:21 -0400 (EDT) From: editor@telecom-digest.org Message-Id: <200310102157.h9ALvKL02638@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 #695 TELECOM Digest Fri, 10 Oct 2003 17:57:00 EDT Volume 22 : Issue 695 Inside This Issue: Editor: Patrick A. Townson and: Lisa Minter Fax Spam (John R. Covert) Anti Spam Lawsuit Filed by Missouri Attorney General (Danny Burstein) Re: Good Connection But no Internet Pages (jmeissen@aracnet.com) SMS From Email Client (Mike Kelley) Re: Difference Between FX & FGA? (dnhunt) Unintended Consequences: Five Years Under the DMCA (Monty Solomon) Posting On SOHO Breakdown (Maureen Johnson) Re: Any Such Thing as a Phone Line Transceiver? (Mike Sandman) Re: A.Word.A.Day -- Octothorpe (Steve Kl.) Re: Last Laugh! Re: New Wrinkle - Nigerian Scam (Linc Madison) All contents here are copyrighted by Patrick Townson and the individual writers/correspondents. Articles may be used in other journals or newsgroups, provided the writer's name and the Digest are included in the fair use quote. By using -any name or email address- included herein for -any- reason other than responding to an article herein, you agree to pay a hundred dollars to the recipients of the email. WE DO NOT PERMIT NAME/EMAIL ADDRESS HARVESTING FROM THIS JOURNAL. 'SALTED' EMAIL ADDRESSES APPEAR HEREIN TO VERIFY THIS. YOU GET SUED IN SMALL CLAIMS COURT IF YOU GET CAUGHT SPAMMING OR SENDING VIRUSES. DON'T DO IT. See the bottom of this issue for subscription and archive details and the name of our lawyer; other stuff of interest. ---------------------------------------------------------------------- Date: Fri, 10 Oct 2003 09:44:55 EDT From: John R. Covert Subject: Fax Spam I've n oticed a recent sharp increase in Fax spam, and the last several faxes have all had the same "removal" number: 877-202-9873. This number advertises a "free fax filtering service" at "blocklist.com". Other faxes have had 877-201-7599, 877-204-5681, or 888-398-2347 which have IDENTICAL recordings. Well, I'd like to find out who the real companies are behind "stockreporters.com", "Market Report", "Stock Buyers Alert", etc. I believe the domain info for "stockreporters.com" is bogus, but "blocklist.com" appears to be a real company located in Woodbridge, Ontario. Their website lists a toll free number, 800-292-7593, which I've called a few times and always gotten voicemail. I don't like voicemail, don't want to be called back at an inconvenient time, but just haven't been able to reach any real person. Maybe some of the readers of Telecom Digest can help me to find out who some of "blocklist.com"'s clients are and what the arrangements are for setting up the recordings, which apparently begin some sort of password-based registration which ends up at their website. I'd particularly be interested in the clients who use the business names I mentioned above. Maybe one of the readers will be lucky enough to reach a person, rather than the voicemail, if we are persistent enough. I see no reason to leave messages; anyone interested in helping me find out who is behind this spamming should just keep calling until the person who (in the voicemail) says she is currently away from her desk or on another call actually answers the phone. Some of you might wish to use outgoing-only lines or payphones to call, since you might not want your regular number to be harvested for some other telemarketing operation. Of course, no one should harass these people: we just need to keep calling until we get to talk to a real person. /john ------------------------------ From: Danny Burstein Subject: Anti Spam Lawsuit Filed by Missouri Attorney General Date: Fri, 10 Oct 2003 02:54:17 -0400 Organization: PANIX Public Access Internet and UNIX, NYC Nixon files first lawsuits using new Missouri anti-spam law St. Louis, Mo. Missouri Attorney General Jay Nixon has filed the first two lawsuits under a new state law designed to curb unsolicited commercial e-mail, better known as spam. Nixon says the defendants violated the law by sending spam to Missouri e-mail accounts without the messages being labeled as required and, in one case, by sending additional spam to those accounts after being requested to stop. [snip] The first lawsuit was filed against Phillip Nixon (no relation), of Palm Beach, Fla. The lawsuit says Phillip Nixon sent at least five unsolicited commercial e-mails soliciting the sale of architectural plan to the e-mail address nospam@moago.org, an address maintained by the Attorney General's Office. [snippety snip ] http://www.moago.org/newsrls/2003/100903.htm _____________________________________________________ Knowledge may be power, but communications is the key dannyb@panix.com [to foil spammers, my address has been double rot-13 encoded] ------------------------------ From: jmeissen@aracnet.com Subject: Re: Good Connection But no Internet Pages Date: 10 Oct 2003 08:53:47 GMT Organization: http://extra.newsguy.com In article , Al Loy wrote: > John, thank you for your response. Encryption is turned off. Can you > please tell me how I could change the configuration on the Access > Point so that it does not filter out MAC addresses or so that I can > add the new cards? Not without knowing what access point you're using, and being familiar with it's configuration process. One of the pages served by the access point's admin web page handles it. Another possibility is that you're using XP. The last time I tried to configure a card on an XP system I was totally stymied until I unchecked the properties box that says something like "use XP to configure the connection". Then, using the card manufacturer's utility, I was able to quickly get the connection working. How to find that box is usually in the documentation for the card. John Meissen jmeissen@aracnet.com ------------------------------ From: Mike Kelley Subject: SMS From Email Client Date: Fri, 10 Oct 2003 08:07:31 -0400 Organization: Posted via Supernews, http://www.supernews.com I was wondering if it woul be possible to send an sms message from outlook. I work for a small cellular carrier and we need to be able to send bulk mailings to our customers. However, our tech guy just quit and unfortuantely it falls on my department to try to organize this. Basically we just generate a list of numbers and SMS each one with a reminder to pay their bill. I know that there are some commercial products which do this but I was hoping to use something we already have. I know a little about programming so I may be able to develop a script that will do it. I've tried sending a message through our SMS server basically as: 5555555555@msg.ourcarrier.com The message gets to the phone but always says format unsupported. Any help would be greatly appreciated. Thanks, Mike ------------------------------ From: dnhunt Subject: Re: Difference Between FX & FGA? Date: Fri, 10 Oct 2003 08:12:25 -0400 Scott Ables wrote to ask about Difference Between FX & FGA? > What is the difference between FX and FGA? > Both appear to be offered by Qwest or Verizon, but the service > descriptions look like they are the same thing, although FX seems to > be tariffed on the local exchange tariff while fga is on the access > tariff. Why? > Scott Scott, FX service is IntraLATA and is for customers where both ends are in the same LATA. FG-A was set up with divestiture as the "open" end (Switch) of an InterLATA circuit. The "open" end is in one LATA and the "closed" end (Customer) is in another LATA. An interexchange carrier would connect the two ends and provide the overall service to the customer. A customer can order FG-A, but you need to read the tariff to determine how it can be used. David N. Hunt, Executive Vice President - Business Development Mid-South Consulting Engineers, Inc. 3901 Rose Lake Drive, Charlotte, NC 28217 dnhunt@msceng.com, Tel: 704/357-0004, Fax: 704/357-0025 ------------------------------ Date: Fri, 10 Oct 2003 15:34:05 -0400 From: Monty Solomon Subject: Unintended Consequences: Five Years under the DMCA 1. Executive Summary Since they were enacted in 1998, the "anti-circumvention" provisions of the Digital Millennium Copyright Act ("DMCA"), codified in section 1201 of the Copyright Act, have not been used as Congress envisioned. Congress meant to stop copyright pirates from defeating anti-piracy protections added to copyrighted works, and to ban "black box" devices intended for that purpose.[1] In practice, the anti-circumvention provisions have been used to stifle a wide array of legitimate activities, rather than to stop copyright piracy. As a result, the DMCA has developed into a serious threat to several important public policy priorities: Section 1201 Chills Free Expression and Scientific Research. Experience with section 1201 demonstrates that it is being used to stifle free speech and scientific research. The lawsuit against 2600 magazine, threats against Princeton Professor Edward Felten's team of researchers, and prosecution of Russian programmer Dmitry Sklyarov have chilled the legitimate activities of journalists, publishers, scientists, students, program-mers, and members of the public. Section 1201 Jeopardizes Fair Use. By banning all acts of circumvention, and all technologies and tools that can be used for circumvention, section 1201 grants to copyright owners the power to unilaterally eliminate the public's fair use rights. Already, the music industry has begun deploying "copy-protected CDs" that promise to curtail consumers' ability to make legitimate, personal copies of music they have purchased. Section 1201 Impedes Competition and Innovation. Rather than focusing on pirates, many copyright owners have wielded the DMCA to hinder their legitimate competitors. For example, Sony has invoked section 1201 to protect its monopoly on Playstation video game consoles, as well as their "regionalization" system limiting users in one country from playing games legitimately purchased in another. Section 1201 Becomes All-Purpose Ban on Access To Computer Networks Further, section 1201 has been misused as a new general-purpose prohibition on computer network access which, unlike the several federal "anti-hacking" statutes that already protect computer network owners from unauthorized intrusions, lacks any financial harm threshold. Disgruntled ex-employer Pearl Investment's use of the DMCA against a contract programmer who connected to the company's computer system through a password-protected Virtual Private Network illustrates the potential for unscrupulous persons to misuse the DMCA to achieve what would not be possible under existing computer access regulation regimes. This document collects a number of reported cases where the anti-circumvention provisions of the DMCA have been invoked not against pirates, but against consumers, scientists, and legitimate comp-etitors. It will be updated from time to time as additional cases come to light. The latest version can always be obtained at www.eff.org. http://www.eff.org/IP/DRM/DMCA/20031003_unintended_cons.php http://www.eff.org/IP/DRM/DMCA/20031003_dmca_unintended_cons.pdf ------------------------------ Reply-To: maureenj@earthlink.net From: Maureen Johnson Subject: Posting On SOHO Breakdown Date: Fri, 10 Oct 2003 12:34:35 -0400 In reference to your numbers for the SOHO box, is right on. Are they doing this also on the T-1 product, basically clients who have 40-60 lines? Are they infact doing an intergrated T-1, V&D dynamically allocated when needed? This client has DSL w/2 providers and the NorVergence "Proposal/Analysis" doesn't show "Intergrated T-1" and X channels for D and X channels for V like I have seen with IAD's. Whatever info you can lend on the high end client would be great! Thanks. --- Maureen Johnson --- maureenj@earthlink.net ------------------------------ Date: Fri, 10 Oct 2003 10:19:28 -0500 From: Mike Sandman Subject: Re: Any Such Thing as a Phone Line Transceiver? Hi, A "media converter" is what he needs. Converters for POTS to fiber are fairly rare. Here is a link to one that I know of: http://www.transition.com/products/mcon_platform/standalone/pots/saptf.htm I don't know the price of these, but they generally aren't cheap. Converters for Ethernet to fiber are much more common, and much cheaper. Mike > I'm looking for something that plugs into a standard > residential phone line, converts to multimode fiber and has a > duplicate on the other end to convert back to a phone line. > Should be full duplex. > Does anyone make such a thing? The purpose is to avoid the > excitement involved in running a long stretch of wire between > buildings in a lightning prone area. I've got spare fiber > already installed. Mike Sandman 630-980-7710 mike@sandman.com - http://www.sandman.com ------------------------------ From: stevekl@panix.com (Steve Kl.) Subject: Re: A.Word.A.Day -- Octothorpe Date: 10 Oct 2003 14:04:59 -0400 Organization: PANIX -- Public Access Networks Corp. In article , Marcus Didius Falco wrote: > Not quite. The first question is whether the word actually exists in > English. It doesn't appear to be in actual use. I checked two > dictionaries and didn't find it. And, as of 1999, it was not in the > Oxford English Dictionary, which is generally considered authoritative. It appears in the American Heritage Dictionary of the English Language, 4th edition, page 1217. (copyright 2000) It is not unusual for a word of American origin to appear in an American dictionary before the OED, which has a longer period of time between its editions. They are currently working on a new edition, and releasing it parcel by parcel online.The OED's revised O should be available within a year or two, if not sooner, and time will tell if they've included it for their new edition. Steve Kl. ------------------------------ Subject: Re: Last Laugh! Re: New Wrinkle - Nigerian Scam From: Linc Madison Reply-To: Telecom@LincMad.com Organization: LincMad.com Consulting Date: Fri, 10 Oct 2003 19:27:44 GMT In article , Carl Navarro wrote: > On Wed, 8 Oct 2003 10:39:53 -0700, > Paul Cook wrote (quoting a spam he received): >> We are pleased to inform you of the result of the IMUST International >> Lottery programs held on the 31st Semptember,2003. > Let me see. Yep, the first line of the poem is > THIRTY DAYS HATH SEPTEMBER. > And no, I didn't get my confidential notfication, but I was e-mailed > off eBay to participate in a sale until 9/31. Somewhere around here, I have a photo I took of a lovely banner that was hanging outside a local doughnut shop when it changed hands. As a special promotion, they were offering two-for-one on boxes of a dozen. I expect the promotion is still running, since the sign said "Offer Expires Feb. 30." That may be a while yet. www dot LincMad dot com / Telecom at LincMad dot com Linc Madison * San Francisco, California [Lisa Minter note: You guys are not supposed to be talking about this! Don't you remember the nice man asked you to keep your winnings very confidential until he got his paperwork straightened out? (In other words until he finished fleecing and sodomizing all of you.) What a great place this Internet is; where each of us has a chance to win prizes worth lots of money! Lisa M.] ------------------------------ 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. --------------------------------------------------------------- Finally, the Digest is funded by gifts from generous readers such as yourself who provide funding in amounts deemed appropriate. Your help is important and appreciated. A suggested donation of fifty dollars per year per reader is considered appropriate. See our address above. Please make at least a single donation to cover the cost of processing your name to the mailing list. If you donate at least fifty dollars per year we will send you our two-CD set of the entire Telecom Archives; this is every word published in this Digest since our beginning in 1981. All opinions expressed herein are deemed to be those of the author. Any organizations listed are for identification purposes only and messages should not be considered any official expression by the organization. End of TELECOM Digest V22 #695 ****************************** From editor@telecom-digest.org Sat Oct 11 19:40:29 2003 Received: (from ptownson@localhost) by massis.lcs.mit.edu (8.11.6p2/8.11.3) id h9BNeSm08470; Sat, 11 Oct 2003 19:40:29 -0400 (EDT) Date: Sat, 11 Oct 2003 19:40:29 -0400 (EDT) From: editor@telecom-digest.org Message-Id: <200310112340.h9BNeSm08470@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 #696 TELECOM Digest Sat, 11 Oct 2003 19:40:00 EDT Volume 22 : Issue 696 Inside This Issue: Editor: Patrick A. Townson and: Lisa Minter [CGUYS] Stealth Surfing (Marcus Didius Falco) Re: "Loyalty" Cards (Bill Turlock) Re: Good Connection But no Internet Pages (David Clayton) Re: Fax Spam (COTTP) Re: Fax Spam (Joey Lindstrom) Re: To Cord, or Not to Cord (John David Galt) Re: Heh heh ... (John David Galt) Re: [CGUYS] Interesting RIAA Quote (William Warren) Re: Microsoft TV Announces Plans for Complete IP-Based TV (M. Sullivan) Re: Screaming Match (Michael D. Sullivan) Re: So Much for Michael Powell's Net Vision (Michael D. Sullivan) Note to Sony: Skip iPod Knockoff (Monty Solomon) Cordless Phones - Memory Dialing (Allan) All contents here are copyrighted by Patrick Townson and the individual writers/correspondents. Articles may be used in other journals or newsgroups, provided the writer's name and the Digest are included in the fair use quote. By using -any name or email address- included herein for -any- reason other than responding to an article herein, you agree to pay a hundred dollars to the recipients of the email. WE DO NOT PERMIT NAME/EMAIL ADDRESS HARVESTING FROM THIS JOURNAL. 'SALTED' EMAIL ADDRESSES APPEAR HEREIN TO VERIFY THIS. YOU GET SUED IN SMALL CLAIMS COURT IF YOU GET CAUGHT SPAMMING OR SENDING VIRUSES. DON'T DO IT. See the bottom of this issue for subscription and archive details and the name of our lawyer; other stuff of interest. ---------------------------------------------------------------------- Date: Fri, 10 Oct 2003 21:46:36 -0400 From: Marcus Didius Falco Subject: [CGUYS] Stealth Surfing I don't know whether this is real or not. See below. * Original: FROM ... Michael Steeve Device Provides No Trace of Web Surfing CAMARILLO, Calif. (UPI) -- A new device that plugs into the computer keeps online activity away from employers or other prying eyes and ensures online privacy. The device by The Avita Group of Camarillo, Calif., is a keychain-sized storage drive that plugs into the USB port of a computer. Using a customized Web version of Netscape, the browser comes preloaded on the StealthSurfer drive and retains all cached files and other downloaded images privately on the removable device, ABC reported. Once the user is done, the StealthSurfer is removed and all evidence of Internet activity is gone -- ensuring complete privacy of Internet habits, the company said in a statement. So-called cookies, copies of Web pages, images, e-mails, and Web site passwords are all stored on the device itself and no trace is left on the computer's hard drive. Once data is on the device, users can share the data by plugging the device into another computer. Copyright 2003 by United Press International. All rights reserved. ------------ However ... It won't protect if your company logs URLs at the router. It won't protect you if your company snoops your Emails, or if it uses some sort of real-time logging of your keystrokes. Thus, if you want to browse from work you better know what you're doing. ------------------------------ From: Bill Turlock <"Bill Turlock"@son.nic.net> Subject: Re: "Loyalty" Cards Date: Sat, 11 Oct 2003 03:14:50 GMT jbl wrote: > In , Paul Robinson > wrote: >> If you don't have a card, many loyalty programs will let you use a >> phone number. I tried a phone number of someone I know of, and it >> works with both the Safeway and Giant Food (of Maryland) loyalty >> cards. His Name is George Bush Jr. and his phone number is >> 202-456-1414. I figure the White House can use the extra points. > At Safeway, you'll know if they tell you as they hand you the receipt, > "Mr. Bush, you've saved $8.46 today". > Actually, I'll bet that number is in the system because some other > annoyed consumer used it instead of his own number when he picked up > one of those cards. After all, it's a well known number and hardly > random. > /JBL AnyWho.com's reverse lookup page wants to know if I went to school with "Executive Mansion", and "Switchboard", and "Vice President Dick Cheney" http://www.anywho.com/rl.html ------------------------------ From: David Clayton Subject: Re: Good Connection But no Internet Pages Date: Sat, 11 Oct 2003 07:59:56 +1000 albertoa33@yahoo.com (Al Loy) contributed the following: > John, thank you for your response. Encryption is turned off. Can you > please tell me how I could change the configuration on the Access > Point so that it does not filter out MAC addresses or so that I can > add the new cards? I know that to change the configuration on the > router you can access 192.168.1.1 through the browser. I am waiting > till Saturday to try resetting the password using the router's pin > hole so I can see what settings it has. I want to make sure that I > have the whole day to fix things in case everything get screwed up. Is > there another IP for the Access Point that I can access through the > browser? Of course, the PC's with the new cards have been set to the correct Access Point SSID, (like the other cards), haven't they? Does the Cisco Access Point have a restriction on how many individual wireless connections it can have? David Clayton, e-mail: dcstar@XYZ.myrealbox.com Melbourne, Victoria, Australia. (Remove the "XYZ." to reply) Dilbert's words of wisdom #18: Never argue with an idiot. They drag you down to their level then beat you with experience. ------------------------------ From: COTTP Subject: Re: Fax Spam Organization: Children of the Tea Party Date: Fri, 10 Oct 2003 19:00:00 -0500 In article , nospam@covert.org says: > I've n oticed a recent sharp increase in Fax spam, and the last > several faxes have all had the same "removal" number: 877-202-9873. > This number advertises a "free fax filtering service" at > "blocklist.com". Other faxes have had 877-201-7599, 877-204-5681, or > 888-398-2347 which have IDENTICAL recordings. > Well, I'd like to find out who the real companies are behind > "stockreporters.com", "Market Report", "Stock Buyers Alert", etc. I > believe the domain info for "stockreporters.com" is bogus, but > "blocklist.com" appears to be a real company located in Woodbridge, > Ontario. Their website lists a toll free number, 800-292-7593, which > I've called a few times and always gotten voicemail. I don't like > voicemail, don't want to be called back at an inconvenient time, but > just haven't been able to reach any real person. In the case of bogus domain information all you have to do is show a failed attempt to contact. This involves sending postal mail and on it's return, faxing a scanned copy of the returned envelope to Network Solutions. I did this in the case of faq-chat.com and it's now an available domain. > Maybe one of the readers will be lucky enough to reach a person, > rather than the voicemail, if we are persistent enough. I see no > reason to leave messages; anyone interested in helping me find out who > is behind this spamming should just keep calling until the person who > (in the voicemail) says she is currently away from her desk or on > another call actually answers the phone. Mail works best. That way you have a physical evidence that for instance, the address listed in the domain registration is false. [TELECOM Digest Editor's Note: I think someone is unclear on the concept. People are not interested in proving that the domain registration is false; they are interested in running the bozo's phone bill out of reach; to try and wreck him financially! False domain registrations are all over the place. Oh yes, send a certified letter and get back the green card if the mail sticks, if not then report it to the registrar, but keep dialing those numbers also. PAT] ------------------------------ From: Joey Lindstrom Date: Fri, 10 Oct 2003 21:30:56 -0600 Subject: Re: Fax Spam Reply-To: joey@telussucks.info On Fri, 10 Oct 2003 17:57:21 -0400 (EDT), someone who hid his/her name wrote: > I've noticed a recent sharp increase in Fax spam, and the last > several faxes have all had the same "removal" number: 877-202-9873. > This number advertises a "free fax filtering service" at > "blocklist.com". Other faxes have had 877-201-7599, 877-204-5681, or > 888-398-2347 which have IDENTICAL recordings. I've been getting a few of these as well. > Well, I'd like to find out who the real companies are behind > "stockreporters.com", "Market Report", "Stock Buyers Alert", etc. I > believe the domain info for "stockreporters.com" is bogus, but > "blocklist.com" appears to be a real company located in Woodbridge, > Ontario. Their website lists a toll free number, 800-292-7593, which > I've called a few times and always gotten voicemail. I don't like > voicemail, don't want to be called back at an inconvenient time, but > just haven't been able to reach any real person. > > > Some of you might wish to use outgoing-only lines or payphones to > call, since you might not want your regular number to be harvested for > some other telemarketing operation. > > Of course, no one should harass these people: we just need to keep > calling until we get to talk to a real person. All kidding aside: 1) The intent of your exhortation is to run up their toll-free bill with payphone calls (my words, not yours). Well, perhaps Mark Cuccia can correct me if I'm wrong, but I don't think a toll-free number in Canada is going to be BILLED the 28 cents (or whatever it is) for each payphone call -- we don't have that fee here. Indeed, I once called our company toll-free number from a payphone in another province, and was only charged for the minutes used, and my boss once used it from a payphone in Arizona -- again, no fee charged by Sprint Canada. So, it looks like any payphone charges -- if paid out at all -- are going to be paid by the long-distance carrier and not by blocklist.com. 2) You'll need to be able to prove that the people BEHIND the faxes are in the USA in order to be able, say, to sue them. If they're Canadian businesses faxing from Canada, you're SOL (short on luck). Up here, you can blastfax all you want: you just have to honour a removal request, which conveniently only comes *AFTER* the damage is done. The CRTC is still, in many ways, living in the stone age. That said, the faxes I've received (with the toll-free removal number that references blocklist.com) were all advertising US-based businesses ... ------------------------------ From: John David Galt Subject: Re: To Cord, or Not to Cord Date: Fri, 10 Oct 2003 18:29:33 -0700 Organization: Diogenes the Cynic Hot-Tubbing Society >> Power conductors are also tensioned, which is why they are sometimes >> called "high tension lines." > Aw, Neal ... and you were doing so well. > High tension lines are called that because an archaic synonym for > "voltage" was ... "tension". Nope, it's because the word for voltage in French is "tension". ------------------------------ From: John David Galt Subject: Re: Heh heh ... Date: Fri, 10 Oct 2003 18:40:27 -0700 Organization: Diogenes the Cynic Hot-Tubbing Society Joey Lindstrom wrote: > ... speaking of moveon.org, I just visited it for the first time. > Y'know, for a bunch of people trying hard to seem intellectual and > enlightened, there sure are a lot of spelling mistakes on this > website. The California Recall does indeed seem to be "to close to > call", but I'm not really all that concerned about "the fate of the > Artic National Wildlife Refuge". Anyone know where the Artic is? :-) > (and, come to think of it, if we're going to discuss the ArCtic, > shouldn't we include Canada in that discussion? Much of the ArCtic in > this hemisphere is Canadian ... > What a buncha yahoos ... You don't know the half of it. "MoveOn.org" got its name from its founders' response to all the allegations about President Clinton's sexual conduct ("That's all ancient history, let's move on.") But guess what group led the drive to smear Arnold Schwarzenegger with every accusation of "inappropriate touching" they could dredge up from his entire careers as a bodybuilder, model, and actor? The group ought to listen to its own admonition now. What a bunch of hypocrites. ------------------------------ From: William Warren Subject: Re: [CGUYS] Interesting RIAA Quote Organization: Comcast Online Date: Sat, 11 Oct 2003 03:52:59 GMT Marcus Didius Falco wrote in message news:telecom22.694.11@telecom-digest.org: >> Read this item on a law professor's blog: >> AT LUNCHTIME TODAY, I moderated a panel discussion on digital >> downloading and music, featuring a bunch of musicians, songwriters, >> and industry people from Nashville. Here's the scary bit: one of the >> industry guys said that their big legislative priority is to try to >> create a regime where you have to register with a unique, verifiable >> ID to access the Internet. >> http://instapundit.com/#011909 >> Dunno if he was trying to be funny or no, but given the RIAA's track >> record, I'd believe it was serious. >> Robert Jacoby FWIW, those who follow the links at instapundit will see that the RIAA disclaimed the statement. However, I think we should start a debate on this topic, i.e., the pros and cons of having your identity known when accessing the internet. Pro - 1. Less fraud; 2. Less flaming; 3. Less spam; 4. Ability to rank authors by reputation, genre, etc. Con - 1. More self-censorship; 2. Fewer new, novel ideas; 3. Possible reprisals against whistleblowers, DRM experts, or others who divulge embarrassing information; Let's hear what the TD readers have to say. William (Remove ".qrm" for direct replies) [TELECOM Digest Editor's Note: Well, I will get this started by inviting all Internet (and particularly TD) users to read and learn from history, before it comes around to repeat itself, as it surely will. None of us remember when automobiles were invented, nor saw the changes it made in American lifestyles. There was a time, around 1900, when automobiles were first coming into common usage, that there was no such thing as driver's licenses, or tags for automobiles. There was no need for them; so few were the number of cars on the few *driveable* roads. Forget interstate highways, the famous Route 66 and other federal roadways were still years distant. I do not think license plates were required until about 1910; driver's licenses a year or two after that. Some of the earliest arguments against a mandated requirement to have a license to drive, or an identifying tag for your machine were the 'invasion of privacy' type arguments; i.e. why should I have to say who I am? Why should I have to demonstrate my ability to use one of these new machines invented by Henry Ford, or the Dodge Brothers. But after a sufficient number of accidents where one machine collided with another in an intersection and the perpetrator hurried away so he could not be held accountable, and a sufficient number of crimes were committed using a machine since it made for a fast getaway and little or no evidence of who did what, someone decided on the need for people to demonstrate they knew how to actually operate their new machine safely and carry a card to prove it. Having a brightly numbered tag on the front and back of your machine was a way others could identify you in the event of an accident or crime involving your machine, as cars were called in the early days. By the middle 1950's or so, people had accepted the idea of driver's licenses and license tags for their machines, but they did not all act socially responsibly about paying for accidents they caused. They would have an accident, agree to pay for the damages (remember, by this time it was pointless to just run away since others had seen your tag, etc) but just because they humbly admitted their guilt and agreed to pay the damages, they were unable to do so, lacking money or insur- ance. So the laws were changed and proof of financial responsibility (i.e. liability insurance) became a requirement also. So now the police officer asks to examine your license and your insurance card when you get pulled over. Just a bit of history for those who have forgotten or did not know. Does anyone today believe that driver's licenses and automobile tags are an 'invasion of privacy' or are crimping their life style? Well, yes, some people do feel that way. So they get forged or other- wise bogus licenses (for example underage teens) or they make an effort to steal someone else's plates to use on their cars, so that crimes will be blamed on 'that person' rather than themselves. But, when it is worth the time and trouble to fully investigate the incident, the good old VIN (vehicle ID number) which theoretically cannot be tampered with that easily comes to the rescue. A century ago, no one would have dreamed it would happen, with automobiles. And there are other ways available also. I honestly do not know what I think about internet licensing; I am enough of a libertarian to say the whole idea stinks. But I think I am also enough of a realist to say I can see it coming sometime in the next ten or fifteen years, probably in the form of a CIN, or Computer Identification Number from which we will not be able to escape. I do like my freedom and anomynity here on the net but before I willingly damn to hell YOUR freedom and YOUR anomynity on the same net, I need to think over my own sins here, and I suggest all netters do the same thing. But not to worry, it will be done for us in ten or fifteen years if not sooner. And when we get to that point, it will become a **cardinal offense** -- a very serious matter -- to be found in possession of a computer with a fraudulent CIN. Prima Facie evidence of intent and all that rot. Watch and see. PAT] ------------------------------ From: Michael D. Sullivan Subject: Re: Microsoft TV Announces Plans for Complete IP-Based Television Date: Sat, 11 Oct 2003 04:19:30 GMT In other words, after the failure of Microsoft to get traction for its set-top box, it's offering a *new* set-top box. This one will be IP based, so it will be offered not only to cable companies, but also to telcos that have "existing broadband networks" capable of carrying HDTV in IP packets (i.e., 6Mbps down). Lots of those out there. The cable guys must be really scared and will instantly cave. NOT. On Thu, 9 Oct 2003 22:33:50 -0400, Monty Solomon posted the following to comp.dcom.telecom: > New End-to-End Solution Will Utilize Today's Broadband Networks to > Deliver a Better TV Experience > REDMOND, Wash., Oct. 9 /PRNewswire-FirstCall/ -- Microsoft Corp.'s > (Nasdaq: MSFT) Microsoft TV Division today announced plans for the > development of a new Internet Protocol television (IPTV) delivery > solution designed to enable cable and telecommunications operators to > more easily and efficiently offer improved and next-generation TV > services over existing broadband networks. This new initiative will > bring together state-of-the-art technologies from Microsoft and other > industry leaders into an integrated, end-to-end solution that will > support the full range of pay-TV services while scaling to millions of > TV subscribers. In separate announcements made today, Bell Canada and > Reliance Intercomm announced plans to jointly create and test new IPTV > services with Microsoft TV, using the new Microsoft(R) TV IPTV > solution. A prototype of the Microsoft TV IPTV solution will be > demonstrated publicly for the first time starting this weekend at ITU > Telecom World 2003 in Geneva, in the Microsoft booth in Hall 4, Stand > 4100. > Better Viewer Experiences > Microsoft TV will work closely with network operators and industry > partners to develop compelling viewer experiences that deliver > improvements on traditional digital TV services as well as > next-generation ones. Planned features include instant channel > changing, multimedia programming guides with integrated video, and > multiple picture-in-picture capability on standard television > sets. High-definition television, next-generation digital video > recording and video on demand (VOD) functionality also will be > supported. > > - http://finance.lycos.com/home/news/story.asp?story=35999724 Michael D. Sullivan Bethesda, MD, USA Delete nospam from my address and it won't work. ------------------------------ From: Michael D. Sullivan Subject: Re: Screaming Match Date: Sat, 11 Oct 2003 04:33:32 GMT On Thu, 9 Oct 2003 16:25:25 -0500, Tony Pelliccio posted the following to comp.dcom.telecom: > The motive of companies like SBC, Verizon, etc. is to kill a long > distance competitor [MCI]. Then they can divvy up the assets among > themselves and watch out, because here comes Ma Bell with a > vengeance. Actually, it's self-preservation; MCI is not going to be a "fair" competitor. MCI will, after emergence from bankruptcy, be nearly debt-free *because* it had engaged in corrupt and probably criminal practices. (The bankruptcy plan will basically allow MCI to create new debt to replace old Worldcom debt at 36 cents on the dollar, wipe out old MCI debt, and the bankruptcy occurred due to the company's admittedly corrupt practices.) Should it be permitted the benefit of competing almost debt-free against companies who are paying their way, simply because its illegal practices allowed it to wipe out most of its debt? With most of its debt load eliminated, MCI will have a huge advantage over "SBC, Verizon, etc." not only in long distance but in local service, which it gets to buy at a sweetheart TELRIC rate and sell profitably at a discount to the BOCs, who have to continue to service their debt, unlike MCI. Michael D. Sullivan Bethesda, MD, USA Delete nospam from my address and it won't work. ------------------------------ From: Michael D. Sullivan Subject: Re: So Much for Michael Powell's Net Vision Date: Sat, 11 Oct 2003 19:14:01 GMT The decision by the 9th Circuit is not so much a repudiation of Powell's plan as a curious artifact of administrative and appellate law that is likely to be resolved by the Supreme Court. The Court didn't make its decision based on the merits or lack thereof of Powell's vision. It made its decision based on the fact that a prior 9th Circuit decision had already decided the issue at a time when the FCC had not yet addressed the issue, and, under 9th Circuit law, that was the end of it. The backdrop to all of this is that in administrative and appellate law, one of the central cases is Chevron U.S.A. Inc. v. NRDC, 467 U.S. 837 (1984), which holds that courts get to decide what a statute means if it is not ambiguous, but that if there is wiggle room, the courts must defer to the responsible agency's reasonable interpretation. The issue is whether cable companies' offering of internet access is a telecommunications service or an information service. Congress didn't address the specific issue, and its definitions of the two services left the issue undetermined on its face. (An information service is, essentially, access to information provided via "telecommunications," which is defined separately from a "telecommunications service." For "telecommunications" to become a "telecommunciations service," it must be held out to the public.) The FCC's cable modem decision found that cable-based internet access is an information service, and not a telecommunications service. The FCC's interpretation of the statutory definitions was that they were mutually exclusive; a given service was either a telecommunications service or an information service, but it could not be both. Given that determination, the FCC found that cable modem internet access was an information service, and therefore the providers of such service were not subject to any obligation to provide "equal access" to alternative ISPs, which might be required pursuant the "unreasonable discrimination" provision of Section 201 if it were deemed a telecommunications service. This decision was appealed to several federal circuit courts of appeals, and the appeals were consolidated in the Ninth Circuit. The Ninth Circuit, however, had already considered a closely related issue, in a private lawsuit concerning whether cable companies had to provide open access to alternative ISPs (the lawsuit concerned a merger involving Time Warner's cable operation), found that the internet access provided by cable companies was not "cable service." It also found that the FCC had not yet addressed the issue (the FCC was deadlocked at the time and filed an amicus brief that said essentially nothing), and found that cable internet access was both an information service and a telecommunications service. Accordingly it requred the merging cable operators to provide equal access. Fast forward to 2003. The FCC finally (after spinning its wheels for ages) issues its Cable Modem decision. It finds that a given service can be either telecommunications service or information service, but not both at the same time. Because cable modem service provides internet access, it is an information service; therefore it is not a telecommunications service. This is the decision that was appealed. The court found that a Ninth Circuit panel's prior decision (in the Time Warner case) had held that "information service" and "telecommunications service" were not mutually exclusive -- a given service might qualify as both. That, of course, conflicted with the FCC decision. Ninth Circuit precedent held that a prior decision of the Circuit interpreting a statute takes precedence over an agency's interpretation, so the Court was required by its own precedent to overturn the FCC's decision, regardless of whether the FCC's interpretation might have made more sense -- and without considering whether the FCC was reasonably interpreting an ambiguous statute, which is what the Court ordinarily would look to, under Chevron. In short, the Court was not differing at all with Powell's vision. It simply was unable to consider it, under the law of the Circuit. One of the judges filed a concurring opinion saying, in effect, that the court was bound by its case law to rule as it did, but that the outcome is probably not the best. Michael D. Sullivan Bethesda, MD, USA Delete nospam from my address and it won't work. ------------------------------ Date: Sat, 11 Oct 2003 16:04:52 -0400 From: Monty Solomon Subject: Note to Sony: Skip iPod Knockoff By Peter Rojas A few years ago, Sony made a colossal mistake. Rather than build a hard-drive-based MP3 player, the Japanese company sat back while Apple Computer wowed the world with the iPod. The iPod quickly became not just the most popular MP3 player ever, but the epitome of portable audio, as Sony's Walkman had been in the '80s. Sony was so worried about piracy, and sapping revenue from its Sony Music division, that it chose to do nothing and let Apple ascend. Apple made boatloads of cash from the iPod, while Sony struggled to remain profitable as revenues from its main cash cow, the PlayStation 2, plummeted. But it's not too late for Sony. We don't mean the rumored hard-drive MP3 player that Sony supposedly will introduce next year. There probably isn't a whole lot the electronics giant can do now to unseat the iPod, but Sony does have a chance to leapfrog competitors in the next wave of entertainment gadgets: personal video players. http://www.wired.com/news/business/0,1367,60767,00.html ------------------------------ From: User1@AllanMJohnson.com (Allan) Subject: Cordless Phones - Memory Dialing Date: 11 Oct 2003 14:01:44 -0700 Organization: http://groups.google.com I am in need of a cordless phone that allows me to dial from memory: an 800 number (fixed in Memory), then dial a 12 digit access code (also fixed in memory) and then a phone number I want to reach (this one changes). (ie I'm using a Sam's Club phone card at 3.6 cents a minute). Thanks. ------------------------------ 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. --------------------------------------------------------------- Finally, the Digest is funded by gifts from generous readers such as yourself who provide funding in amounts deemed appropriate. Your help is important and appreciated. A suggested donation of fifty dollars per year per reader is considered appropriate. See our address above. Please make at least a single donation to cover the cost of processing your name to the mailing list. If you donate at least fifty dollars per year we will send you our two-CD set of the entire Telecom Archives; this is every word published in this Digest since our beginning in 1981. All opinions expressed herein are deemed to be those of the author. Any organizations listed are for identification purposes only and messages should not be considered any official expression by the organization. End of TELECOM Digest V22 #696 ****************************** From editor@telecom-digest.org Sun Oct 12 17:56:23 2003 Received: (from ptownson@localhost) by massis.lcs.mit.edu (8.11.6p2/8.11.3) id h9CLuNn13876; Sun, 12 Oct 2003 17:56:23 -0400 (EDT) Date: Sun, 12 Oct 2003 17:56:23 -0400 (EDT) From: editor@telecom-digest.org Message-Id: <200310122156.h9CLuNn13876@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 #697 TELECOM Digest Sun, 12 Oct 2003 17:56:00 EDT Volume 22 : Issue 697 Inside This Issue: Editor: Patrick A. Townson and: Lisa Minter Poor Left Out as Courts Enter Web Age/Access to Records (Monty Solomon) Cingular Sued in Calif. Over Service, Ads, Fees (Monty Solomon) The Beginning of the End of the Internet? (Nick Ruark) ITU, World Radio Broadcasters Join Anti-BPL Chorus (Nick Ruark) Defense Department Orders Suppliers to Implement RFID (Nick Ruark) Re: E-mail is Broken (SELLCOM Tech support) Re: Canadians Rise-up With Petition For Nextgen Phone/PDA (Gawain) Re: SMS From Email Client (Don't email me) CID and Multi-Trunk PBX Question (Erik B) Current Issues Article Archive (Abdulhafid) All contents here are copyrighted by Patrick Townson and the individual writers/correspondents. Articles may be used in other journals or newsgroups, provided the writer's name and the Digest are included in the fair use quote. By using -any name or email address- included herein for -any- reason other than responding to an article herein, you agree to pay a hundred dollars to the recipients of the email. WE DO NOT PERMIT NAME/EMAIL ADDRESS HARVESTING FROM THIS JOURNAL. 'SALTED' EMAIL ADDRESSES APPEAR HEREIN TO VERIFY THIS. YOU GET SUED IN SMALL CLAIMS COURT IF YOU GET CAUGHT SPAMMING OR SENDING VIRUSES. DON'T DO IT. See the bottom of this issue for subscription and archive details and the name of our lawyer; other stuff of interest. ---------------------------------------------------------------------- Date: Sun, 12 Oct 2003 00:39:53 -0400 From: Monty Solomon Subject: Poor Left Out as Courts Enter Web Age Access to records not equal, critics say By Michael J. Sniffen, Associated Press, 10/11/2003 WASHINGTON -- The federal court system is slowly moving its paper-choked courthouses into the electronic world, making it easier for lawyers and the public to read and file legal cases. But this wider and easier access is leaving the poor behind. The federal courts last month began allowing the public to read criminal case files over the Internet. Six years ago, administrators began scanning documents from civil and bankruptcy cases into a new computer system developed at the prodding of a clerk in Cleveland who had to use a parking garage to file an avalanche of asbestos damage lawsuits. No one mourns the end of a paper system where the lone copy of each case file was available only when the court clerk's office was open and a judge was not using it. Everyone applauds an electronic system that allows cases to be filed any time, and case files to be read at any hour, from any location by anyone interested. http://www.boston.com/news/nation/articles/2003/10/11/poor_left_out_as_courts_enter_web_age/ ------------------------------ Date: Sun, 12 Oct 2003 00:49:49 -0400 From: Monty Solomon Subject: Cingular Sued in Calif. Over Service, Ads, Fees By Jim Christie SAN FRANCISCO, Oct 2 (Reuters) - Cingular Wireless, the second-largest U.S. cell phone carrier, has been sued in California by a consumer activist group that claims the company provided poor service, made false advertisements and charged hefty fees to customers who quit the network early. In a lawsuit filed on Wednesday in Los Angeles Superior Court, the Santa Monica, California-based Foundation for Taxpayer and Consumer Rights claimed Cingular violated state laws barring unfair business practices and false advertising. The group, which is separately seeking to certify a class-action lawsuit, asked for a court order that Cingular pay unspecified restitution to consumers. Lawsuits against other cell phone companies were under consideration, the group's founder said. - http://finance.lycos.com/home/news/story.asp?story=35913754 ------------------------------ From: Nick Ruark Subject: The Beginning of the End of the Internet? Date: Sat, 11 Oct 2003 21:36:34 -0700 FCC Policies That Damaged Media Now Threatening Internet REMARKS OF MICHAEL J. COPPS FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS COMMISSIONER "THE BEGINNING OF THE END OF THE INTERNET? DISCRIMINATION, CLOSED NETWORKS, AND THE FUTURE OF CYBERSPACE" as presented to NEW AMERICA FOUNDATION WASHINGTON, DC OCTOBER 9, 2003 http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DOC-239800A1.doc Forwarded from the Private Wireless Forum for Mobile Communication Professionals http://groups.yahoo.com/group/PrivateWirelessForum ------------------------------ From: Nick Ruark Subject: ITU, World Radio Broadcasters Join Anti-BPL Chorus Date: Sat, 11 Oct 2003 21:42:13 -0700 NEWINGTON, CT. A subcommittee of an International Telecommunication Union (ITU http://www.itu.org/) panel of technical experts responsible for terrestrial broadcasting issues has joined a growing chorus of concern about the interference potential of power line telecommunication (PLT) -- better known in the US as Broadband over Power Line (BPL). ITU Radiocommunication Sector (ITU-R) Sub Working Group (SWG) 6E1 expressedthe view that interference produced by systems employing PLT as well as by Industrial, Scientific and Medical (ISM) equipment and short-range devices, would compromise broadcast reception. "SWG 6E1 is of the opinion that any increase in the amount of noise due to these systems is unacceptable," said a statement from the group's chairman to the chairman of Working Party 6E (WP 6E). "In particular, broadcast services should be protected from unwanted emissions from PLT systems," the panel asserted, "as these emissions are a byproduct of a system that is not itself a user of the radio spectrum." The panel recommended the formation of a group representing all users of the radio spectrum "to coordinate development of limits to be imposed on the radiation from these systems." WP 6E says it will continue to study the effects of PLT/BPL, ISM equipment and short-range devices on terrestrial broadcasting and send the results to ITU-R Working Party 1A, which is responsible for spectrum engineering techniques. WP 1A is scheduled to meet in Geneva October 30 to November 5. ARRL Chief Executive Officer David Sumner, K1ZZ, expressed strong support and appreciation for the SWG's conclusions and the ongoing efforts of parent Working Party 6E to study the issue. "Our studies have shown that the broadcasters' concerns are fully justified," Sumner said. "If BPL is a problem for broadcasters, it's easy to see that it would be a disaster for us," he added, noting that broadcasters' signal strengths typically far exceed those of radio amateurs. Broadcasters themselves also have exhibited increased concern about the potential of PLT/BPL to prevent their signals from reaching listeners. The Research and Development branch of the highly regarded British Broadcasting Corporation (BBC) has released a White Paper reporting on a brief trial in Scotland (http://www.bbc.co.uk/rd/pubs/whp/whp067.html). The two competing PLT/BPL systems in operation in the town of Crieff both interfered with HF reception. Tests were conducted at four locations. "The forms of access PLT that were tested in Crieff were found to have demonstrable potential to cause interference to indoor reception of broadcasting in relevant bands," the White Paper concluded. Before commercially licensing PLT, the report advised, regulators need to undertake further study of other PLT systems and, among other issues, look into possible ways to make the PLT systems compatible with radio reception. At the first location, a residence, interference from a Main.Net modem was audible even on very strong broadcast signals. Reception was also significantly impaired at a neighbor's house as well as at various locations in the street between the residence and the substation serving it. This was despite the fact that the main distributor cable was underground. The BBC engineers described the interference as varying between "'annoying' and a level sufficient to make the broadcast completely unintelligible." At a retail shop where another Main.Net modem was in use, "reception of an apparently strong broadcast signal was badly impaired when the PLT modem was busy," the report said. Ascom systems were in use at the other two locations. The BBC engineers observed interference to HF broadcasting signals despite the system designers' efforts to reduce emissions in the broadcasting bands. Field strength measurements taken at three of the four locations showed PLT/BPL emissions far in excess -- by as much as 50 dB -- of various proposals for limits intended to restrict the degree of interference. A report prepared by the Australian Communications Authority (ACA), Broadband Powerline Communications Systems -- A Background Brief, (http://www.aca.gov.au/radcomm/frequency_planning/spps/0311spp.pdf) concluded that "a potential risk to HF radiocommunications services from the widespread use of broadband powerline communications systems" appeared to exist. Citing BPL trials in the US, Europe and Asia, the ACA brief said, "The results of these trials have not alleviated concerns over the potential interference risk to radiocommunications." The ACA report included the Australian Broadcasting Authority, the Australian Maritime Safety Authority, the Department of Defence and the Wireless Institute of Australia -- that country's International Amateur Radio Union member-society -- as "stakeholders" subject to potential electromagnetic compatibility (EMC) concerns. ARRL's comments (http://www.arrl.org/announce/regulatory/et03-104/), reply comments (http://www.arrl.org/announce/regulatory/et03-104/reply-comments-index.html and technical exhibits filed with the FCC in response to the Commission's Notice of Inquiry (ET Docket ET 03-104) are available on the ARRL Web site. See also the article "BPL is a Pandora's Box of Unprecedented Proportions, ARRL Tells FCC" (http://www.arrl.org/news/features/2003/07/08/1/) Additional information and video clips are on the ARRL "Power Line Communications (PLC) and Amateur Radio" page http://www.arrl.org/tis/info/HTML/plc/. Source: http://www.arrl.org/news/stories/2003/10/09/1/?nc=1 Forwarded from the Private Wireless Forum for Mobile Communication Professionals http://groups.yahoo.com/group/PrivateWirelessForum ------------------------------ From: Nick Ruark Subject: Defense Department Orders Suppliers to Implement RFID by 2005 Date: Sat, 11 Oct 2003 21:55:45 -0700 The new policy will cover practically everything purchased by the U.S. military Story by Bob Brewin OCTOBER 08, 2003 The U.S. Department of Defense will require all of its suppliers to use passive radio frequency identification tags (RFID) on all cases and pallets by January 2005, a mandate whose impact will likely dwarf a similar policy that Wal-Mart Stores Inc. imposed on its top 100 suppliers in June. Analysts said the Defense Department and Wal-Mart projects would impose "massive" infrastructure costs on supply chains over the next two years, with little return for suppliers. The new policy will cover practically everything purchased by the U.S. military -- from beans to bullets and from toothpaste to tank parts -- or roughly 45 million line items, according to Alan Estevez, assistant deputy undersecretary for supply chain integration. Estevez couldn't estimate the number of suppliers affected by the policy document, signed last week by Michael Wynne, the acting undersecretary of Defense for logistics. But the Defense Logistics Agency -- which bought an estimated $24 billion worth of goods last year -- has 23,642 suppliers, according to DLA spokeswoman Dawn Dearden. Estevez said he believes the Pentagon's policy mandate will help jump-start the RFID industry, which had already gotten a boost from the Wal-Mart decision this summer. He also said that while the 18-month timetable is ambitious, the department believes it's doable. It plans to use the Electronic Product Code (EPC) that Wal-Mart will deploy, Estevez said. EPC is under development by the Uniform Code Council (http://www.uc-council.org/), a standards body, and EPCglobal, (http://www.uc-council.org/epcglobal/) a new organization that the UCC will formally launch in November. The department wants the "lowest possible price" for the tags its suppliers will use, Estevez said. Wal-Mart has a goal of 5 cents per tag, and Enu Waktola, a Texas Instruments Inc. marketing manager, said the economies of scale the Defense Department brings to the RFID market will drive down prices. Besides requiring suppliers to use passive RFID tags on cases and pallets, the department has also instituted a formal policy to use active RFID tags to track all of the 20- and 40-foot shipping containers it uses, Estevez said. Savi Technology Inc. is already supplying active RFID tags and container tracking systems to the department under a series of contracts valued at $280 million. The latest of the contracts was announced in February. Savi currently tracks 270,000 cargo containers transporting military supplies through 400 locations in 40 countries. Passive RFID systems use low-powered radio transmitters to "read" information on a data chip equipped with an embedded antenna within a range of 10 feet. Active tags have built-in minitransmitters and can be read within a range of 300 to 400 feet. The data tags in each system store much more information -- 128 bytes -- than bar codes, which can store only 1.1 bytes. RFID systems can read cases stacked underneath one another on a pallet, making it easier to conduct an inventory than with a bar code system, which require scanners to be in the line of sight of the bar code. Wynne, in his policy memo, said the Defense Department plans to use RFID tags to "improve our business functions and facilitate all aspects of the DoD supply chain." The agency also envisions using RFID tags "to improve data quality management, asset visibility and maintenance of materiel," he said. Jim Cotterman, a logistics analyst at the Logistics Management Institute, a nonprofit consulting organization in McLean, Va., that works closely with the Defense Department, said portable RFID readers installed in a combat zone could provide a commander with "much better visibility" into supplies stacked in a forward depot. That would make it easier to locate a needed item quickly. Kara Romanow, an analyst at AMR Research Inc. in Boston, said the Defense Department and Wal-Mart deadlines are highly impractical. RFID "is not going to happen" by 2005, she said, citing impediments on both the hardware and software sides. RFID chips today have a 20% failure rate and can't stand the kind of environmental extremes the Defense Department faces. EPC is also still in its early stages of development, Romanow said. Mike Liard, an analyst at Venture Development Corp. in Natick, Mass., said suppliers will have to make massive investments in infrastructure to support the coming mandates, with little return "aside from meeting the mandate." Hardware costs for RFID readers and networks in just one warehouse could run as high as $100,000, he said, adding that suppliers would also have to integrate RFID into their existing information systems. He couldn't estimate how much that would cost. Vinnie Luciano, marketing vice president for mobile computing at Symbol Technologies Inc. in Holtsville, N.Y., said the Defense Department would have to invest "somewhere between tens of millions and hundreds of millions" in RFID hardware and networks to support the new policy. Source: http://www.computerworld.com Forwarded from the Private Wireless Forum for Mobile Communication Professionals http://groups.yahoo.com/group/PrivateWirelessForum ------------------------------ From: SELLCOM Tech support Subject: Re: E-mail is Broken Date: Sun, 12 Oct 2003 12:51:48 -0400 Organization: www.sellcom.com Reply-To: support@sellcom.com Monty Solomon posted on that vast internet thingie: > Not just a single overlooked urgent message from your boss, lodged in > a sea of ghastly teenage bestiality spam, but something more > fundamental, something more essential. Why are people not considering the ISPs who are enabling the foreign spam sites that the spammers send their customers to? Most spammers require some ISP in the US to be enabling the foreign spam site they use. When I report spam to the FTC I also report the ISP that is the US importer for their spam site. That is really who the enabler is. If an ISP in a US city was a spam haven they would be shut down, but if the spam haven is Chinese then the US ISPs like especially att.net and teleglobe continue to enable them from the USA. 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), TMC ET4000 Epic phone, OnHoldPlus, WatchGuard firewall, Polycom! Brick wall "non MOV" surge protection. Minuteman UPS systems If you sit at a desk www.ergochair.biz you owe it to yourself. ------------------------------ Reply-To: Gawain From: Gawain Subject: Re: Canadians Rise-up With Petition For Nextgen Phone/PDA Organization: SBC http://yahoo.sbc.com Date: Sun, 12 Oct 2003 17:10:55 GMT John Buchan wrote in message news:telecom22.685.7@telecom-digest.org: > THIS IS NOT A COMMERCIAL MESSAGE > We have all been waiting for the small form factor cell phone/pda that > actually fits in the palm of our hand - well, it is almost here .. > and as a Canadian Cell phone user I would like to see it made > available sooner, not the usual ... later. > For more information ... and to participate in the online petition to > bring this phone to Canada ... click this link. Please also, click the > send this petition to a friend link ... lets get the word out. > http://www.PetitionOnline.com/Rogers/petition.html Well you folks in Canada have officially flipped out. Not only does Rogers offer the Motorola V101, Handspring Treo 270, Blackberry 6710 and 6210, and Palm Tungsten W ... but the Voq from Sierra Wireless is coming in 1Q04 (http://www.voq.com) WTF? Did it ever occur to you that Rogers' influence (and thus, AT&T's) on how soon products are deployed depend on how well they work with the networks? The carriers put the things through extensive testing to make sure that they (and the mfg) don't eat it later by replacing 10,000 or 100,000 units a few months down the road. Also, manufacturers have certain agreements with carriers which guarantee exclusivity of certain products (i.e. Audiovox Thera, and Kyocera 7135 with Bell Mobility, not Rogers). There are technology limitations too, that's why Nokia has all but given up on making a CDMA phone. A petition ... Good God Man! Switch carriers or something. I hope Rogers has the opportunity to laugh at the petition before Ottawa intervenes. ------------------------------ From: nomailp@netscape.net (Don't email me) Subject: Re: SMS From Email Client Date: 12 Oct 2003 10:26:04 -0700 Organization: http://groups.google.com If you're using Outlook, make sure you send the message as plain text NOT rich text or html. Also make sure the message is 160 characters or less. Sounds like it works by your message as you state you get a message on the phone. Just the format is wrong. hope this helps..... questions@telcosupport.net http://www.telcosupport.net Mike Kelley wrote in message news:: > I was wondering if it woul be possible to send an sms message from > outlook. I work for a small cellular carrier and we need to be able > to send bulk mailings to our customers. However, our tech guy just > quit and unfortuantely it falls on my department to try to organize > this. Basically we just generate a list of numbers and SMS each one > with a reminder to pay their bill. > I know that there are some commercial products which do this but I was > hoping to use something we already have. I know a little about > programming so I may be able to develop a script that will do it. > I've tried sending a message through our SMS server basically as: > 5555555555@msg.ourcarrier.com > The message gets to the phone but always says format unsupported. Any > help would be greatly appreciated. > Thanks, > Mike ------------------------------ From: erik@rmwt.net (erik B) Subject: CID and Multi-Trunk PBX Question Date: 12 Oct 2003 13:11:10 -0700 Organization: http://groups.google.com We have a PBX with multiple trunks. Whenever a call is placed from inside the building it always shows up as the same number to the person called. The number that shows up is one of our trunks. We want it to show up as our main number (the one published in the phone book). If I am not mistaken, the CID is taken care of by Qwest (for qwest customers anyways) at their switch, not at our equipment. So my question is this, Qwest should be able to display any number we ask them to right? Thanks for any input. eric ------------------------------ From: Abdulhafid Subject: Current Issues Article Archive Date: Sun, 12 Oct 2003 11:54:56 +0100 Organization: ntl Cablemodem News Service A growing archive of fascinating media articles on current issues and affairs. Available at Arcis Foundation Website: www.arcis.co.uk/php/ ------------------------------ TELECOM Digest is an electronic journal devoted mostly but not exclusively to telecommunications topics. It is circulated anywhere there is email, in addition to various telecom forums on a variety of networks such as Compuserve and America On Line, 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. --------------------------------------------------------------- Finally, the Digest is funded by gifts from generous readers such as yourself who provide funding in amounts deemed appropriate. Your help is important and appreciated. A suggested donation of fifty dollars per year per reader is considered appropriate. See our address above. Please make at least a single donation to cover the cost of processing your name to the mailing list. If you donate at least fifty dollars per year we will send you our two-CD set of the entire Telecom Archives; this is every word published in this Digest since our beginning in 1981. All opinions expressed herein are deemed to be those of the author. Any organizations listed are for identification purposes only and messages should not be considered any official expression by the organization. End of TELECOM Digest V22 #697 ****************************** From editor@telecom-digest.org Sun Oct 12 22:02:57 2003 Received: (from ptownson@localhost) by massis.lcs.mit.edu (8.11.6p2/8.11.3) id h9D22vs15010; Sun, 12 Oct 2003 22:02:57 -0400 (EDT) Date: Sun, 12 Oct 2003 22:02:57 -0400 (EDT) From: editor@telecom-digest.org Message-Id: <200310130202.h9D22vs15010@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 #698 TELECOM Digest Sun, 12 Oct 2003 22:03:00 EDT Volume 22 : Issue 698 Inside This Issue: Editor: Patrick A. Townson and: Lisa Minter Will Wireline Telecoms Prevail in The Wireless Challenge? (Nick Ruark) Re: Defense Department Orders Suppliers to Implement RFID (D Burstein) Now You're Talking Money (Group Special Mobile) Re: Poor Left Out as Courts Enter Web Age (Dave Phelps) Intel Charts Progress Toward Ubiquitous Wireless Connectivity (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: Nick Ruark Subject: Will Wireline Telecoms Prevail in The Wireless Challenge? Date: Sat, 11 Oct 2003 21:50:28 -0700 SPECIAL REPORT -- TELECOM The Wireless Challenge: Can big phone companies prevail in a brave new world of mobile and the Internet? Issue Date: October 20, 2003 Since the days of Alexander Graham Bell, Finland's national phone company has provided service for customers from the shores of the Baltic Sea to the upper reaches of Lapland. But last summer the Helsinki-based telco, now part of $9 billion Swedish-Finnish TeliaSonera, did something remarkable: It ran radio and newspaper ads urging its own customers to drop fixed-line voice service and switch to wireless. Huh? A phone company asking its customers to cut the cord? To the cell-crazed Finns, "the idea makes perfect sense," says Jukka Vatanen, a freelance photographer and part-time taxi driver in Helsinki. That's because TeliaSonera also operates Finland's No. 1 mobile-phone carrier and provides speedy digital subscriber line (DSL) connections for Internet access. Vatanen is the company's ideal customer: Two years ago he dropped conventional voice service in favor of his cellular phone, but he kept a line into his house for DSL. That suits the company just fine. Sonera's long-term strategic plan is to shift all its voice calls to wireless, reserving the 3.2 million copper lines it runs into Finnish homes for broadband connections only. Finland is but one example of telecom's wild new frontier. Consider the strange case of Britain, where the two independent halves of the country's former telco monopoly are chasing each other like hungry wolves. BT Group PLC, the fixed-line carrier that spun off its mmO2 PLC mobile business in 2001 to reduce debt, has decided to get back into wireless. For customers who want to buy all their telecom from a single source, BT resells mobile services provided by an mmO2 rival, Deutsche Telekom's T-Mobile International. Meanwhile, mmO2 aims to start siphoning off its former parent's fixed-line customers next year by hitting where it hurts -- in the home. The company will bring out innovative new cordless phones that skip over the BT voice network entirely, instead directing calls over residential broadband hookups. A decade after deregulation shook the world's phone companies, and three years into the worst downturn the telecom industry has ever seen, the tumult is far from letting up. From Seattle to Singapore, the big telephone companies that once dominated the business are battling new competitors, sharply declining prices for conventional voice calls, and a relentless movement toward wireless calling. Just as bad, young people are drifting to other forms of communication, such as e-mail, online chat, and mobile-phone messaging instead of the good old phone. "There is a tremendous shift taking place," says Rudi Lamprecht, who heads the mobile-equipment business of electronics giant Siemens (SI ). There's no doubt the old order is crumbling. Although the total number of fixed phone lines in the world is still creeping up, wireless is growing six times as fast. This year, figures London telecom researcher Ovum Ltd., the number of mobile subscribers will exceed fixed lines for the first time. Wireless carriers now take home nearly half of global voice revenues, up from 9% a decade ago. In Finland, an estimated 25% of households are now mobile-only. Even worse for fixed-line operators, the amount of money they take in from each line has fallen by one-third since 1997. As a result, global revenues for fixed-line voice services are expected to fall by 2.2% this year, according to the Geneva-based International Telecommunications Union. Turmoil, however, doesn't mean termination. Fixed-line phone companies will still pull in $455 billion in revenues this year from voice services. And the telcos remain veritable cash factories: The world's leading carriers will spin out $131 billion in free cash flow this year, estimates brokerage Merrill Lynch & Co., up 10% from 2002, thanks to aggressive cost-cutting. Next year, Merrill says, cash flow will edge up a hair, to $132 billion. Growth may no longer be what it was in the 1990s, but the 45 stocks in the Standard & Poor's Global Telecommunications Services index are up 9% for the year. The fixed-line carriers have an ace in the hole: their wires. "The biggest factor in their favor, bar none, is that they still own the local network," says analyst James Eibisch of market researcher IDC. How is that an asset if the world is going wireless? Because the wired network will always have the advantage of higher bandwidth, or communication speed, and in the emerging world of digital media, faster is always better. That's why outfits like Sonera are betting on DSL. "Broadband has become the driver for fixed operators," says Bruno Duarte, a partner at consultant Arthur D. Little's telecom practice in Paris. Telco broadband is indeed finally taking off. After a slow start caused by muddled regulations, immature technology, and skittish financial markets, the number of DSL lines worldwide will nearly double this year, to 36 million, figures Ovum. By 2007, it's expected to hit 160 million. That's still only 13% of the world's phone lines, but in many developed countries, rates are already much higher. Sure, the phone companies also face a challenge from cable television operators offering high-speed Net links over their wires. Outside the U.S., however, DSL outpaces cable modem installations by nearly 2 to 1. By pushing DSL -- and eventually hawking all manner of snazzy services that run on top of it, from digital voice calls to films -- carriers may be able to stave off the decline of traditional voice service. Just look at the numbers from Korea. With the world's highest penetration of residential broadband, the East Asian powerhouse shows the way. While local phone-call revenue there is expected to drop 7.4% this year, to $2.5 billion, the $2.2 billion that Korean carriers are expected to get from DSL will more than make up the difference. By 2007, predicts researcher Gartner Inc., DSL will be a $46.6 billion global industry. Strangely enough, one service that carriers aim to provide over those DSL lines will sound mighty familiar: voice calls. But they'll be sent over the Internet. The technology has been under development for a decade but is finally coming into its own. Instead of using fixed circuits, as has been the case since the phone network was invented more than a century ago, voice traffic can be chopped up into digital chunks and shipped around in much the way e-mail messages are. In Japan, the emergence of ultracheap Net telephony services will shrink revenues from traditional voice calling by up to half over the next few years, predicts Tadashi Onodera, president of No. 2 Japanese carrier KDDI Corp. Voice-over-DSL service, meanwhile, will be worth $4.7 billion worldwide by 2007, predicts researcher Allied Business Intelligence. The move to Internet telephony is essential for the simple reason that it holds the key to lowering costs. But DSL takes care of only the outermost edge of the phone network -- the last few hundred meters to the customer's home. To remain cost-competitive, carriers also have to reengineer the very heart of their systems, the trunk lines that carry traffic over long distances. The reason: New Internet-type equipment costs as little as one-tenth as much as the older-style gear now used in the network. Equally important, it's only half as expensive to operate. This transition will be the dominant technological issue facing the world's phone companies over the next decade. When it's finished, carriers will be able to offer customers a unified communication channel that handles voice, data, and video. "Every carrier is following the same road map," says Mark de Simone, vice-president for technology solutions at Cisco Systems Inc. in Feltham, England. "The only difference is their timetable." Some brave operators are already moving toward this futuristic model, with startling results. The most advanced is Telecom Italia (TI ), which has completely rebuilt the core of its nationwide network around Internet equipment. Telecom Italia expects to reduce its operating costs by 60% when the technology has been fine-tuned in a year or so. That should help it hold operating margins steady at an industry-leading 44% even as fixed-line revenues drift down over the next few years, predicts Merrill Lynch & Co. This transformation won't happen overnight. And it's going to cost a bundle. Gartner figures carriers will shell out $44.7 billion from 2003 to 2007 on Internet-type equipment for their networks, while spending on traditional phone gear will fall 12.5% annually over the same period, totaling $41.9 billion. "We're trying to replace one of the most sophisticated and evolved infrastructures in the world," cautions Tal Simchony, chief executive of Veraz Networks Inc. in San Jose, Calif., a seller of equipment for sending voice calls over the Net. Carriers no doubt wish that technology change were their only challenge. But while reinventing the future, they also have to deal with a troubled present. The most immediate problem: holding on to customers. Thanks to deregulation, established carriers are losing market share to competing local service providers. Most fixed-line European telcos, for instance, still own and operate 90% to 100% of the phone lines in their home markets. But rivals are walking off with 30% to 50% of the minutes spent talking over those lines, as customers can now choose alternative carriers for calls, according to telecom market watcher Pyramid Research LLC in London. In Germany, giant Deutsche Telekom carried just 68% of the voice minutes in 2002, down from 74% two years earlier. Fixed-line revenues at France Télécom fell 2.1% in this year's first half, to $12.5 billion, while at Japan's giant NTT, fixed-line revenues dropped 9%, to $28.2 billion, in the year ended last March. Newcomers are profiting from the change. Europe's No. 1 competitive carrier, Stockholm's Tele2, has 20 million customers in 23 countries, vs. 10 million three years ago, and posted first-half 2003 revenues of $2.3 billion, up 18.2% from a year ago. Smaller companies, such as Germany's 3U Telecom Inc., which offers cut-rate fixed-line service in seven European countries and the U.S., are gaining even faster. And in Russia, the country's No. 1 alternative provider, Golden Telecom Inc., more than doubled its revenues in this year's first quarter, to $78 million, by concentrating on business Internet and data services. It's not all smooth sailing for upstarts, however. The 2001 telecom crash wiped out dozens of newcomers and reduced pressure on industry giants. For the past three years, their share of international long-distance traffic has held steady at 69%, notes analyst Stephan Beckert at market researcher TeleGeography Inc. in Washington, D.C. "We have seen the empire strike back," he says. Established carriers are fighting especially hard against opening up their networks to competitive access. Tele2 CEO Lars-Johan Jarnheimer says they use every available avenue -- legal, technical, and administrative -- to slow down rivals. One telling statistic: According to the European Competitive Telecommunications Assn., a Brussels trade group, old-guard carriers on the Continent have made fewer than 7% of their local phone lines available for resale by rivals. "Regulators could be acting much more strongly," says Jarnheimer. Many telecom giants own both wireless and wired networks, so they're not staring at the abyss. Indeed, to boost their stake in wireless, some have bought into cellular operations in developing countries to keep growing. Deutsche Telekom owns a share of three wireless operators in Eastern Europe, Spain's Telefónica has investments throughout Latin America, and Singapore's SingTel has minority stakes in mobile companies in the Philippines, Indonesia, and Thailand. But some carriers -- including BT and AT&T (T ) -- have spun off their wireless units in recent years. That explains such tactics as BT's move to resell wireless from another company. Yet even those that own both wired and wireless divisions are struggling with the shift. The biggest problem is figuring out how not to lose customers in the process. Sonera has chosen to keep subscribers in the fold by encouraging their migration from one part of the business to another. But Deutsche Telekom is letting the market decide. It's pitting its huge T-Com fixed unit against the T-Mobile wireless group and vice-versa. "They are going to compete on voice," says CEO Kai-Uwe Ricke of DT. The problem with such internal rivalries is that they can distract companies from the real threat, says Katja Ruud, a telecom analyst at Gartner. "Instead of beating external competition, they're expending resources fighting themselves," she says. A decade ago, Massachusetts Institute of Technology pundit Nicholas Negroponte observed that it was an accident of technology history that phone calls are made mostly over wires while more complex television broadcasts travel over the air. The rise of wireless phones and cable TV has borne out Negroponte's prediction that the situation would flip-flop. But along the way, the emergence of the Internet has thrown all the rules out the window. "People have written off the big telcos many times before, but they always bounce back," says Mike Quigley, the president for fixed-line communication at French equipment-maker Alcatel. Today's turmoil will someday produce a new telecom system, with voice calls sent through the air and wired broadband available in much of the world. And the old wireline telecom firms will still be there -- battered, transformed, but mostly intact. By Andy Reinhardt With Jack Ewing in Frankfurt, Irene M. Kunii in Tokyo, and bureau reports Copyright 2000-2003, by The McGraw-Hill Companies Inc. All rights reserved Source: http://businessweek.com:/print/magazine/content/03_42/b3854601.htm?mz Forwarded from the Private Wireless Forum for Mobile Communication Professionals http://groups.yahoo.com/group/PrivateWirelessForum *** FAIR USE NOTICE. This message contains copyrighted material the use of which has not been specifically authorized by the copyright owner. This Internet discussion group is making it available without profit to group members who have expressed a prior interest in receiving the included information in their efforts to advance the understanding of literary, educational, political, and economic issues, for non-profit research and educational purposes only. I believe that this constitutes a 'fair use' of the copyrighted material as provided for in section 107 of the U.S. Copyright Law. If you wish to use this copyrighted material for purposes of your own that go beyond 'fair use,' you must obtain permission from the copyright owner. For more information go to: http://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/17/107.shtml ------------------------------ From: Danny Burstein Subject: Re: Defense Department Orders Suppliers to Implement RFID by 2005 Date: Sun, 12 Oct 2003 21:57:13 UTC Organization: PANIX Public Access Internet and UNIX, NYC In Nick Ruark writes: > The new policy will cover practically everything purchased by the > U.S. military Story by Bob Brewin OCTOBER 08, 2003 > The U.S. Department of Defense will require all of its suppliers to > use passive radio frequency identification tags (RFID) on all cases > and pallets by January 2005, a mandate whose impact will likely dwarf > a similar policy that Wal-Mart Stores Inc. imposed on its top 100 > suppliers in June. [ snip ] A similar edict by DOD two decades ago was a Big Force in the rapid deployment of the now ubiquitous bar code. _____________________________________________________ Knowledge may be power, but communications is the key dannyb@panix.com [to foil spammers, my address has been double rot-13 encoded] ------------------------------ From: Group Special Mobile Subject: Now You're Talking Money Date: Sun, 12 Oct 2003 18:02:03 -0700 Organization: Posted via Supernews, http://www.supernews.com Reply-To: look@signature_for_reply_instructions Justin Doebele, 10.13.03 Our survey of cellular bills in world business centers shows Europe at a loss. Hong Kong tycoon Li Ka-shing's Hutchison is offering cut-rate prices to encourage Europeans to try its new phone service. Not a moment too soon: Europe, it turns out, is an expensive place to own a cell phone. To get a sense of global prices for phones, Canvassed its correspondents around the globe to compare the price of cellular service in six of the world's major business cities. London and Berlin hold the dubious distinction of being the world's most expensive cities in which to use a cell phone, besting even high-cost Tokyo, while Asian brethren Hong Kong and Singapore look cheap. New York was the cheapest. How to explain the differences? For one, Asian markets are more saturated than Europe's--almost everyone who can buy a phone has one, so carriers there are engaged in a brutal zero-sum price war for market share. In Europe there's still some room for growth. A second factor: the relatively higher prices of doing business in England and Germany compared with Asia--plus carriers' needing to price services within the income levels of the local population. http://www.forbes.com/global/2003/1013/020.html To send an email reply send to GSMthemobilestandard (@) yahoo.com ------------------------------ From: Dave Phelps Subject: Re: Poor Left Out as Courts Enter Web Age Date: Sun, 12 Oct 2003 20:29:20 -0500 Organization: Posted via Supernews, http://www.supernews.com In article , monty@roscom.com says: > Access to records not equal, critics say > By Michael J. Sniffen, Associated Press, 10/11/2003 > WASHINGTON -- The federal court system is slowly moving its > paper-choked courthouses into the electronic world, making it easier > for lawyers and the public to read and file legal cases. But this > wider and easier access is leaving the poor behind. Did anyone ever consider that with electronic access, that the court has made an overall improvement in records accessibility? Assuming that viewing court records is now limited exclusively to web access, accessibility has been greatly improved to anyone that works 8AM to 5PM -- typically the same hours as court records offices. Now those working people, (coincidently the type of people that are more likely to be looking for court records anyway) have access to records without giving up a portion of their paycheck. As far as the "poor" people, what's wrong with going to the library (for internet access) instead of the court clerk's office to look for documents? I must say that I don't agree with the 7 cents per page charged for the electronic form. It's just another way for the government to make money (AKA tax). Electronic storage saves such a huge sum of money, not only in storage space, but in man-hours, that they should be lowering the court records budget, not trying to find a way to make more money. Additionally, in principal, court records are public records. It is, IMHO, wrong to charge for access to public records. Dave Phelps DD Networks www.ddnets.com deadspam=tippenring ------------------------------ Date: Sun, 12 Oct 2003 21:39:09 -0400 From: Monty Solomon Subject: Intel Charts Progress Toward Ubiquitous Wireless Connectivity 24,000 Hotspots Verified for Compatibility With Intel Centrino Mobile Technology - Oct 12, 2003 03:00 PM (BusinessWire) GENEVA--(BUSINESS WIRE)--Oct. 12, 2003--At the ITU Telecom World tradeshow here this week, Intel Corporation outlined progress toward its vision of a world where ubiquitous wireless connectivity to the Internet redefines how people work, play and live. Demonstrating this progress, the company said its Intel(R) Centrino(TM) mobile technology is one of its fastest ramping microprocessor technologies ever. Intel has also helped simplify the process of connecting wirelessly to the Internet through its Wireless Verification Program, which is designed to verify the compatibility of Intel Centrino mobile technology-based systems with wireless hotspots. That program to-date includes more than 80 service providers, and has verified more than 24,000 wireless hotspots worldwide -- double Intel's initial projections. - http://finance.lycos.com/home/news/story.asp?story=36047081 ------------------------------ 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. --------------------------------------------------------------- Finally, the Digest is funded by gifts from generous readers such as yourself who provide funding in amounts deemed appropriate. Your help is important and appreciated. A suggested donation of fifty dollars per year per reader is considered appropriate. See our address above. Please make at least a single donation to cover the cost of processing your name to the mailing list. If you donate at least fifty dollars per year we will send you our two-CD set of the entire Telecom Archives; this is every word published in this Digest since our beginning in 1981. All opinions expressed herein are deemed to be those of the author. Any organizations listed are for identification purposes only and messages should not be considered any official expression by the organization. End of TELECOM Digest V22 #698 ****************************** From editor@telecom-digest.org Mon Oct 13 14:57:25 2003 Received: (from ptownson@localhost) by massis.lcs.mit.edu (8.11.6p2/8.11.3) id h9DIvOi20474; Mon, 13 Oct 2003 14:57:25 -0400 (EDT) Date: Mon, 13 Oct 2003 14:57:25 -0400 (EDT) From: editor@telecom-digest.org Message-Id: <200310131857.h9DIvOi20474@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 #699 TELECOM Digest Mon, 13 Oct 2003 14:57:00 EDT Volume 22 : Issue 699 Inside This Issue: Editor: Patrick A. Townson and: Lisa Minter To Whom May I Direct Your Free Call? (Monty Solomon) Judge Gives Leg Up to Internet Calls (Monty Solomon) Judge Says Minnesota Cannot Regulate Internet Calls (Monty Solomon) Who's Calling, Please? Check the TV (Monty Solomon) Digital Projection of Films Is Coming. Now, Who Pays? (Monty Solomon) It's a World of Media Plenty. Why Limit Ownership? (Monty Solomon) Smile, You're on Candid Cellphone Camera (Monty Solomon) Town Weighs Taking Charge of Local Cable TV Production (Monty Solomon) Comcast Will Take in Some Cable 'Orphans' (Monty Solomon) Microsoft Announces Wireless Provisioning Services (Monty Solomon) Motorola Reports Third-Quarter 2003 Financial Results (Monty Solomon) VeriSign Releases Internet Security Intelligence Briefing (M. Solomon) Lucent, AT&T Wireless to Test New Network (Monty Solomon) DoubleClick Sponsored Study Shows Consumer Email Habits (Monty Solomon) Re: Canadians Rise-up With Petition For Nextgen Phone (Group Special) Re: Poor Left Out as Courts Enter Web Age (Mentzer) Re: Defense Department Orders Suppliers to Implement RFID (M. Sullivan) Re: Now You're Talking Money (Michael D. Sullivan) Re: Will Wireline Telecoms Prevail in The Wireless Challenge? (Ronkanen) Cloud Brings International Operators Onto UK Nationwide (Network.com) Telephone Execs Invade Geneva (Scott) Last Laugh! Monkeys are Such Cute Creatures (Tom Allen) All contents here are copyrighted by Patrick Townson and the individual writers/correspondents. Articles may be used in other journals or newsgroups, provided the writer's name and the Digest are included in the fair use quote. By using -any name or email address- included herein for -any- reason other than responding to an article herein, you agree to pay a hundred dollars to the recipients of the email. WE DO NOT PERMIT NAME/EMAIL ADDRESS HARVESTING FROM THIS JOURNAL. 'SALTED' EMAIL ADDRESSES APPEAR HEREIN TO VERIFY THIS. YOU GET SUED IN SMALL CLAIMS COURT IF YOU GET CAUGHT SPAMMING OR SENDING VIRUSES. DON'T DO IT. See the bottom of this issue for subscription and archive details and the name of our lawyer; other stuff of interest. ---------------------------------------------------------------------- Date: Sun, 12 Oct 2003 22:12:32 -0400 From: Monty Solomon Subject: To Whom May I Direct Your Free Call? By NICHOLAS THOMPSON In the fall of 2000, Niklas Zennstrom and Janus Friis had not yet earned any powerful enemies, at least so far as they were aware. They were just two obscure Swedish entrepreneurs who had worked with three Estonian programmers to write a file-sharing application called Kazaa. At the time, the free program was merely one of Napster's several weak stepsisters, lumped together in news reports with the likes of Snarfzilla and ToadNode. But a few months later, the record industry and its lawyers swatted down Napster. And Kazaa, with its easy-to-use interface and reliable technology, quickly began scooping up users. Kazaa does essentially everything Napster did, with one important difference. Because Kazaa's file sharing relies on routing requests through individual users' computers instead of central servers, the record industry has been unable to shut down the service in court -- but not for lack of trying. As their legal bills mounted, Mr. Zennstrom and Mr. Friis decided to sell the company to Sharman Networks last year. But the two have since hatched a plan that has a chance at causing another, potentially bigger uproar. Mr. Zennstrom and Mr. Friis have reunited with the same team of Estonian programmers who wrote the code for Kazaa and have created a way to allow people to make high-quality phone calls over the Internet without having to pay a penny. On Aug. 29, their new company, called Skype, released a preliminary version of the program. Already, more than a million people have downloaded it, the company's Web site says. http://www.nytimes.com/2003/10/12/business/yourmoney/12kaza.html ------------------------------ Date: Sun, 12 Oct 2003 23:23:02 -0400 From: Monty Solomon Subject: Judge Gives Leg Up to Internet Calls By BARNABY J. FEDER THE ruling by a federal judge in Minnesota last week that the state cannot regulate Internet telephone calls the way it does conventional phone calls was at least a temporary victory for those who argue that the increasingly popular Internet phone services should be exempt from regulation. The judge, Michael J. Davis, is expected to issue his written opinion in the case tomorrow. That should clarify where he found that Minnesota went wrong with its attempt to apply longstanding phone company regulations to Vonage, a start-up Internet phone company. Whatever the reasoning, it will not eliminate the mounting pressure on public policy makers to address the fact that the value of the new technology, for now and many years into the future, stems largely from the fact that it works with the old phone network. In other words, the 20-year-old in Manhattan who uses his Internet phone call to his grandmother in Minnesota will still be dependent on the regular telephone network if Grandma answers on a conventional phone. http://www.nytimes.com/2003/10/13/technology/13neco.html ------------------------------ Date: Sun, 12 Oct 2003 23:25:41 -0400 From: Monty Solomon Subject: Judge Says Minnesota Cannot Regulate Internet Calls By BARNABY J. FEDER A federal judge in Minnesota has ruled that the state's Public Utilities Commission cannot apply its telecommunications regulations to the Vonage Holdings Corporation, a start-up company that allows consumers to place phone calls over the Internet. Analysts said the case is the first to scrutinize the legal status of the tiny but fast-growing business of shifting voice communications to the unregulated realm of the Internet from highly regulated telephone services. Vonage and other companies that send phone calls through computers use a technology known as voice over Internet protocol, or VoIP. The calls can be received on regular phones. The companies offer bargain rates for calling in part because they are not subject to many of the taxes and costs imposed by regulators on traditional phone companies. The ruling comes at a time when several other states, led by California, are moving to regulate or consider whether to regulate Vonage and its rivals like 8x8 Inc. and Net2Phone Inc. In addition, Michael K. Powell, chairman of the Federal Communications Commission, said recently that his agency might soon start to consider the arguments for nationwide regulation for voice over Internet protocol. http://www.nytimes.com/2003/10/09/business/09VOIC.html ------------------------------ Date: Sun, 12 Oct 2003 23:29:45 -0400 From: Monty Solomon Subject: Who's Calling, Please? Check the TV By WILL WADE SOME people mute the television when the phone rings, but Robert Kruger just keeps his eyes on the screen. More specifically, he looks at the blue-green window that appears in the upper right corner and displays the caller's name and phone number. "I don't even have to get up from my chair," said Mr. Kruger, a retiree who lives in Phoenix. "I can see who's calling, and if it's not someone I want to talk to, I'll ignore the phone." While caller ID is now a common feature on phones, Mr. Kruger is one of an estimated 125,000 people in the United States who can see the same information on the tube because he receives his television service over the phone line, using a high-speed digital subscriber line, or D.S.L. Cable companies have long been encroaching on the phone carriers' turf, and more than two million American consumers now receive voice service through cable providers. Now phone companies have started to turn the tables by offering video content. http://www.nytimes.com/2003/10/09/technology/circuits/09vide.html ------------------------------ Date: Sun, 12 Oct 2003 23:37:49 -0400 From: Monty Solomon Subject: Digital Projection of Films Is Coming. Now, Who Pays? By ERIC TAUB LOS ANGELES, Oct. 12 - Moviegoers who recently saw the Johnny Depp film "Once Upon a Time in Mexico" at the Pacific Sherman Oaks Galleria 16 cinema here may have noticed that something was different. Instead of the traces of dust and scratches, and the slight shaking of the image that is perceptible at many screenings, they were looking at a picture that is pristine, sharp and steady. That is because the film was projected digitally, the images fed not from a five-foot-diameter reel of 35-millimeter film, but from a computer hard drive, and beamed onto the screen using a projector without any moving parts. Filmgoers evidently like what they see. "Given a choice between watching a 35-millimeter print or a digital file of the film, customers prefer the digital version," said Jerry Pokorski, executive vice president and head film buyer for Pacific Theaters, which operates the 16-screen movie complex in Sherman Oaks, in the San Fernando Valley. The theater's newspaper ads note when a film is showing in the digital format, and "our grosses are as much as 40 percent higher when we screen a film digitally," Mr. Pokorski said. http://www.nytimes.com/2003/10/13/business/media/13projector.html ------------------------------ Date: Mon, 13 Oct 2003 00:48:51 -0400 From: Monty Solomon Subject: It's a World of Media Plenty. Why Limit Ownership? DEBATE | MONOPOLY ON INFORMATION By STEPHEN LABATON WASHINGTON -- With consumers being bombarded by choices that were unthinkable a generation ago, a debate in Congress and the courts over new rules permitting the largest media conglomerates to grow bigger might seem academic. After all, supporters of the changes say, the explosion of choices has emerged in a period of rapid media consolidation, so what is the harm in allowing companies to continue to grow? A panel of federal judges and a group of Congressional lawmakers are deciding whether to overturn the landmark liberalization of the rules, one of the most important deregulatory actions undertaken in the Bush administration. The government is also expected to approve the latest mega-media merger, the purchase of Vivendi Universal entertainment assets by General Electric , owner of NBC, a deal that was formalized on Wednesday. The move would give NBC a huge stable of important new properties, including Universal's movie and television studios, theme parks and three cable channels. The new media ownership rules followed heavy lobbying by many of the largest and most influential television and newspaper companies, including The New York Times Company , which urged the elimination of the rule that had restricted a single company from owning a broadcaster and newspaper in the same city. http://www.nytimes.com/2003/10/12/weekinreview/12LABA.html ------------------------------ Date: Mon, 13 Oct 2003 00:50:26 -0400 From: Monty Solomon Subject: Smile, You're on Candid Cellphone Camera PRIVACY ON HOLD By AMY HARMON As the man in front of him at the grocery store last week began yelling at a cashier who could not process his American Express card, Gary Dann flipped open his palm-sized camera phone and pressed a few buttons, pretending to look up a number. Moments later, as the man paid in cash, his snarling picture appeared on Mr. Dann's Web site (www.fotolog.net/garydann), complete with a less than flattering caption. The rapidly growing audience of Internet phonecam voyeurs responded quickly to the image: "Did he make a big fuss?" asked one. "I hate watching that." Another taunted: "His tie is strangling him bit by bit!" Mr. Dann's was one of millions of surreptitious snapshots phoned into cyberspace last week, the product of cellphones with built-in cameras that are suddenly peeping out from every shirt pocket. Wielding James Bond technology that can now be mass produced, an army of amateurs is quietly redrawing the boundaries of privacy in public spaces -- unknown to most of their subjects. In recent weeks the devices have been banned from some federal buildings, Hollywood movie screenings, health club locker rooms and corporate offices. But the more potent threat posed by the phonecams, privacy experts say, may not be in the settings where people are already protective of their privacy but in those where they have never thought to care. http://www.nytimes.com/2003/10/12/weekinreview/12HARM.html ------------------------------ Date: Mon, 13 Oct 2003 01:46:21 -0400 From: Monty Solomon Subject: Town Weighs Taking Charge of Local Cable TV Production BELMONT By Caroline Louise Cole, Globe Correspondent, 10/9/2003 Town officials are considering a plan to take over the operation of Belmont's community television studio. Since the advent of cable television some 20 years ago, vendors have been required to provide a way for ordinary citizens to produce their own television programs, which are then broadcast on the town's designated local television channel. In Belmont, Belmont Community Television programs are produced in a studio at Belmont High School and are aired on Channel 8. Additionally, Belmont, like most communities in the state, requires its vendor, currently Comcast Corp., to carry local governmental meetings, including a live feed of the Belmont Board of Selectmen and School Committee meetings. http://www.boston.com/news/local/massachusetts/articles/2003/10/09/town_weighs_taking_charge_of_local_cable_tv_production/ ------------------------------ Date: Mon, 13 Oct 2003 01:52:33 -0400 From: Monty Solomon Subject: Comcast Will Take in Some Cable 'Orphans' Town still trying to get service to all By James Vaznis, Globe Staff, 10/12/2003 Sally Lakness of Carlisle is happy that her 'Operation Comcast Encouragement' appears to have succeeded without the heavy artillery: her cow parading in front of a Comcast office with the sign 'Comcast Orphan.' Comcast Corp., Carlisle's cable television provider, has sent the town a letter promising to make service available by year's end to Lakness and about 47 others who have never had the service. http://www.boston.com/news/local/articles/2003/10/12/comcast_will_take_in_some_cable_orphans/ ------------------------------ Date: Mon, 13 Oct 2003 02:39:58 -0400 From: Monty Solomon Subject: Microsoft Announces Wireless Provisioning Services New Technology for Public Hot Spots Provides Automatic Provisioning and Sign-Up Capabilities to Improve User Experience and Enhance Security for Mobile Windows Customers GENEVA, Oct. 12 /PRNewswire-FirstCall/ -- Microsoft Corp. (Nasdaq: MSFT) today announced an enhancement to the wireless networking service in the Windows(R) operating system, designed to make wireless fidelity (Wi-Fi) hot spots even easier to deploy, manage and use without compromising security and privacy for users. Microsoft(R) Wireless Provisioning Services (WPS) technology provides Wi-Fi network providers with a standards-based and integrated platform to simply provision and manage their Wi-Fi hot spots. WPS allows users of Windows XP to connect to Wi-Fi hot spots with a seamless sign-up process and enables a more secure wireless network access. Wireless Provisioning Services builds upon Microsoft's existing support for wireless technology and connectivity in the Windows platforms such as wireless auto configuration, connection wizards, and wireless security features such as Protected Extensible Authentication (PEAP) and Wi-Fi Protected Access (WPA) in Windows XP. On the back end, Windows Server(TM) 2003 ships with wireless components fully integrated, simplifying deployment, configuration and management. The Internet Authentication Service (IAS), which is also called the Microsoft RADIUS server and is included in Windows Server 2003, reduces total cost of ownership by allowing administrators to deploy interoperable dial-up, virtual private network and wireless access of choice through standards and without the need for proprietary solutions. - http://finance.lycos.com/home/news/story.asp?story=36047750 ------------------------------ Date: Mon, 13 Oct 2003 13:10:18 -0400 From: Monty Solomon Subject: Motorola Reports Third-Quarter 2003 Financial Results * Third-quarter sales of $6.8 billion, up 5 percent vs. the prior-year quarter * Third-quarter GAAP earnings of $.05 per share vs. earnings of $.05 per share in the prior-year quarter * Third-quarter earnings, excluding special items, of $.06 per share vs. earnings of $.06 per share in the prior-year quarter * Third-quarter positive operating cash flow of approximately $1.1 billion * Ratio of net debt to net debt plus equity improved to 9.1 percent from 21.1 percent in the prior-year quarter(1) * Fourth-quarter 2003 guidance: -- Sales: $7.5 to $7.8 billion vs. $7.7 billion in the prior-year quarter -- GAAP earnings per share: $.08 to $.12 per share vs. $.08 per share in the prior-year quarter -- Earnings per share, excluding special items: $.11 to $.15 per share vs. $.13 per share in the prior-year quarter SCHAUMBURG, Ill., Oct. 13 /PRNewswire-FirstCall/ -- Motorola, Inc. (NYSE:MOT) today reported sales of $6.8 billion in the third quarter of 2003 and net earnings of $116 million, or $.05 per share, presented in accordance with generally accepted accounting principles (GAAP). This represents an increase in sales of 5 percent from $6.5 billion in the year-ago quarter. Motorola reported net earnings in the year-ago quarter of $111 million, or $.05 per share. Excluding special items, Motorola had net earnings in the third quarter of 2003 of $132 million, or $.06 per share, compared with net earnings of $133 million, or $.06 per share, in the year-ago quarter. In the third quarter of 2003, Motorola reported special items resulting in a net charge of $27 million pre-tax, or $16 million after-tax. In the third quarter of 2002, Motorola reported special items resulting in net income of $14 million pre-tax, with a net special-item charge of $22 million after-tax. Details of the special items are presented in a table at the end of this press release. - http://finance.lycos.com/home/news/story.asp?story=36052158 ------------------------------ Date: Mon, 13 Oct 2003 13:12:42 -0400 From: Monty Solomon Subject: VeriSign Releases Internet Security Intelligence Briefing VeriSign Releases Internet Security Intelligence Briefing Identifying Current Trends in Internet Usage, Security, and Fraud - Oct 13, 2003 08:01 AM (PR Newswire) Quarterly Briefing Compiles Data from VeriSign's Critical Infrastructure Services including Domain Name System, Authentication Services, Managed Security Services and Payment and Fraud Protection Services MOUNTAIN VIEW, Calif., Oct. 13 /PRNewswire-FirstCall/ -- VeriSign, Inc. (Nasdaq: VRSN), the leading provider of critical infrastructure services for the Internet and telecommunications networks, today released the first edition of the VeriSign Internet Security Intelligence Briefing. The briefing, http://www.verisign.com/corporate/briefing , draws upon data gathered from VeriSign's operation of key Internet infrastructure services and will be issued quarterly to provide enterprise technology managers and the Internet community at large with a deeper understanding of key Internet usage, security, and fraud trends. - http://finance.lycos.com/home/news/story.asp?story=36051715 ------------------------------ Date: Mon, 13 Oct 2003 13:16:51 -0400 From: Monty Solomon Subject: Lucent, AT&T Wireless to Test New Network CHICAGO, Oct 13 (Reuters) - Telecommunications equipment company Lucent Technologies Inc. (NYSE:LU) on Monday said it was working with AT&T Wireless Services Inc. (NYSE:AWE), the No. 3 U.S. wireless telephone company, to test a next-generation wireless network in Miami. Murray Hill, New Jersey-based Lucent said it is supplying AT&T Wireless with the mobile network based on Wideband Code Division Multiple Access (W-CDMA), which allows users to download video clips and music, send and receive e-mails and surf the Internet at high-speeds. It is also supplying wireless PC modem cards, which connect laptops, personal digital assistants and other mobile devices to the network. This is Lucent's first W-CDMA deployment in North America. Network trials are the first step toward winning large-scale deals. Terms of the deal were not disclosed. - http://finance.lycos.com/home/news/story.asp?story=36054334 ------------------------------ Date: Mon, 13 Oct 2003 13:14:29 -0400 From: Monty Solomon Subject: DoubleClick Sponsored Study Shows Consumer Email Habits DoubleClick Sponsored Study Shows Consumer Email Habits are Adapting In Response to Spam - Legitimate Email Continues to Drive Multi-Channel Purchases as Consumers Increase Use of Bulk Folders and Filtering to Limit Spam - NEW YORK, Oct. 13 /PRNewswire-FirstCall/ -- DoubleClick Inc. (Nasdaq: DCLK), the leading provider of marketing tools for advertisers, direct marketers and web publishers, today announced the results of its fourth annual Consumer Email Study at the DMA Annual Conference in Orlando, Florida. The study reveals an increasing sophistication in consumer usage of email and in fighting spam, and shows, despite the spam crisis, a continued acceptance of legitimate commercial email which continues to drive multi-channel purchasing. How Consumers Are Coping with Spam Consistent with the 2002 study, spam remained the number one concern consumers have about their inbox (89% cited spam as their number one concern). Email volume was up slightly from last year's levels (264 emails per week versus 254 in 2002), although the ratio of spam (56%) remained constant. This may be due an increased use in bulk folders which are now used by 52.9% of respondents versus 48.8% in 2002. Consumers are also demonstrating an increasing sophistication in how they are dealing with spam. A greater number, (65% versus 60% in 2002) are deleting spam without reading it, and only 4% are reading it to determine whether it might be of interest (versus 5% in 2002 and 18% in 2001). When asked about how they are dealing with spam, in addition to the increased use of bulk folders, 36.1% of consumers use a report spam function of their email program, 15.9% have downloaded spam filtering software and 13.7% have created a second email address for making online purchases. - http://finance.lycos.com/home/news/story.asp?story=36051648 ------------------------------ From: Group Special Mobile Subject: Re: Canadians Rise-up With Petition For Nextgen Phone/PDA Date: Sun, 12 Oct 2003 19:00:44 -0700 Organization: Posted via Supernews, http://www.supernews.com Reply-To: look@signature_for_reply_instructions On Sun, 12 Oct 2003 17:10:55 GMT, Gawain wrote: > Also, > manufacturers have certain agreements with carriers which guarantee > exclusivity of certain products (i.e. Audiovox Thera, and Kyocera 7135 > with Bell Mobility, not Rogers). There are technology limitations > too, that's why Nokia has all but given up on making a CDMA phone. Well, it'd be impossible to use a Kyocera on Rogers anyway considering that Rogers is a TDMA/GSM network. Kyocera only works on CDMA networks such as are run by Telus Mobility or Bell Mobility. As far as Nokia giving up on CDMA that's definitely not the case. Nokia has opened a division solely for development of CDMA. They're even in use by some networks already such as Sprint, Alltell, Metro PCS, and US Cellular. To send an email reply send to GSMthemobilestandard (@) yahoo.com ------------------------------ From: bassbozo@yahoo.com (mentzer) Subject: Re: Poor Left Out as Courts Enter Web Age Date: 12 Oct 2003 19:00:43 -0700 Organization: http://groups.google.com Monty Solomon wrote in message news:: > Access to records not equal, critics say [snipped] The "poor" can access the internet for free at the majority of public libraries. ------------------------------ From: Michael D. Sullivan Subject: Re: Defense Department Orders Suppliers to Implement RFID by 2005 Date: Mon, 13 Oct 2003 06:53:25 GMT On Sat, 11 Oct 2003 21:55:45 -0700, Nick Ruark posted the following to comp.dcom.telecom: > The data tags in each system store much more information -- 128 > bytes -- than bar codes, which can store only 1.1 bytes. I not would have expected Computerworld to make this kind of error. UPC bar codes encode considerably more than 1.1 bytes, which would allow for slightly less than nine products in the U.S. consumer marketplace. The standard UPC code has ten decimal digits, plus two additional digits that perform more limited functions (product class and checksum, or something like that). The ten decimal digits, representing 10,000,000,000 possible items, could be stored as ten hexadecimal bytes, but there wouldn't be ten bytes of information (because each byte has a capacity of storing 0-15, but only 0-9 would be used). There is really somewhat more than 9 bytes (8,589,934,592 items) of information. Michael D. Sullivan Bethesda, MD, USA Delete nospam from my address and it won't work. ------------------------------ From: Michael D. Sullivan Subject: Re: Now You're Talking Money Date: Mon, 13 Oct 2003 07:15:17 GMT On Sun, 12 Oct 2003 18:02:03 -0700, Group Special Mobile posted the following to comp.dcom.telecom: > Justin Doebele, 10.13.03 > Our survey of cellular bills in world business centers shows Europe at > a loss. > Hong Kong tycoon Li Ka-shing's Hutchison is offering cut-rate prices > to encourage Europeans to try its new phone service. Not a moment too > soon: Europe, it turns out, is an expensive place to own a cell phone. > To get a sense of global prices for phones, Canvassed its > correspondents around the globe to compare the price of cellular > service in six of the world's major business cities. London and Berlin > hold the dubious distinction of being the world's most expensive > cities in which to use a cell phone, besting even high-cost Tokyo, > while Asian brethren Hong Kong and Singapore look cheap. New York was > the cheapest. > How to explain the differences? For one, Asian markets are more > saturated than Europe's--almost everyone who can buy a phone has one, > so carriers there are engaged in a brutal zero-sum price war for > market share. In Europe there's still some room for growth. A second > factor: the relatively higher prices of doing business in England and > Germany compared with Asia--plus carriers' needing to price services > within the income levels of the local population. > http://www.forbes.com/global/2003/1013/020.html The article compares apples with oranges. It compares the monthly cost of access and 500 minutes of airtime, without considering the fact that in the US, incoming calls count against the airtime, while in most other countries it doesn't. It uses the price from the "dominant" carrier everywhere but NY. It uses widely varying contract terms; in some cases it has no minutes in the contract, and in others it has more than 500. Finally, it lists the price of the phone and the length of the service contract, but doesn't figure the price of the phone, amortized over either the length of the contract or some other period, into the monthly cost of service. I'd be more interested in a comparison of the quotes from the lowest- cost facilities-based providers in each city for the total cost per month over two years for purchase of the phone and 250 minutes of outbound and 250 minutes of inbound calls. Michael D. Sullivan Bethesda, MD, USA Delete nospam from my address and it won't work. ------------------------------ From: okaro@hotmail.com (Osmo Ronkanen) Subject: Re: Will Wireline Telecoms Prevail in The Wireless Challenge? Date: 13 Oct 2003 04:33:16 -0700 Organization: http://groups.google.com Nick Ruark wrote in message news:: > SPECIAL REPORT -- TELECOM > The Wireless Challenge: Can big phone companies prevail in a brave new > world of mobile and the Internet? > Issue Date: October 20, 2003 > Since the days of Alexander Graham Bell, Finland's national phone > company has provided service for customers from the shores of the > Baltic Sea to the upper reaches of Lapland. But last summer the > Helsinki-based telco, now part of $9 billion Swedish-Finnish > TeliaSonera, did something remarkable: It ran radio and newspaper ads > urging its own customers to drop fixed-line voice service and switch > to wireless. That gives somewhat wrong picture of the telephone companies in Finland TeliaSonera or earlier Tele operated its phones only in smaller towns and rural areas. In the urban areas the phones were from the very beginning operated by local companies which each had regional monopoly. These companies also from the major competition to TeliaSonera in the mobile phones. TeliaSonera has about 500,000 fixed lines in Finland, Elisa which handles the mainly the Helsinki area has about 1.2 million and Finnet group* which handles other cities about 800,000. In mobile phones the numbers are 2.5 million, 1.3 million and 700,000 respectively so it makes perfect sense for Sonera to urge people to switch to mobile. * Finnet is formed by all the local phone companies but Elisa. Sonera also had monopoly in long distance and international calls but that's long gone. Before GSM they also had monopoly on mobile phones. > Huh? A phone company asking its customers to cut the cord? To the > cell-crazed Finns, "the idea makes perfect sense," says Jukka Vatanen, > a freelance photographer and part-time taxi driver in Helsinki. That's > because TeliaSonera also operates Finland's No. 1 mobile-phone carrier > and provides speedy digital subscriber line (DSL) connections for > Internet access. Vatanen is the company's ideal customer: Two years > ago he dropped conventional voice service in favor of his cellular > phone, but he kept a line into his house for DSL. That suits the > company just fine. Sonera's long-term strategic plan is to shift all > its voice calls to wireless, reserving the 3.2 million copper lines it > runs into Finnish homes for broadband connections only. As I said Sonera has nowhere near 3.2 million fixed line connections. Osmo ------------------------------ Date: Mon, 13 Oct 2003 20:23:06 +0400 From: Subject: The Cloud Brings International Operators onto its UK Nationwide PRESS RELEASE NETWORK http://www.pressreleasenetwork.com The Cloud Brings International Operators onto its UK Nationwide Wi-Fi Network with WeRoamŪ World's first large-scale deployment of SIM-based services for mobile operators Berne & London - Oct 13, 2003 (PRN): The Cloud, Europe's largest Wi-Fi network, and WeRoamŪ the worlds largest SIM based GSM - Wireless LAN roaming broker, today announce an agreement to connect international operators, ISPs and corporate network providers to The Cloud's network of more than 2,500 Wi-Fi hotspots across the UK. WeRoamŪ by Togewanet AG is the first company to provide an integrated, SIM & EAP SIM-based service for mobile operator users on Wi-Fi networks, enabling mobile operators to easily authenticate and bill users for Wi-Fi usage on their existing GSM bill. The deal will see WeRoamŪ and The Cloud bring a number of European, Asian and American service providers and operators onto The Cloud's network, initially involving six operators, which will drive user traffic across the network. "WeRoam's SIM based solution is the glue between the GSMA Mobile Network Operators and the wireless ISP World, GSM network operators can literally turn on a global wireless LAN service overnight as easy as adding a GPRS Roaming agreement to their network offering, with the addition of The Cloud, Europe's largest WIFI network we will be able to offer the densest network coverage available in the UK" -Joseph Keleher VP Sales & Marketing WeRoamŪ. "This is a very important step in the growth and adoption of Wi-Fi services by operators and service providers," said The Cloud's technical director Niall Murphy. "Until today operators and service providers have been waiting for such a simple, secure, SIM-based access and billing solution that works on a worldwide basis. With this agreement we now enable hundreds of operators in the mobile, corporate and Internet access markets to provide seamless, nationwide Wi-Fi access to their customers, with a unique combination of both security and ease of use for users. As a wholesale network operator it is our mission to enable every customer from every service provider to access any available hotspot. This deal is a big step forward in achieving that vision." For more information, contact: Patrick Herridge - Mantra PR Tel. +44 20 7907 7800 Email: pherridge@mantra-pr.com TOGEWAnet AG Bruno Chiarelli Tel. +41 31 341 1138 Email: Bruno.Chiarelli@togewanet.com ------------------------------ From: scottevans@eudoramail.com (Scott) Subject: Telephone Execs Invade Geneva Date: 13 Oct 2003 10:52:54 -0700 Organization: http://groups.google.com Hi, I read news in www.techieindex.com that more than 80,000 telephone executives are preparing to gather in Geneva this week for the mammoth ITU Telecom World 2003 show, hoping their industry is finally undergoing a long-awaited turnaround. Does anyone know will participate in that show? please inform me. Any one do interested to know more, just read that news. Regards, Scott ------------------------------ From: tomallen7629@hotmail.com (Tom Allen) Subject: Last Laugh! Monkeys are Such Cute Creatures Date: 13 Oct 2003 08:17:05 -0700 Organization: http://groups.google.com Anyone been to a site called called www.dontvoteforgeorge.com ? There's a few comparison pics of the president and chimps; they're dead on target. ------------------------------ 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. --------------------------------------------------------------- Finally, the Digest is funded by gifts from generous readers such as yourself who provide funding in amounts deemed appropriate. Your help is important and appreciated. A suggested donation of fifty dollars per year per reader is considered appropriate. See our address above. Please make at least a single donation to cover the cost of processing your name to the mailing list. If you donate at least fifty dollars per year we will send you our two-CD set of the entire Telecom Archives; this is every word published in this Digest since our beginning in 1981. All opinions expressed herein are deemed to be those of the author. Any organizations listed are for identification purposes only and messages should not be considered any official expression by the organization. End of TELECOM Digest V22 #699 ****************************** From editor@telecom-digest.org Tue Oct 14 13:16:06 2003 Received: (from ptownson@localhost) by massis.lcs.mit.edu (8.11.6p2/8.11.3) id h9EHG6J27414; Tue, 14 Oct 2003 13:16:06 -0400 (EDT) Date: Tue, 14 Oct 2003 13:16:06 -0400 (EDT) From: editor@telecom-digest.org Message-Id: <200310141716.h9EHG6J27414@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 #700 TELECOM Digest Tue, 14 Oct 2003 13:15:00 EDT Volume 22 : Issue 700 Inside This Issue: Editor: Patrick A. Townson and: Lisa Minter Telecom Update (Canada) #403, October 14, 2003 (Angus TeleManagement) Book Review: Intrusion Detection With Snort, Rafee Ur Rehman (Rob Slade) MSN Video (Monty Solomon) Microsoft Sued Over Music Downloads (Monty Solomon) Nextel / Cingular Wireless Local Number Portability (Monty Solomon) T-Mobile to Bring 802.1X to the Masses (Monty Solomon) Re: Canadians Rise-up With Petition For Nextgen Phone/PDA (Gawain) The Sound Of One Hand E-Mailing (Eric Friedebach) USF Recovery Fee (Sid Zafran) Re: Poor Left Out as Courts Enter Web Age (John R. Levine) Wanted: Western Electric Speakerphone and Parts (Craig Newlander) Re: CID and Multi-Trunk PBX Question (Scott Ables) Cheap IVR (Jantje van boven ...) Re: Last Laugh! Monkeys are Such Cute Creatures (Michael Chance) Last Laugh! Snarl Grove on the 87 Billion (Tom Allen) 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, 14 Oct 2003 09:59:31 -0400 From: Angus TeleManagement Subject: Telecom Update (Canada) #403, October 14, 2003 ************************************************************ TELECOM UPDATE ************************************************************ published weekly by Angus TeleManagement Group http://www.angustel.ca Number 403: October 14, 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: ** Fido Enters Local Phone Market ** Bell Plans Internet TV Test ** Nortel to Discontinue Meridian Mail ** Bell Seeks Delay for Montreal Area Code ** Cisco Intros Small Office VOIP System ** Nortel Upgrades BCM, Adds IP to Norstar ** Allstream Expands Global Data Portfolio ** Sierra to Sell Smart Phone ** MTS Bundles TV, Internet ** Bell Mobility Consolidates Pricing ** Rogers AT&T Fields New Prepaid Plans ** Teleglobe Expands European Net ** Bell Intros Single Number Reach ** Leaked Report Shows Losses at Mitel ** AT&T Offers Unlimited Calling to Canada ** Court Allows U.S. to Enforce No-Call Rule ** Spotwave Wins Telus Distribution Deal ** Juniper Revenue Beats Estimates ** Angus Briefings Tomorrow ============================================================ FIDO ENTERS LOCAL PHONE MARKET: Cellular carrier Microcell's new City Fido service, launched in Vancouver on October 9, provides unlimited local calling for $40 a month. The company is promoting it as a substitute for wireline service: because Microcell is also a CLEC, customers can transfer their wireline numbers to a wireless Fido phone. ** Telus Mobility has responded with ads offering Fido customers in Ontario and Quebec a free phone, and promising to match any rate plan Fido offers. BELL PLANS INTERNET TV TEST: Bell Canada will be the first North American company to test delivery of television services based on Microsoft's Internet Protocol TV technology. The telco will use IPTV to offer Bell ExpressVu programming to high-speed Internet customers. NORTEL TO DISCONTINUE MERIDIAN MAIL: Nortel Networks will stop selling its popular Meridian Mail system in Q4 2004, but will continue supporting it until 2009. The company is offering discounts of 45% to 60% to its 50,000 Meridian Mail customers, to encourage them to switch to CallPilot 2.0. BELL SEEKS DELAY FOR MONTREAL AREA CODE: Citing recent data showing reduced demand for new numbers, Bell Canada is proposing to delay the introduction of Area Code 438 from September 2005 to February 2007. The code, approved as an overlay in the 514 area, has been delayed twice before. CISCO INTROS SMALL OFFICE VOIP SYSTEM: Cisco Systems has introduced CallManager Express and Cisco Unity Express, IP- based telephony and voice mail systems for offices with up to 100 employees. Both are integrated into Cisco access routers. NORTEL UPGRADES BCM, ADDS IP TO NORSTAR: Nortel Networks has announced software release 3.5 for Business Communications Manager, its IP-based voice-data system for small and mid- sized offices. The new version increases voice mail and IVR capacity, and enables central browser-based management of multiple systems. ** Nortel also unveiled a gateway that allows existing Norstar systems to connect to H.323 IP trunks. ALLSTREAM EXPANDS GLOBAL DATA PORTFOLIO: Allstream has announced a new set of international ATM and Frame Relay services for which it will provide a one point of contact, common service features, a single contract, and consolidated pricing. SIERRA TO SELL SMART PHONE: Sierra Wireless plans to offer data-enhanced wireless phones, based on Microsoft's Windows Mobile software, that feature both a phone keypad and a flip- open alphabetic thumbpad. The first Voq phone, designed for GSM/GPRS networks, is to appear by next July. MTS BUNDLES TV, INTERNET: Manitoba Telecom Services now offers a $10/month discount for customers that subscribe to both MTS TV and MTS DSL High Speed Internet. The telco says it offers additional discounts to customers who also use its long distance and cellular services. BELL MOBILITY CONSOLIDATES PRICING: The monthly fee for Bell Mobility's four standard rate plans now includes the $6.95/month System Access Fee, which was formerly a separate item on the bill, plus three calling features and 20 free calls. The 200-minute plan is now $35/month. ROGERS AT&T FIELDS NEW PREPAID PLANS: Rogers AT&T's new "Totalphone" is a credit card-based prepaid program including a $139.99 phone and monthly rate plans that start at $30. TELEGLOBE EXPANDS EUROPEAN NET: Teleglobe has added five points of presence in Europe, providing its wholesale customers local IP and voice connections in Paris, Frankfurt, Milan, Amsterdam, and Oslo. BELL INTROS SINGLE NUMBER REACH: Bell Canada has launched Single Number Reach in Toronto, Ottawa/Hull, Kitchener, London, Hamilton, Montreal, and Quebec City. The "virtual telephone number" provides a variety of features including the ability to redirect voice and fax calls to various locations. (See Telecom Update #399) LEAKED REPORT SHOWS LOSSES AT MITEL: The Financial Post says that Mitel lost $111.1 million in the year ended April 27, an improvement on a $179 million loss a year earlier. Revenue fell from $560.2 million to $543.1 million. The Post says it obtained a copy of Mitel's financial reports; as a private company, Mitel does not normally make its results public. AT&T OFFERS UNLIMITED CALLING TO CANADA: It now costs less to call Canada from the U.S. than from within Canada. On October 9, AT&T announced that residential customers can add unlimited calling to Canada to certain of the carrier's U.S. long distance plans for US$5 a month. COURT ALLOWS U.S. TO ENFORCE NO-CALL RULE: A U.S. federal appeals court has authorized the Federal Trade Commission to enforce its telemarketing do-not-call list while the agency appeals a judgment that the rule is unconstitutional. (See Telecom Update #402) SPOTWAVE WINS TELUS DISTRIBUTION DEAL: Telus Mobility has agreed to distribute in-building repeaters from Spotwave, an Ottawa wireless technology company. JUNIPER REVENUE BEATS ESTIMATES: Third-quarter revenue at Juniper Networks was US$172 million, 13% higher than a year ago and $5 million higher than the average of analysts' predictions. Net income was $7.2 million, compared to a loss of $88 million last year. ANGUS BRIEFINGS TOMORROW: This is the last day to register for two exclusive briefings by Angus TeleManagement and Angus Dortmans: ** 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. Download the brochure at www.angustel.ca/Angus-Briefing-2003.pdf. To guarantee that a seat is reserved for you, call 800-263-4415 by 5 pm today. ============================================================ 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: Rob Slade Organization: Vancouver Institute for Research into User Date: Mon, 13 Oct 2003 11:36:11 -0800 Subject: Book Review: "Intrusion Detection with Snort", Rafeeq Ur Rehman BKIDWSAI.RVW 20030902 "Intrusion Detection with Snort", Rafeeq Ur Rehman, 2003, 0-13-140733-3, U$39.99/C$62.99 %A Rafeeq Ur Rehman %C One Lake St., Upper Saddle River, NJ 07458 %D 2003 %G 0-13-140733-3 %I Prentice Hall %O U$39.99/C$62.99 +1-201-236-7139 fax: +1-201-236-7131 %O http://www.amazon.com/exec/obidos/ASIN/0131407333/robsladesinterne http://www.amazon.co.uk/exec/obidos/ASIN/0131407333/robsladesinte-21 %O http://www.amazon.ca/exec/obidos/ASIN/0131407333/robsladesin03-20 %P 263 p. %T "Intrusion Detection with Snort" Chapter one is a very simple introduction to intrusion detection and Snort. Beginning with a brief look at topology, chapter two runs through an installation of Snort, but does not provide much in the way of explanation or recommendation at the various points. The coverage of Snort rule creation and syntax, in chapter three, is clear and reasonable, but could use more examples of malicious packets and how they might be identified. Chapter four does explain some exploit rules, in discussing preprocessors, but briefly, and then goes on to output options. Chapters five, six, and seven describe MySQL, ACID (Analysis Console for Intrusion Databases), and other tools for using Snort in conjunction with collected information. This is a decent printed documentation for the system, but not much more. copyright Robert M. Slade, 2003 BKIDWSAI.RVW 20030902 ====================== (quote inserted randomly by Pegasus Mailer) rslade@vcn.bc.ca slade@victoria.tc.ca rslade@sun.soci.niu.edu My parents went to Llanfairpwllgwyngyllgogerychwyrndrobwllllandysiliogogogoch and all I got was this stupid coverall. http://victoria.tc.ca/techrev or http://sun.soci.niu.edu/~rslade ------------------------------ Date: Tue, 14 Oct 2003 02:06:57 -0400 From: Monty Solomon Subject: MSN Video Broadband Content for All: MSN to Deliver Advanced High-Speed Video to Consumers Beta Version of MSN Video Debuts Today With Exclusive NBC, MSNBC.com Content; Broad Availability Set for Winter REDMOND, Wash., Oct. 14 /PRNewswire-FirstCall/ -- The MSN(R) network of Internet services today announced a bold step in its quest to solidify its position as the best online location for broadband consumers in the United States with the debut of a high-quality broadband video player with no monthly subscriptions, no annual fees -- no charge at all to consumers. Unveiled by MSNBC.com President Scott Moore at Streaming Media CA 2003 Conference and Exhibition, MSN Video will be broadly available across the online network this winter in the United States only, along with a range of other new MSN services for broadband consumers. MSN will support the rich broadband content offering with revenue generated from the unique video advertising services it will offer advertisers. Unlike other online networks that charge consumers for broadband video services, MSN will offer free access to high-resolution, on-demand news, sports, entertainment and other video, including programming from NBC News and MSNBC.com that isn't available anywhere else on the Web. Additional content from a wealth of providers will be added to the service for the consumer launch this winter. Through this offering, which will be integrated throughout the MSN network, MSN will provide advertisers with unmatched access to sought- after broadband consumers via video and contextual ads. - http://finance.lycos.com/home/news/story.asp?story=36059901 ------------------------------ Date: Tue, 14 Oct 2003 02:19:21 -0400 From: Monty Solomon Subject: Microsoft Sued Over Music Downloads By John Borland Staff Writer, CNET News.com A small New York company has sued Microsoft, charging that the software giant's new music download service in Europe infringes on a patent it owns nearly 20 years old. E-Data, a Long Island-based company that's focused largely on licensing its patents, contends that Microsoft, Internet service provider Tiscali and digital music company OD2 are collectively trespassing on its rights with their new music download services, recently released in several European countries. E-Data is asking that the services, variously called MSN Music Club and Tiscali Music Club, be shut down until a patent licensing deal is worked out. http://news.com.com/2100-1027-5090679.html ------------------------------ Date: Mon, 13 Oct 2003 16:07:14 -0400 From: Monty Solomon Subject: Nextel / Cingular Wireless Local Number Portability Nextel and Cingular Finalize Operating Agreement to Facilitate Efficient Porting of Phone Numbers Between the Carriers RESTON, Va. & ATLANTA--(BUSINESS WIRE)--Oct. 13, 2003-- Companies Continue Progress on Pledges to Make Wireless Local Number Portability a Smooth Experience for Customers in Spite of Lack of Direction from the FCC Nextel Communications Inc. (NASDAQ:NXTL) and Cingular Wireless today announced the completion of a Service Level Agreement (SLA) that defines the process to which the carriers will adhere when porting phone numbers after the Federal Communication Commission's (FCC) Wireless Local Number Portability (WLNP) mandate is effective on November 24, 2003. Both Nextel and Cingular are committed to making the porting process a positive experience and worked cooperatively to agree on standards that are in the best interest of their customers. The FCC recently stated that wireless carriers must port numbers even if they have not reached agreement on how to do it. Nextel and Cingular believe that consumers will be better served if wireless carriers pursue agreements with every partner with which they might port numbers in the top 100 Metropolitan Statistical Areas (MSAs) so that consumers will not experience confusion and delay. - http://finance.lycos.com/home/news/story.asp?story=36055976 ------------------------------ Date: Mon, 13 Oct 2003 19:03:42 -0400 From: Monty Solomon Subject: T-Mobile to Bring 802.1X to the Masses By Eric Griffith T-Mobile Hotspot, the public Wi-Fi arm of Deutsche Telekom AG's (Quote, Chart) T-Mobile USA, plans to address the issue of public access security by introducing 802.1X authentication as standard at all the company's hotspot locations around the United States by next year. End-users at hotspots are perhaps among the most vulnerable in the world of Wi-Fi. Public access networks usually require security encryption such as wired equivalent privacy (WEP) be turned off. Not to mention that if you have a laptop with File and Printer Sharing turned on, you may be wide open to anyone else in the hotspot venue. This is scary for the user certainly, but mind-numbingly terrifying for the company that user works for -- that laptop may be filled with company information. 802.1X authentication at the hotspots will protect data on the wireless connection between the user and the access point. Pete Thompson, the director of T-Mobile Hotspots, says the company direction is "very much going after the enterprise space.... there are two decision makers at the enterprise: IT managers and mobile pros. We've traditionally gone after mobile pros, but we'll now go after IT managers who control their equipment and access." T-Mobile claims that 88 percent of hotspot usage at its locations is from mobile professionals. http://www.wi-fiplanet.com/news/article.php/3091051 ------------------------------ Reply-To: Gawain From: Gawain Subject: Re: Canadians Rise-up With Petition For Nextgen Phone/PDA Organization: SBC http://yahoo.sbc.com Date: Mon, 13 Oct 2003 19:18:14 GMT Group Special Mobile wrote in message news:telecom22.699.15@telecom-digest.org: > On Sun, 12 Oct 2003 17:10:55 GMT, Gawain wrote: >> Also, >> manufacturers have certain agreements with carriers which guarantee >> exclusivity of certain products (i.e. Audiovox Thera, and Kyocera 7135 >> with Bell Mobility, not Rogers). There are technology limitations >> too, that's why Nokia has all but given up on making a CDMA phone. > Well, it'd be impossible to use a Kyocera on Rogers anyway considering > that Rogers is a TDMA/GSM network. Kyocera only works on CDMA > networks such as are run by Telus Mobility or Bell Mobility. > As far as Nokia giving up on CDMA that's definitely not the case. > Nokia has opened a division solely for development of CDMA. They're > even in use by some networks already such as Sprint, Alltell, Metro > PCS, and US Cellular. The other reason why Kyocera only makes CDMA phones is because they purchased that division from Qualcomm. My point is that manufacturers provide exclusivity for certain products to certain providers. As for Nokia, they are light years behind the other manufacturers in CDMA handsets. They have ONE, handset available for Sprint PCS, ALLTEL (a 3000 series, about two generations old) and US Cellular is still peddling the 5165 in it's TDMA networks. They have essentially one model. If Nokia had their stuff in a container, Verizon would still be marketing them, unfortunately, the handsets do not pass the stringent standards that are in place with VZW. ------------------------------ From: Eric Friedebach Subject: The Sound Of One Hand E-Mailing Date: Mon, 13 Oct 2003 14:26:35 -0500 Organization: Fish heads, fish heads, rolly polly fish heads. Stephen Manes, 10.13.03, Forbes.com NEW YORK - The standalone organizer is not dead yet, but Handspring's new Treo 600 smartphone is one more stake through its heart. Like previous Treos, this far sleeker model puts your address book in your phone where it belongs. Then it throws in wireless e-mail and Web browsing, along with the potential to do just about everything a Palm organizer can. The new design makes it easy to use the unit with one hand -- like, well, a phone. In the applications you're likely to use most, a five-way navigation button lets you travel around the display and select items without putting smudgy fingers on the screen or reaching for the stylus -- once you learn a few odd conventions. Every key on the board is within reach of a single thumb. You can even assign individual keys to favorite numbers, Web sites and applications; holding down the F key might call up Forbes.com, B might phone your broker and S could summon your shrink. http://www.forbes.com/2003/10/13/cz_sm_1013tentech.html Eric Friedebach ------------------------------ From: Sid Zafran Subject: USF Recovery Fee Date: Mon, 13 Oct 2003 21:20:04 GMT Organization: EarthLink Inc. -- http://www.EarthLink.net I have been disputing the USF recovery fee on my invoices from Earthlink DSL. After having discussed and written to Earthlink about this matter, the following summary facts apply to my billing: Earthlink is billing me on behalf of SBC who provides my local telephone service; I am already paying SBC a USF recovery fee for the low frequency telephone signal on my local line; Earthlink is collecting a USF recovery fee surcharge for the high frequency DSL signal on my local line; All of SBC's customers using Earthlink DSL services in Los Angeles County, California, are being billed $0.66 monthly for USF recovery. I was informed verbally by SBC that no additional taxes would appear on my telephone bill if I used their DSL services. My billing would stay the same regarding taxes and surcharges. I am presently paying SBC a monthly USF recovery fee of $0.45. I believe that that SBC is shifting more than an equitable share of their USF recovery fee to Earthlink customers such as myself. This may be a violation of FCC requirements. It also gives SBC an unfair competitive advantage in providing DSL services. Note: FCC summary requirements may be seen on the following Web page: http://www.fcc.gov/cgb/customerfacts/usfincrease.html ------------------------------ From: johnl@iecc.com (John R. Levine) Subject: Re: Poor Left Out as Courts Enter Web Age Date: 13 Oct 2003 21:00:12 -0400 Organization: I.E.C.C., Trumansburg NY USA >> Access to records not equal, critics say > [snipped] > The "poor" can access the internet for free at the majority of public > libraries. Yes, but that's not enough to get access to court records. For Federal court records, for example, you need an account on their PACER system which charges per-page. The per-page charges are low, but you do need to write them and set up the account and wait for them to mail you your account code. I have a PACER account, but I don't know of anyone else with an account who isn't a lawyer. Other courts have systems of their own; signing up for them is daunting. Regards, John Levine johnl@iecc.com Primary Perpetrator "The Internet for Dummies", Information Superhighwayman wanna-be http://iecc.com/johnl Sewer Commissioner "More Wiener schnitzel, please", said Tom, revealingly. [TELECOM Digest Editor's Note: But without the 'web page connection', wouldn't poor people have to still go to the courthouse during the court's business hours, and still have to pay the per-page copying fee required by the court to get the papers they wanted? It would seem to me the new system is still superior since poor people have a more flexible schedule to view what they want (anytime on the web) and a more flexible payment schedule (via Pacer billing). PAT] ------------------------------ From: Craig Newlander Subject: Wanted: Western Electric Speakerphone and Parts Date: Mon, 13 Oct 2003 23:16:28 -0500 Please respond if you have Western Electric 4a speaker phones. I am trying to locate some for my clients. Thanks. ------------------------------ From: Scott Ables Subject: Re: CID and Multi-Trunk PBX Question Date: Mon, 13 Oct 2003 22:22:22 -0700 Organization: Posted via Supernews, http://www.supernews.com The service provider who provides the trunk sends caller ID to the network. You left off a crucial piece of info though. You used the word "trunk", but didn't indicate what that was: CO Trunk like ground start POTS (sometimes called a DS0), DS1 or T1, or PRI. All have different options when it comes to sending your caller ID info to the PSTN (public switched telephone network). DS0 These connect to CO Trunk cards in your PBX but they are simply two wire POTS circuits. If it's loop start you can plug it into an analog phone, it's the same thing, but often these are ground-start, which is a different signalling that won't work on an analog handset. PBX's like ground-start because it reduces glare, i.e. the collision of out and inbound calls on the same trunk. Regarding caller ID, Qwest or any other carrier, sends the number associated with the circuit to the network. You have no choice, unless you subscribe to caller-ID blocking or enter the per call block * code. When a trunk is requested of the PBX (or KSU), then every call originating on that trunk would appear to destination caller ID boxes as having that number, unless caller ID blocking was enabled, in which case it would show as unavailable, blocked, or some such. DS1/T1 You don't have a lot of choices. Since caller ID is an analog service and DS1/T1 is a digital service caller ID is very limited. Depending on the CO switch type (5E, DMS, EWSD, etc), you get either one main DN per T1 or one per Trunk Group. Historically the BTN is specified as the main DN in the switch pgming, and this is the number sent to the PSTN for caller ID identification, but ONLY IF YOU"VE PURCHASED THIS SERVICE FROM THE CARRIER. Although they may not charge for it (that would depend on carrier and tariff), they do have to turn it on, and load the right number in the field. PRI This provides the most flexibility, but then again, you pay more. The PBX sends to the CO switch in the ISDN call setup msg the originating number. This can be anything the PBX wants to send since it's based on a tranlation table in the PBX, but it usually makes the most sense to send the 7 or 10 digit DID associated with that handset, else you are asking for problems, because carriers will typically compare the incoming number from the PBX against a translation table of valid DIDs to ensure the DID belongs to the subscriber, to make it harder to appear like someone they are not. Then based on CO switch programming either the main BTN is sent to the network for caller ID or the validated originating number sent by the PBX is passed on to the PSTN for caller ID. It could be that carriers that don't validate the incoming number and if the PBX is sending garbage that the caller ID would be garbage or something like a trunk identifier. That was a long winded answer. Qwest cannot display any number you ask them to. They'll display what they are supposed to based on the tariffed service you've purchased. If you call them and ask, knowing the originating DID and trunk they should be able to identify what should be happening, but then that's why I work for a CLEC, getting Qwest to do what you want when you want can be a trick in itself. Hope that helps, Scott Ables Product Development Integra Telecom erik B wrote in message news:telecom22.697.9@telecom-digest.org: > We have a PBX with multiple trunks. Whenever a call is placed from > inside the building it always shows up as the same number to the > person called. > The number that shows up is one of our trunks. > We want it to show up as our main number (the one published in the > phone book). > If I am not mistaken, the CID is taken care of by Qwest (for qwest > customers anyways) at their switch, not at our equipment. > So my question is this, Qwest should be able to display any number we > ask them to right? > Thanks for any input. > eric ------------------------------ From: Jantje van boven Subject: Cheap IVR Date: Tue, 14 Oct 2003 17:12:31 +0200 Organization: Planet Internet Dear NG - readers, I'm looking for a cheap IVR solution. I don't need a huge system: Answer call: Menu : 1 Talk to a live agent, 2 Our address, 3 leave message 1 : either talk through the pc's speakers or transfer to other modem; 2 : just a voice message that say's where we are and how to contact us; 3 : new menu: 1 message for accounting, 2 message for sales, 3 message for support. That's all. The systems I looked at cost way to much for a small home-worker. Or is there a solution that I can do it myself? (I know a little bit of programming but don't really know how to interact with the modem. The software can be for windows or linux. Thanks in advance, Jan. PS: Sorry, English is not my native language. ------------------------------ From: Michael Chance Subject: Re: Last Laugh! Monkeys are Such Cute Creatures Organization: SBC http://yahoo.sbc.com Date: Tue, 14 Oct 2003 10:49:17 GMT In article , tomallen7629 @hotmail.com says: > Anyone been to a site called called www.dontvoteforgeorge.com ? > There's a few comparison pics of the president and chimps; they're > dead on target. So this group's position is that you shouldn't vote for anyone who looks remotely like a funny looking animal? Well, that rules out pretty much all of the Democrat candidates. Michael Chance [Lisa Minter note: I thought the group's position was that you should vote for Garry the chimp to give the little guy a chance to show he could do better than the current resident president now in power. Lisa M.] ------------------------------ From: tomallen7629@hotmail.com (Tom Allen) Subject: Last Laugh! Snarl Grove on the 87 Billion Date: 14 Oct 2003 04:31:50 -0700 Organization: http://groups.google.com http://www.dontvoteforgeorge.com/snarlgrove.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. --------------------------------------------------------------- Finally, the Digest is funded by gifts from generous readers such as yourself who provide funding in amounts deemed appropriate. Your help is important and appreciated. A suggested donation of fifty dollars per year per reader is considered appropriate. See our address above. Please make at least a single donation to cover the cost of processing your name to the mailing list. If you donate at least fifty dollars per year we will send you our two-CD set of the entire Telecom Archives; this is every word published in this Digest since our beginning in 1981. All opinions expressed herein are deemed to be those of the author. Any organizations listed are for identification purposes only and messages should not be considered any official expression by the organization. End of TELECOM Digest V22 #700 ******************************