From editor@telecom-digest.org Fri Mar 26 23:51:05 2004 Received: (from ptownson@localhost) by massis.lcs.mit.edu (8.11.6p2/8.11.3) id i2R4p5b06134; Fri, 26 Mar 2004 23:51:05 -0500 (EST) Date: Fri, 26 Mar 2004 23:51:05 -0500 (EST) From: editor@telecom-digest.org Message-Id: <200403270451.i2R4p5b06134@massis.lcs.mit.edu> X-Authentication-Warning: massis.lcs.mit.edu: ptownson set sender to editor@telecom-digest.org using -f To: ptownson Approved: patsnewlist Subject: TELECOM Digest V23 #144 TELECOM Digest Fri, 26 Mar 2004 23:50:00 EST Volume 23 : Issue 144 Inside This Issue: Editor: Patrick A. Townson VOIP Mentioned on Fox News Tonight (TELECOM Digest Editor) Internet Phones: Clear Winners (VOIP News) VoIP Heads for the Mainstream (VOIP News) Norstar Voicemail Toll Fraud Using 1010 Dial Arounds (Marc Bequette) Re: Correcting 411/555-1212 Info; Unlisted Service (Nick Landsberg) Re: 110 V Cord and USB Cable Standards? (Gene S. Berkowitz) Re: 110 V Cord and USB Cable Standards? (John Levine) Mythtv PVRs For Sale (Monty Solomon) All contents here are copyrighted by Patrick Townson and the individual writers/correspondents. Articles may be used in other journals or newsgroups, provided the writer's name and the Digest are included in the fair use quote. By using -any name or email address- included herein for -any- reason other than responding to an article herein, you agree to pay a hundred dollars to the recipients of the email. =========================== Addresses herein are not to be added to any mailing list, nor to be sold or given away without explicit written consent. Chain letters, viruses, porn, spam, and miscellaneous junk are definitely unwelcome. We must fight spam for the same reason we fight crime: not because we are naive enough to believe that we will ever stamp it out, but because we do not want the kind of world that results when no one stands against crime. Geoffrey Welsh =========================== See the bottom of this issue for subscription and archive details and the name of our lawyer; other stuff of interest. ---------------------------------------------------------------------- Date: Fri, 26 Mar 2004 23:22:16 EST From: TELECOM Digest Editor Subject: VOIP Mentioned on Fox News Tonight VOIP phones in general, but specifically Vonage, since they are the leaders in that area at present, were the topic of discussion Friday night news at 9 PM on KOKI, Channel 23, Fox in Tulsa. The Fox report said that indeed, 'full phone service' (meaning all the bells ahd whistles on local and long distance service) was much less expensive on Vonage than SBC (the local telco of record in Tulsa) or various other CLECs. They quoted a typical price for SBC 'full service' of $53 per month versus the $35 or so from Vonage. But, they pointed out the one major (for many people) problem with VOIP was that E-911 was unreliable or non-existent. They did admit that 'for those folks who rarely if ever travel out of the area or take their computer along, this poses little or no problems, since the Safety Point of Presence (?) system used by Vonage and other VOIPs is reasonably accurate.' Fox got their terms wrong a little bit, but the idea is mostly accurate. For example, take my situation: I cannot percieve a time when I would travel somewhere and want to take along the ATA box *and* need to use 911 at the distant location. So it all works pretty well for me. However Fox had a demonstration of someone making a 'test call' on their Vonage to the 911 center; something that Vonage strongly discourages doing. Fox also noted that 'as SBC continues to price itself out of the market for so many Tulsa residents, Vonage begins looking more and more like a good alternative for many folks.' To try a month of Vonage free, ask for an e-coupon and see if it works well for you also. ptownson@telecom-digest.org Patrick Townson ------------------------------ From: VOIP News Date: Fri, 26 Mar 2004 21:02:38 -0500 Subject: Internet Phones: Clear Winners Reply-To: VoIPnews@yahoogroups.com http://www.pcworld.com/news/article/0,aid,115053,00.asp With improved call quality and low rates, the best Net phone services may finally be ready to replace your Baby Bell. By Jeff Bertolucci From the May 2004 issue of PC World magazine Internet phones have come a long way since the early days. A few years ago, you had to use software and a PC microphone to initiate a call from your PC to a regular phone. And you probably encountered some of the most garbled, inaudible conversations since tin can met string. Thanks to advanced technology, the call quality of Internet phones has improved dramatically. The upsurge in affordable broadband service, combined with a new breed of hardware adapters, has led to a slew of Internet phone (aka Voice-over-Internet-Protocol, or VoIP) services eager to woo you away from your phone company. The Internet phone market includes telecommunications titans such as AT&T and Time Warner Cable, Net phone veterans like Dialpad and Net2Phone, and upstarts like VoicePulse and Vonage. So is the Internet phone a viable alternative to your trusty landline? To find out, we tested eight broadband-phone services (see the chart "Internet-Phone Calling Plans: Choose Your Provider Carefully"). For one month we made a series of local, long-distance, and international calls, morning, noon, and night, and rated each service on its ease of use, audio clarity, and value for the money. Our verdict: Net phones vary considerably in price and performance, but the best--VoicePulse and Vonage--offer near-landline dependability, as well as a host of advanced features (voice mail, call forwarding, and so on) for much less money. (And as of press time, Net-phone customers pay minimal taxes and surcharges, in part because of the ongoing regulatory debate.) Still, we did encounter some setup problems and choppy calls. Full story at: http://www.pcworld.com/news/article/0,aid,115053,00.asp How to Distribute VoIP Throughout a Home: http://michigantelephone.mi.org/distribute.html If you live in Michigan, subscribe to the MI-Telecom group: http://groups.yahoo.com/group/MI-Telecom/ ------------------------------ From: VOIP News Date: Fri, 26 Mar 2004 19:44:14 -0500 Subject: VoIP Heads for the Mainstream Reply-To: VoIPnews@yahoogroups.com http://crm-daily.newsfactor.com/story.xhtml?story_title=VoIP_Heads_for_the_Mainstream&story_id=23554&category=contact_centers By Erika Morphy Contact Center Today "Once consumers realize how easy it can be to make calls on an Internet broadband connection -- basically, all one has to do is install an adapter to make calls on a regular phone -- adoption will increase significantly," says Jon Arnold, telecommunications analyst with Frost & Sullivan. For the most part, VoIP has been a tool to help call-center managers deploy agents more efficiently at lower cost. Some brave businesses also have deployed this technology, but they are relatively few in number. Now, though, that is set to change, as AT&T has announced plans to accelerate and expand its VoIP rollout for business users. Full story at: http://crm-daily.newsfactor.com/story.xhtml?story_title=VoIP_Heads_for_the_Mainstream&story_id=23554&category=contact_centers [TELECOM Digest Editor's Note: You know, Jack, recently you commented that you were among the first generation of Americans to have never sent or recieved a 'telegram' and you suggest that the children of today may well be among the first generation of Americans to have never seen a wired, landlane phone. It really would be great if we could, in our lifetime (well, maybe for some of you; I am such an Olde Farte) see a total end to the tyranny of the telephone company. PAT] ------------------------------ From: ringding@comcast.net (Marc Bequette) Subject: Norstar Voicemail Toll Fraud Using 1010 Dial Arounds Date: 26 Mar 2004 13:49:29 -0800 Organization: http://groups.google.com Is this a place I can ask for help? I work for a building of executive office suites, and our Norstar was raped by intruders -- they were calling into our system and then from the voicemail they could get dialtone and were using 1010-nnn carriers to make international calls (on our dime!). I have tons of raw data form the CTA100 utilizing call accounting software, but DISA was never enabled, and the RAD has been unplugged for months ... yet someone still must have had some form of a "chinger" that gave them dialtone. They at first tried dialing 9-011 international calls, but when they found that was blocked (via Norstar destination codes), they used 9-1010-nnn dialaround numbers to call HOURS AND HOURS of calls to India, Pakistan, Phillipines, Kyrgyzstan and a few other countries. The intruders "spoofed" their caller IDs, of course. I have TONS of documentation on this, as well as all the blocks and restrictions we tried to use to stop the calls. NOTHING WORKED!! Blocking our voicemail line (internal extention 2000) from dialing more than 7 digits finally seemed to stop the calls. Or, they may have coincidently stopped because the 1010 carriers wouldnt allow any more calls (since they never received payment). I have a HUMUNGOUS "calls database" in raw format and in archived DB. Our vendors all were baffeled -- about 5 diffrent techs tried to stop these calls, all of them saying they couldn't tell me how it was being done -- they had theories, but when I asked them to show me, they couldn't do it. These techs were Nortel certified. I am wondering if anyone with a Norstar ICS system going over a PRI (no csu/dsu) out there has heard of this happening, or knows who should be held liable for this fraud. Our Norstar/Voicemail system is RENTED, and the vendor denies responsibility, as does the company that we PAY to 'maintain and update' the system (maintnance contract company). Our Local/LD carrier claims that we owe them for "INTERNATIONAL TERMINATION FEES" from these calls, and since they claimed to not be able to block 1010-nnn calls from the CO, they want us to pay them, and the worst thing is they want a HUGE amount of money just to "terminate" the 1010 calls. Please if you have heard of such a situation, or you know the federal/state laws on toll fraud like this, or better yet, if you know that Norstar systems have a "BUG" that allows this abuse and maybe there is a class action out there on this, please please contact me. Even if you know where I can inquire on this and get some official answers, please let me know. It would be greatly appreciated. Please contact me at ringding@comcast.net if you can help. Thanks, Marc Bequette ------------------------------ From: Nick Landsberg Reply-To: hukolau@NOSPAM.att.net Subject: Re: Correcting 411/555-1212 Info; Unlisted Service Date: Sat, 27 Mar 2004 01:50:02 GMT Organization: AT&T Worldnet Lisa Hancock wrote: > Charles Cryderman wrote >> the problem was with hitting the target his response was "I don't >> know, they are leaving here 5 by 5. > In a recent TV show, one of the characters, when asked how things > were, replied "5 by 5" meaning ok. The newgroup for that show was > flooded with inquiries asking what that meant. (The show was oriented > toward young people). Dern ... this brings back ancient memories. I believe (but am not sure) that the "5 by 5" term cam from radio DX'ers (folks who would try to pick up distant radio channels on their AM radios.) There was a code, which I recall as "SINPO". I think the "S" stood for signal strength, but don't remember what the rest stood for. If the station was coming in clear as a bell you would rate that as all characteristics being a 5, thus the "five by five." (Check a ham-radio group for more info.) As a kid, I would try to pick up AM stations from wherever, log what I had heard, and send them a postcard about it using the SINPO rating. Most folks at the stations were nice and would respond with a postcard of their own with the stations logo and such. I had my corkboard full of these. I was in NYC at the time and picked up KFAX in San Francisco once (but only once.) "It is impossible to make anything foolproof because fools are so ingenious" - A. Bloch ------------------------------ From: Gene S. Berkowitz Subject: Re: 110 V Cord and USB Cable Standards? Date: Fri, 26 Mar 2004 21:10:15 -0500 In article , benficus@hotmail.com says... > Speaking of which ... > Last time I was at Best Buy, they were telling me that I should buy > the expensive "gold" USB connector for my printer ... the other cable > will affect the quality of my prints. > Any thoughts, opinions? > [TELECOM Digest Editor's Note: Radio Shack *used to* (maybe still > does in some places) make that claim about the expensive gold-plated > connectors in almost all applications, coax connectors, etc. I have > never been able to figure out *why* the gold-plated versions of the > various size/type connectors are supposed to be better. Our local > Radio Shack store no longer makes that claim, however. PAT] Because gold doesn't oxidize, so the resistance of the connector doesn't change with time. ... and, no, it won't makes a gnat's whisker difference in a print, because the data is digital, and corruption of the signal would likely cause it to not print at all, or print gibberish. ... as to the 110V plug, those are standardized also. The figure-8 is sometimes squared off on one side to make it polarized. --Gene ------------------------------ Date: 27 Mar 2004 03:44:50 -0000 From: John Levine Subject: Re: 110 V Cord and USB Cable Standards? Organization: I.E.C.C., Trumansburg NY USA > Last time I was at Best Buy, they were telling me that I should buy > the expensive "gold" USB connector for my printer ... the other cable > will affect the quality of my prints. > Any thoughts, opinions? USB is digital, not analog. Even if gold contacts improve signal quality, which is debatable, it doesn't matter. Any cable will do. ------------------------------ Date: Fri, 26 Mar 2004 16:33:25 -0500 From: Monty Solomon Subject: Mythtv PVRs for sale http://www.boingboing.net/2004/03/26/mythtv_pvrs_for_sale.html posted by Cory Doctorow at 04:12:29 AM An Aussie company is shipping prebuilt mythtv-based PVRs. These are souped-up TiVo-like boxen built out of commodity hardware with all the features that I want, not just the ones that make the Luddites who run the movie studios comfortable. This analysis of the features (including several features that the manufacturer lamely decided to "hide") makes this box pretty drool-worthy indeed. Link (via /.) http://www.boingboing.net/2004/03/26/mythtv_pvrs_for_sale.html A quick analysis of d1.com.au's Home Media Center 'update iso' http://miscname.com/public/HMC/ Home Media Centre http://www.d1.com.au/hmc/ A Ready-Made MythTV Set-Top Box in Australia http://slashdot.org/article.pl?sid=04/03/25/2222240 ------------------------------ TELECOM Digest is an electronic journal devoted mostly but not exclusively to telecommunications topics. It is circulated anywhere there is email, in addition to various telecom forums on a variety of networks such as Compuserve and America On Line, Yahoo Groups, and other forums. It is also gatewayed to Usenet where it appears as the moderated newsgroup 'comp.dcom.telecom'. TELECOM Digest is a not-for-profit, mostly non-commercial educational service offered to the Internet by Patrick Townson. All the contents of the Digest are compilation-copyrighted. You may reprint articles in some other media on an occasional basis, but please attribute my work and that of the original author. Contact information: Patrick Townson/TELECOM Digest Post Office Box 50 Independence, KS 67301 Phone: 620-402-0134 Fax 1: 775-255-9970 Fax 2: 530-309-7234 Fax 3: 208-692-5145 Email: editor@telecom-digest.org Subscribe: telecom-subscribe@telecom-digest.org Unsubscribe:telecom-unsubscribe@telecom-digest.org This Digest is the oldest continuing e-journal about telecomm- unications on the Internet, having been founded in August, 1981 and published continuously since then. Our archives are available for your review/research. We believe we are the oldest e-zine/mailing list on the internet in any category! URL information: http://telecom-digest.org Anonymous FTP: mirror.lcs.mit.edu/telecom-archives/archives/ (or use our mirror site: ftp.epix.net/pub/telecom-archives) Email <==> FTP: telecom-archives@telecom-digest.org Send a simple, one line note to that automated address for a help file on how to use the automatic retrieval system for archives files. You can get desired files in email. ************************************************************************* * TELECOM Digest is partially funded by a grant from * * Judith Oppenheimer, President of ICB Inc. and purveyor of accurate * * 800 & Dot Com News, Intelligence, Analysis, and Consulting. * * http://ICBTollFree.com, http://1800TheExpert.com * * Views expressed herein should not be construed as representing * * views of Judith Oppenheimer or ICB Inc. * ************************************************************************* ICB Toll Free News. Contact information is not sold, rented or leased. One click a day feeds a person a meal. Go to http://www.thehungersite.com Copyright 2004 ICB, Inc. and TELECOM Digest. All rights reserved. Our attorney is Bill Levant, of Blue Bell, PA. --------------------------------------------------------------- Finally, the Digest is funded by gifts from generous readers such as yourself who provide funding in amounts deemed appropriate. Your help is important and appreciated. A suggested donation of fifty dollars per year per reader is considered appropriate. See our address above. Please make at least a single donation to cover the cost of processing your name to the mailing list. If you donate at least fifty dollars per year we will send you our two-CD set of the entire Telecom Archives; this is every word published in this Digest since our beginning in 1981. All opinions expressed herein are deemed to be those of the author. Any organizations listed are for identification purposes only and messages should not be considered any official expression by the organization. End of TELECOM Digest V23 #144 ******************************