From editor@telecom-digest.org Fri May 7 02:01:16 2004 Received: (from ptownson@localhost) by massis.lcs.mit.edu (8.11.6p3/8.11.3) id i4761GL00576; Fri, 7 May 2004 02:01:16 -0400 (EDT) Date: Fri, 7 May 2004 02:01:16 -0400 (EDT) From: editor@telecom-digest.org Message-Id: <200405070601.i4761GL00576@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 #229 TELECOM Digest Fri, 7 May 2004 01:55:00 EDT Volume 23 : Issue 229 Inside This Issue: Editor: Patrick A. Townson NIST Offers Guidelines For Securing VOIP (VOIP News) Re: Missouri Moves to Ban 'UnFees' - Part of Larger Backlash (CharlesH) Re: Norvergence (Dave M) 3-D TV is Closer Than You Think (Monty Solomon) Sharing Digital Resources: Web-Wise 2004 (Monty Solomon) Virtuoso MC-500 (Monty Solomon) Canada to Criminalize Watching Foreign TV, Radio Programming (Mark Crispin) Re: Winning the Election The Republican Way (Dave Garland) Re: Winning the Election The Republican Way (jmayson@nyx.net) Re: Winning the Election The Republican Way (Matt J. Britt) Re: Winning the Election The Republican Way (David) Re: Winning the Election The Republican Way (Gary Novosielski) Re: Winning the Election The Republican Way (ranck@vt.edu) Re: Newspaper Promotes Nonsense (Paul Vader) 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. ---------------------------------------------------------------------- From: VOIP News Date: Thu, 06 May 2004 17:01:20 -0400 Subject: NIST Offers Guidelines For Securing VOIP Reply-To: VoIPnews@yahoogroups.com http://gcn.com/vol1_no1/daily-updates/25844-1.html By William Jackson GCN Staff Voice over IP technology offers potential cost savings and increased functionality, but it also may introduce new security headaches for systems administrators, the National Institute of Standards and Technology has warned. "VOIP adds a number of complications to existing network technology, and these problems are magnified by security considerations," the agency said in a draft version of security guidelines released today for public comment. Full story at: http://gcn.com/vol1_no1/daily-updates/25844-1.html 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: hoch@exemplary.invalid (CharlesH) Subject: Re: Missouri Moves to Ban 'UnFees' - Part of Larger Backlash Date: 6 May 2004 19:58:12 GMT Organization: http://newsguy.com In article , Michael D. Sullivan wrote: > Is there some reason this ought to come out of the > carriers' profits, if any (or increase their losses), instead of coming > from the pockets of the customers who now have the ability to port their > numbers? I don't think that anyone objects to the companies recovering the cost of these various assessments. What people object to is that the product is advertised at one price, but the net total the customer pays is substantially larger. Why aren't these fees just rolled into the advertised price, just as are other costs of doing business? The answer is easy: the low advertised price draws in the customer, and they hope that the customer will not back out as all these additional charges are added in at the time of sale. ------------------------------ From: dave@mshop.com (Dave M) Subject: Re: Norvergence Date: 6 May 2004 13:50:30 -0700 Organization: http://groups.google.com We have been a Norvergence customer since 4/29/03. Since then: 1. Our cell phones have been disconnected five times by AT&T wireless because Norvergence wasn't paying the bills. 2. Without warning, Norvergence switched carriers on one of our phones from AT&T wireless to T-Mobile leaving my employee without a working phone on a trip. 3. We have had two collection agencies contact us to try to get bills paid that were the responsibility of Norvergence. 4. The leasing company is charging us insurance on the entire $16000 lease even thought the replacement cost of the "matrix box" (actually a WatchGuard SOHO 6 router) is only $300. These are the facts. You can make your decision accordingly, but I think the more you research the company, the less likely you will be to sign a contract. Tim Trump wrote in message news:: > Our company is also evaluating this company as a telecom provider > which I now understand is a reseller? > Somewhat disturbing but would like additional info if anyone has it. > Best regards, > Tim Trump > Project Manager > Dominion Metallurgical, Inc. > 5304 Valleypark Drive > Roanoke, VA 24019 > Ph: 540/362-8500 > Fx: 540/362-8362 > email: ttrump@dom-met.com > MSN messenger: domettimt@hotmail.com > web site: www.dom-met.com ------------------------------ Date: Fri, 7 May 2004 01:07:36 -0400 From: Monty Solomon Subject: 3-D TV Is Closer Than You Think Penelope Patsuris, 05.05.04, 8:00 AM ET NEW YORK - While we're busy comparison shopping for flat-screen TVs and upgrading to high definition broadcasts, the consumer electronics industry is readying a whole new television proposition to sell us. The new "new thing" is three-dimensional television viewing, sans glasses. And although it sounds more sci-fi than Circuit City (nyse: CC - news - people ), engineers who are working on bringing this technology to the masses say it should arrive within the next ten years. For the most part, the technology already exists, but with the exception of some videogames and scientific and engineering modeling programs, the content does not. With the technology ready long before the content, it's an evolution that's similar to that of HDTV, and it will require equally daunting upgrades to the infrastructure that delivers television signals into homes. Nevertheless, a small New York startup called X3D Technology demonstrated a 3-D 50- inch plasma screen at the Consumer Electronics Show in Las Vegas in January, and it had a roomful of analysts and attendees transfixed. "It was the coolest thing I've ever seen, and I've been in technology for 20 years," says Andrew Shulklapper, an analyst with DisplaySearch, which is not doing or seeking to do business with X3D. X3D is starting out by shopping its screens to retailers looking for displays that are literally eye-catching, with its sights set on 3-D TV down the line. http://www.forbes.com/2004/05/05/cx_pp_05053dtv_ii.html ------------------------------ Date: Thu, 6 May 2004 22:08:59 -0400 From: Monty Solomon Subject: Sharing Digital Resources: Web-Wise 2004 Sharing Digital Resources: Web-Wise 2004 This month, First Monday features papers from the Fifth Annual Conference on Libraries and Museums in the Digital World, sponsored by the U.S. Institute of Museum and Library Services and the University of Illinois at Chicago, 3-5 March 2004, Chicago. http://www.firstmonday.org/issues/issue9_5/ ------------------------------ Date: Fri, 7 May 2004 00:24:23 -0400 From: Monty Solomon Subject: Virtuoso MC-500 The Virtuoso MC-500 was created with the user in mind. As a debut product of the Virtuoso series, the MC-500 sets the new platform for media files playback from multiple computers through wireless or wired network. Simply download movies from the internet through a computer, keep them available on your hard disk and the MC-500 will retrieve these files for playback on your television. The MC-500 allows you to enjoy internet movies and digital content on television so you never have to watch them on a computer monitor again. Comprehensive Video, Audio and Picture formats Supporting multiple formats and digital media, the Virtuoso MC-500 is everything you need to enjoy networked home entertainment in your home or office. The MC-500 is capable of MPEG-4 playback. It can connect wirelessly to your computer, and it even allows you to enjoy internet surfing on a television or home theater setup. http://www.neuston.com/en/mc500.asp ------------------------------ From: Mark Crispin Subject: Canada to Criminalize Watching Foreign TV and Radio Programming Date: Thu, 6 May 2004 21:48:28 -0700 Organization: University of Washington The Canadian House of Commons is considering a bill, C-2, which will make it illegal to receive foreign satellite TV and radio programming in Canada. Canada already has censorship of US newspapers and US TV programming carried on carried on Canadian cable TV systems. The text of the bill can be found here: http://www.parl.gc.ca/37/3/parlbus/chambus/house/bills/government/C-2/C-2_1/90248bE.html The penalty for watching Al-Jazerra, Telemundo, or any other foreign programming that the Canadian provers say isn't worth their while to carry, or that the Canadian government does not want its residents to see (such as FOX News), in Canada is C$25,000 and a year in the slammer. It doesn't matter that you are paying the provider for the service. If it's not approved by the Canadian Association of Broadcasters (who have donated heavily to the ruling Liberal Party), you aren't allowed to see it. Also in favor of C-2 are Bell Canada and Shaw Communications, the only autorized satellite providers in Canada, who have also donated over C$320,000 to the Liberal Party. Among the interesting provisions of this bill is one that permits the Canadian police to examine any "computer or data processing system", and copy anything stored on that system. "We don't need no stinkin' warrant, eh!" It also provides for summary conviction. One Canadian was quoted by the CBC as saying: ""This is the equivalent of somebody going into Chapters and trying to find a book and Chapters says 'we don't actually sell that book.' So you buy it from Amazon.com. If Chapters then turned around and complained, you'd have to say 'well, look, you had the choice of selling me the book but you chose not to do that.'" In answer, Philippe Tousignant of the Canadian Radio-television and Telecommunications Commission said "we have to give priority to Canadian services." It isn't just Canadians with a DirecTV dish (with the bill going to a relative in the US) at home who are up in arms. Many members of Canada ethnic minorities are also complaining bitterly that Canadian cable and satellite providers say that the Canadian market is too small to bother with foreign language programming -- even when the CRTC has licensed these channels to be carried! -- Mark -- http://staff.washington.edu/mrc Science does not emerge from voting, party politics, or public debate. Si vis pacem, para bellum. ------------------------------ From: Dave Garland Subject: Re: Winning the Election The Republican Way THREAD CLOSED Date: Thu, 06 May 2004 17:43:53 -0500 Organization: Wizard Information > [TELECOM Digest Editor's Note: The way I read that, they were not > denied the right (in the first place) to approach the ballot box and > cast their vote; but rather, in a regular, routine audit of the voters > who appeared to cast votes, they were disqualified later on the basis > of their alleged felony crimes. Did I get that wrong? PAT] Yah, you got that wrong. They were not permitted to vote. (Once they voted there would not have been any way to void their vote, since how a person votes is not recorded.) Secretary of State Katherine Harris provided counties with a "purge list" of alleged felons compiled by ChoicePoint, a private company with Republican connections. Counties were supposed to attempt to verify the information, but if they could not demonstrate it was incorrect, remove the names from the voter rolls. Counties varied a lot in what they did to verify the information, from nothing, to sending a letter to the voter, to sending multiple letters and publishing the list. The potential voter (if they were notified at all) had the burden of proving they were not a felon. ------------------------------ From: jmayson@nyx.net Subject: Re: Winning the Election The Republican Way THREAD CLOSED Date: Thu, 06 May 2004 22:48:40 GMT Organization: Road Runner High Speed Online http://www.rr.com >> "Most other states" (including northeast liberal states) also deny felons >> the right to vote, unless that felon goes through a fairly elaborate >> procedure to have civil rights restored. > Be that as it may, you've missed the point of the article. > A follow-up test showed that over 90% of the people on the so-called > "felons" list were NOT actually guilty of ANY crime whatsoever. They > were improperly deprived of their right to vote, and the primary > selection criterion for doing so appeared to be their race. Okay ... Clinton ordered many Florida-based military personnel on manoeuvers just prior to election and they didn't get to vote. It was too late for absentee voting and they were out of the state on election day. Some counties refused to count overseas ballots, many of which were military. Both of these facts came up in the news. The felon issue was news to me. I'm from Florida and followed this issue closely and I don't remember hearing about it until now. I did hear reports the highway patrol was preventing blacks from voting, but I think was a bunch of hogwash. Whether all, some, or none of this is true I think we need to overhaul our election process to make it easier for people to vote. I like what Texas does. We have early voting. For a few weeks prior to election day we can vote at supermarkets, malls, shopping centers, etc. It makes it very easy. If the state needs to purge its voting rolls for whatever reason I believe this should be done far ahead of the election to settle any disputes. But this is all common sense and will never get implemented. ------------------------------ Reply-To: Matt J. Britt From: Matt J. Britt Subject: Re: Winning the Election The Republican Way THREAD CLOSED Date: Thu, 06 May 2004 23:30:13 GMT Lou Jahn wrote in message news:telecom23.228.10@telecom-digest.org: > In V23#227: > Subject: Re: Winning the Election The Republican Way > Gary Novosielski wrote responding to Mark Crispin: >> Since blacks voted overwhelmingly for Gore where their votes WERE >> counted, any strategy designed to depress turnout, eligibility, or >> counting of ballots in predominantly black districts would act to >> benefit Bush. If not for these fraudulent activities by Jeb and >> Kathleen, George would have lost Florida by thousands to tens of >> thousands of votes. > Obviously Gary does not let facts get in the way of his argument. Is > good that history recorded the true facts: > 1) The voting registration and voting procedures in four major > districts having voter problems were managed by Democrats. > 2) The four counties had 2 recounts by November 8, 2000, with > President Bush still winning. > 3) If Gore's campaign had asked for a total Florida "manual" recount > (of all 67 counties) rather than their request for only four counties > to be recounted in an attempt to "pick and choose" selective districts > they expected to be favorable to his cause, he would have had a > legitimate and legal recount. > 4) When the Florida Supreme Court violated their own Florida law on > granting selective versus total recounts, and allowed the four > recounts to proceed without establishing an overall standard of > measurement, they effectively created "new voting law" for those four > districts. This rightfully opened the Republican suit to the Federal > Supreme Court, asking them to stop the Florida Supreme from making > "new voting law". > So while the Democrats in "charge of the four districts" in effect > blew the voting process, that was then mis-managed by the Gore team in > not asked for a full recount, where and how did the Republicans do > anything wrong? If Gore was not smart enough to manage a simple > recount based on established law, how could he have ever managed the > countries business? > I suggest it is time for many people to get on with their lives! > Lou Jahn AMEN! [TELECOM Digest Editor's Amen: This thread, which has brought much vigorous activity here is closed as of today. PAT] ------------------------------ From: David Subject: Re: Winning the Election The Republican Way THREAD CLOSED Organization: SBC http://yahoo.sbc.com Date: Thu, 06 May 2004 23:40:53 GMT PAT: I am suprised you let all of this political discussion into this group. David [TELECOM Digest Editor's Note: Well, it was a refreshing change of pace for a couple of days, but enough is enough which is why the thread is now closed. I said that yesterday and have allowed today for final comments. That is it. PAT] ------------------------------ From: Gary Novosielski Subject: Re: Winning the Election The Republican Way THREAD CLOSED Date: Fri, 07 May 2004 03:16:37 GMT TELECOM Digest Editor wrote: > [...The way I read that, they were not > denied the right (in the first place) to approach the ballot box and > cast their vote; but rather, in a regular, routine audit of the voters > who appeared to cast votes, they were disqualified later on the basis > of their alleged felony crimes. Did I get that wrong? PAT] I'm afraid so. Their names were "scrubbed" from the voter rolls in the months and weeks leading up to the election. They were not notified that their names had been removed, so there was no way to appeal, and there were no crosschecks to determine if their identity was correct. Social Security numbers, for example, were not checked. A firm that HAD been hired to do this job was caught doing careful cross-checks and audits of the names was fired by Kathleen Harris and replaced by the firm in question. Ultimately, when the people showed up at the polls on election day, they were informed at that time that they were not registered to vote, and were turned away without having the opportunity to cast a ballot. Lou Jahn wrote: > Obviously does not let facts get in the way of his argument. Is > good that history recorded the true facts: [fascinating but irrelevant "facts" about registration, voting, and recounts snipped] All the talk of recounts, and Democrats in charge of the voting machines is not relevant to the fact that the people in question, tens of thousands of them, were removed from the voting rolls, so they never got to see a voting machine and never cast a ballot, which non-ballot was therefore never counted in the first place, by any Republican or Democrat, let alone recounted by Faux News or anyone else. I have no doubt that if Gore had the brains of a clam he would have demanded a state-wide recount, which undoubtedly would have won him Florida (there are conflicting reports of how a recount would have gone, but I find those by far the more convincing). Be that as it may. None of that relates to *this* issue, which was the disenfranchisement of voters, mostly black, by Republicans Jeb Bush and Katherine Harris. Gary ------------------------------ From: ranck@vt.edu Subject: Re: Winning the Election The Republican Way THREAD CLOSED Date: Thu, 6 May 2004 20:16:16 UTC Organization: Virginia Tech, Blacksburg, Virginia, USA > [TELECOM Digest Editor's Note: My question is for *what period of > time* does a 'convicted felon' lose the right to vote or his other > rights? Is it for some number of years, or forever, or? If it is forever Depends on which state you live in. Here is a link to a report on the subject: http://www.millercenter.virginia.edu/programs/natl_commissions/commission_final_report/task_force_report/hansen_chap8_disfranchisement.pdf It states, in part, that only 2 states (Maine and Vermont) allow currently convicted and incarcerated felons to vote. All others remove voting rights at least during the period of incarceration. I think it says 11 states remove voting rights for life after a felony conviction. The report is from 2001, so some states may have changed since then. Bill Ranck Blacksburg, Va. ------------------------------ From: pv+usenet@pobox.com (Paul Vader) Subject: Re: Newspaper Promotes Nonsense ANOTHER THREAD BEING CLOSED Date: Thu, 06 May 2004 21:40:30 -0000 Organization: Inline Software Creations alan@gunlaws.com writes: > The story, "Dad, Teen Track Gun Use" reaches unsupported conclusions, > but gets front-page coverage anyway. Why was this wildly off-topic post approved by the moderator? * * PV something like badgers--something like lizards--and something like corkscrews. [TELECOM Digest Editor's Note: Well, as my competitor, the New York Times would say, "All the news that fits, print it." I figured as long as I put my deseased brain on hold -- gave it a couple days rest while the discussion on being certain to vote democratic next time around was going on we might as well deal with that perennial favorite, gun control for a while 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, 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 #229 ******************************