From editor@telecom-digest.org Tue Nov 9 15:07:39 2004 Received: (from ptownson@localhost) by massis.lcs.mit.edu (8.11.6p3/8.11.6) id iA9K7cH18163; Tue, 9 Nov 2004 15:07:39 -0500 (EST) Date: Tue, 9 Nov 2004 15:07:39 -0500 (EST) From: editor@telecom-digest.org Message-Id: <200411092007.iA9K7cH18163@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 #537 TELECOM Digest Tue, 9 Nov 2004 15:07:00 EST Volume 23 : Issue 537 Inside This Issue: Editor: Patrick A. Townson FCC Expected to Exempt VoIP From State Rules (Lisa Minter) Pulver.com Encouraged by FCC Acknowledgement on Nomadic VoIP (L. Minter) FCC Insulates Web Phone Service from State Regs (Lisa Minter) FCC Further Deregulates Net Calls (Lisa Minter) $1.40 Monthly VoIP Tax? Two California Towns Ask For Handouts (L Minter) Free VOIP Learning Resources, News, Links Tutorials (TekJockey) Lost Caller ID Switching Local Service - Need Translation (Adam Harbour) SBC Dial-up Internet Modem Speed Only 28.8 Kbps in Westland (N Joltt) Re: Who Sends This Around? EVIL FBI SADISTS (palee@riteaid.com) Re: Who Sends This Around? EVIL FBI SADISTS (Charles Cryderman) Re: "We're From the Government..."; NSA Recs on Securing Mac OS X (jdj) Re: Long Distance Service in California (Clarence Dold) Re: Any News on the Feds v. Norvergence? (Satchel Paige) 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: Lisa Minter Date: Tue, 09 Nov 2004 04:30:27 -0500 Subject: FCC Expected to Exempt VoIP From State Rules http://www.usatoday.com/money/industries/telecom/2004-11-08-voip-usat_x.htm By Paul Davidson, USA TODAY The Federal Communications Commission is expected to vote today to exempt Internet-based phone companies from state regulation, a step that could help boost the emerging services. But the vote is likely to anger some local officials who say the FCC is usurping local authority. Among other things, the ruling would mean states could not force Vonage and other Internet phone companies to provide 911 service or comply with local consumer fraud laws, FCC officials told USA TODAY. [.....] The agency does plan to impose its own requirements that VoIP services provide 911 and make their networks wiretap-friendly for the FBI. But state officials say they are better equipped to oversee issues such as 911 and consumer fraud. "Our main concern is: What's left for the states here?" says Commissioner Bob Nelson of the Michigan Public Service Commission. State and local officials have flooded FCC commissioners with letters voicing concerns about the proposed ruling. One of their concerns is they could not collect revenue from VoIP providers to subsidize high-cost rural phone service. [Jack Decker comment: Dear Mr. Nelson: Considering the track record of the Michigan Public Service Commission and the way they have allowed the independent phone companies to avoid coming into full compliance with the Michigan Telecommunications Act of 2000, which (if they request a rate increase) requires them to provide local calling to adjacent exchanges (but the MPSC has in effect allowed some of the companies to redefine the meaning of a local call, so that in some cases it is charged like a toll call even though they still call it local, in a fine example of Orwellian "newspeak"), I would say that there should be *nothing* left for the states here. The very last thing I would ever want to see is the Michigan Public Service Commission attempting to regulate VoIP. You and your fellow Commissioners have shown that you cannot be trusted to uphold the law as the Michigan legislature intended, nor to put the interests of telephone customers first. Besides those associated with some of the second- and third-tier incumbent phone companies, which stand to lose their defacto monopolies if VoIP gains traction, about the only people that are going to be upset if the FCC rules as expected are you and some of the other state Commissioners (in Michigan and other states), who in my opinion seem to be more concerned about your own jobs than the public interest. Not to mention that you seem to love being quoted by the press! One reason the courts tend to give a lot of weight to the "commerce clause" of the U.S. Constitution (article I, section 8) is that if the states were free to regulate every industry at will, it would be so costly for any company to do business nationwide that few companies would be able to. In the area of telecommunications regulation, state commissions have in many cases shown that they cannot be trusted to put the overall public interest ahead of the narrow interests of the companies they are supposed to be regulating. The Michigan Public Service Commission may be among the worst in that regard, particularly when they apparently let some of the smaller rural phone companies gouge their customers just about any way they can think of. Mr. Nelson, would it be too much to ask that you get out of the limelight for a while, and start doing a much better job of regulating those companies you're already supposed to be regulating, before you try to broaden your influence to encompass a very competitive industry for which there is NO need for the traditional form of regulation?] Full story at: http://www.usatoday.com/money/industries/telecom/2004-11-08-voip-usat_x.htm ------------------------------ From: Lisa Minter Date: Tue, 09 Nov 2004 11:15:56 -0500 Subject: Pulver.com Encouraged by FCC Acknowledgement That Nomadic VoIP Reply-To: VoIPnews@yahoogroups.com http://www.prnewswire.com/cgi-bin/stories.pl?ACCT=109&STORY=/www/story/11-09-2004/0002399032&STORY&EDATE= Pulver.com Encouraged by FCC Acknowledgement That Nomadic VoIP Service Not Subject to State Economic Regulation Vonage Order Was Next Logical Step in FCC's Approach to VoIP MELVILLE, N.Y., Nov. 9 /PRNewswire/ -- The following may be attributed to Jeff Pulver, CEO of pulver.com regarding today's FCC decision asserting preempting state jurisdiction over certain nomadic VoIP services: "In the world's first regulatory statement freeing VoIP communications from legacy telecom regulation, the FCC ruled last February that pulver.com's computer-to-computer Free World Dialup service was an unregulated information service. The pulver Order was a great first step to ensure that pure peer-to- peer VoIP services are not subjected to legacy regulations. The Vonage Order is the next logical step to ensure that VoIP services that look like more traditional telecom services are not subjected to a cumbersome, patchwork of state regulations." "We are encouraged by the FCC's decision preempting states from imposing economic regulations on nomadic VoIP services. Today's decision was essential to allow the IP-based communications industry to develop and flourish free from traditional telecommunications regulation and to ensure that a hodge- podge of archaic telecom regulations do not stifle the nascent IP-based communications industry." "Every sector of the high tech and communications industries, including capital markets, has been watching to see how rules are set for this potentially explosive technology, one that holds tremendous promise not only for communications innovation, but also for the global economy." "Certainly, the Commission should not subject IP-based communications to a set of archaic regulations that were designed and kluged together over the years to patch together a disparate array of technologies and services. The disruptive emergence of IP-based communications essentially compels the Commission, the States and every regulatory authority around the globe to rethink the patchwork of disparate, illogical and irreconcilable regulations." "The Commission must next resolve the lingering intercarrier compensation and universal service proceedings, particularly to ensure that IP-based communications providers are not dragged into existing regulatory schemes that so desperately need to be reformed. The conclusions and rules that will result from these proceedings will greatly affect the future of all IP-based communications, including the speed of deployment, consumer and enterprise adoption and ubiquity of IP-based communications." "Regulators and the IP-based communications industry need to think creatively about how to protect consumers in a new communications environment. pulver.com and many members of the IP-based communications community are committed to achieving the social good through industry-based solutions that do not unnecessarily subject industry to regulatory and other governmental intrusion. To that end, in fact, pulver.com has established the Global IP Alliance, an international organization committed to advancing IP-based communications and resolving the commercial, technical, operational and social issues confronting the world-wide IP communications community." "VoIP is 'disruptive communications' in the most positive sense. IP-based communications allow for 'open' solutions, with no barriers to entry and no relation to geography. IP-based communications are capable of empowering users to control their own communications experience. There, however, is a real danger in regarding VoIP simply as a cheaper way to provide voice service. That is NOT VoIP. It is incumbent upon all us to ensure that it does not get relegated to the world of black rotary phones, but truly the becomes the communications of the future." About Pulver.com Jeff Pulver is the President and CEO of pulver.com, and one of the true pioneers of the Internet telephony/VoIP industry. Mr. Pulver is a globally renowned thought leader, author and entrepreneur. He is the publisher of The Pulver Report and VON magazine, and creator of the industry standard Voice on the Net (VON) conferences. Additionally, Mr. Pulver is the founder of Free World Dialup (FWD), the VON coalition, LibreTel, WHP Wireless, pulverinnovations, Digisip, and is the co-founder of VoIP provider, Vonage. Recently, Mr. Pulver's petition for clarification declaring Free World Dialup as an unregulated information service was granted by the Federal Communications Commission (FCC). This landmark decision by the FCC, now referred to as "the Pulver decision", was the first decision made by the FCC on IP communications, and provides important clarification that computer-to-computer VoIP service is not a telecommunications service. For more information, please visit http://www.pulver.com ------------------------------ From: Lisa Minter Date: Tue, 09 Nov 2004 11:21:33 -0500 Subject: FCC Insulates Web Phone Service from State Regs http://www.reuters.com/newsArticle.jhtml?type=domesticNews&storyID=6760085 FCC Insulates Web Phone Service from State Regs WASHINGTON (Reuters) - The U.S. Federal Communications Commission on Tuesday approved a petition to insulate Vonage Holdings Corp.'s Internet-based telephone service from certain state regulations. Full story at: http://www.reuters.com/newsArticle.jhtml?type=domesticNews&storyID=6760085 ------------------------------ From: Lisa Minter Date: Tue, 09 Nov 2004 12:19:26 -0500 Subject: FCC Further Deregulates Net Calls http://news.com.com/FCC+further+deregulates+Net+calls/2100-7352_3-5444883.html By Ben Charny Staff Writer, CNET News.com The nation's top telephone regulators on Tuesday further deregulated Internet phone services. The Federal Communications Commission ruled that states are now barred from imposing telecommunications regulations on Net phone providers, which treat calls no differently than any other application on the Internet. That class of operators includes Vonage Holdings, which asked the FCC for just such a designation in May, plus Verizon Communications, AT&T and dozens of other commercial Internet providers, according to those familiar with the FCC's thinking. "This landmark order recognizes a revolution has occurred," FCC Chairman Michael Powell said at the meeting. The FCC's decision was a general one, was widely anticipated, and answers just one of dozens of questions about how regulators will ultimately treat Internet phone services, typically referred to as voice over Internet Protocol (VoIP). Much of the nitty-gritty of policymaking is still to come, as the FCC plods away at drafting a set of rules for new services like Vonage's that rely on Internet Protocol, the backbone of the Internet. For instance, Vonage had also asked in its May petition whether it would be considered a telephone or information service, a designation that means the difference between a draconian and very light regulatory environment for the carriers. The commission did not answer that question Tuesday. Full story at: http://news.com.com/FCC+further+deregulates+Net+calls/2100-7352_3-5444883.html ------------------------------ From: Lisa Minter Date: Tue, 09 Nov 2004 10:34:22 -0500 Subject: $1.40 Monthly VoIP Tax? Two California Towns Ask For Handouts http://www.broadbandreports.com/shownews/56531 While the FCC is expected to rule today that state and local governments can't touch VoIP carriers, two California towns are making last ditch efforts to tax VoIP. The towns of Burbank and El Monte are asking VoIP carriers to collect $1.40 from every subscriber. The states (started by Minnesota) are also gunning for a money grab; even though VoIP providers often don't even have a physical presence in the areas trying to tax them. Article plus reader comments at: http://www.broadbandreports.com/shownews/56531 ------------------------------ From: tekjockey@yahoo.com (TekJockey) Subject: Free VOIP Learning Resources, News, Links, Tutorials Date: 8 Nov 2004 21:21:39 -0800 ###Learn VOIP (H323, MGCP, SIP), LAN (ethernet, fiber, copper), WAN (T1/ T3) , ROUTING (BGP, OSPF, EIGRP)### http://www.compointsolutions.com ##Great for TECH PROFESSIONALS AND BUSINESS OWNERS WHO NEED TO KNOW MORE## Updated Daily - Tutorials, news, resource links and pdf's on learning voip. Fresh content - updated daily! Vist the links and feed your appetite for knowledge! http://www.compointsolutions.com Stop By, Learn Stuff, Tell a Friend! ... :-) ------------------------------ From: aharbour@yahoo.com (Adam Harbour) Subject: Lost Caller ID Switching Local Service - Need Explanation Date: 8 Nov 2004 17:31:21 -0800 Hi, I switched from Verizon to Ztel local service last year and in the process lost my caller id service. I am the only person in my street that does not have it but ZTel told me that it is not available in my area. Here is the explanation from the ZTel engineer. Can somebody read and understand it and tell me if it is BS or true and what I would have to do to get caller id service back. I really need it for both my business and home use. Thanks, AH ----------------------- "Attempt to add any form of caller id to this ani not available ; spoke to repair/ not in switch, not on service order that migrated them to ztel/ spoke to business office and verified that no form of caller id is available in this switch/ npa nxx/ spoke to customer to try to explain there are only a certain # of cid spots in each switch and per Verizon this is no longer available in this switch/ cannot add cid closing ticket - have called and advised customer. " ------------------------------ From: njoltt@yahoo.com (N Joltt) Subject: SBC Dial-up Internet Modem Speed Only 28.8 Kbps in Westland, MI Date: 9 Nov 2004 05:03:09 -0800 Dial-up speed 28.8 Kbps is the abosulate maximum. Most of times it is just 26.4, sometimes 14.4 or even lower. So if you want to rent an apartment in Westland, Michiagn, just be aware of this fact. SBC would not do anything about it, because the voice bandwidth up to 3K is all they care about. As long as they meet the voice line quality, any more improvement for other purposes (such as dial-up Internet access) is deemed unnecessary. And due to (or because of) that, they're aggressively promoting DSL in my area. What an irony. [TELECOM Digest Editor's Note: I think most people prefer cable internet service over DSL. Is SBC saying a service provided by their company, (SBC/Yahoo Internet) is 'unnecessary' ? If you go with cable internet, then you can probably drop SBC entirely if you wish, and go with one of the CLECs in your area. That's what I did over a year ago, it has worked out quite well. PAT] ------------------------------ From: palee@riteaid.com Date: Tue, 9 Nov 2004 10:51:44 -0500 Subject: Re: Who Sends This Around? Organization: Rite Aid Corporation In TELECOM Digest V23 #536, our Esteemed Editor wrote (in part): > Anyone else know anything about this guy? All you need to know about this guy can be found at http://members.aol.com/intwg/trolls.htm http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Internet_troll http://c2.com/cgi/wiki?TrollDefinition Paul A Lee Sr Telecom Engineer Rite Aid Corporation HL-IS-COM (Telecomm) V: +1 717 730-8355 30 Hunter Lane, Camp Hill, PA 17011-2410 F: +1 717 975-3789 P.O. Box 3165, Harrisburg, PA 17105-3165 W: +1 717 805-6208 [TELECOM Digest Editor's Note: I've a hard time accepting that fellow (at AOL) definition of 'trolling' or even if it is a valid thing. It seems to me that what many people call 'trolling' is nothing more than their explanation of why something they personally disagree with should not appear on the net. I've been called a 'troll' a few times and all I can say is that some of us speak and write the way we do because it is our personality. Some of us (most of us, I would hope!) write and express ourselves from our personal experiences, the fact that sometimes what we have to say offends the virgin ears, eyes and brains of some readers is an unfortunate by-product of that. The fact that some people are offensive in this way should not mean we should always dismiss them as a 'troll' rather than read what they have to say (or not). I am still curious to know if anyone has ever met this person or has some idea of his background, etc, other than just dismissing him as a 'troll'. PAT] ------------------------------ Subject: Re: Who Sends This Around? Date: Tue, 9 Nov 2004 06:19:31 -0500 From: Charles Cryderman Pat, First off, the way things are going, please remove my return e-mail address. Now on to my remarks. This guy is just plan nuts. I went and did a google on this and found his entire rant. Near the beginning he states: "PERVERTED FBI agents RAPED, TORTURED, SEXUALLY ABUSED ME for THREE YEARS and BEHEADED ME which is 10000 times worse than the SEXUAL ABUSE of prisoners by Lyndie England." Now I am no doctor or an expert on how the mind works but for some reason I have a hard time believing anything this joker had to say. This is because of this one paragraph. How many people do you know that can live to tell about themselves being "beheaded" Not many is my guess. Well to tell the truth, none. Chip Cryderman [TELECOM Digest Editor's Note: I do agree it is one of the weirder pieces of spam which makes the rounds. But I think somewhere in the first few paragraphs of his rant he also states something about "you people who do not agree with me please go on to the next message." But judging from the sheer size of his missive (100 K of manually typewritten text) and the fact that it has been around the net many times (I suspect; I have recieved it three times I think and it appears to be bombarding Usenet in every newsgroup), I really have to wonder where the guy is coming from. Unlike most spam, which appears to be mass produced and distributed millions of times (usually smaller in size, and with the same phishing expeditions over and over, with the same misspelled words in the same place time and time again), this guy appears to have sat there at least once to type it in, and on various times has updated it with 'latest details' of what the #@$&@ FBI has done to him, including lately, as you point out, the FBI having beheaded him. Very unusual, to say the least. I must wonder what the average, John Q. Non-Netizen *must think* when he occassionally stumbles in here, sees the beheaded trolls hoping around at their keyboards while others try to save us from ourselves by telling us what our reaction should be to the individuals they have defined as trolls and sometimes being a bit trollish in their own responses. I'd say John Q. probably thinks we are all high on drugs. PAT] ------------------------------ From: jdj Subject: Re: "We're From the Government..."; NSA Recs on Securing Mac OS X Date: Tue, 09 Nov 2004 09:41:38 -0800 Organization: Posted via Supernews, http://www.supernews.com On Mon, 08 Nov 2004 06:57:38 -0800, Justin Time wrote: > Danny Burstein wrote in message: [snip] >> Yes, that NSA: >> Title: >> How to Securely Install and Use Apple Computer Inc.'s Mac OS X >> Version 10.3.x Operating System (Panther) [snip] > But it took them at least 30 more pages to make guesses about that > other common proprietary operating system -- the one from Redmond Wa. > with the longest running beta test in history. Beta????? I thought it was still in pre-alpha. It's still very unstable. =-= ------------------------------ From: dold@XReXXLongX.usenet.us.com Subject: Re: Long Distance Service in California Date: Mon, 8 Nov 2004 23:34:59 UTC Organization: a2i network becky wrote: > I just disconnected from SBC long distance. What other long distance > service is available? > [TELECOM Digest Editor's Note: So much is available, we could not > begin to list it all. Have you considered VOIP service which is > about as inexpensive as you can get these days, depending on your > volume of usage, etc. There are *much better* deals out there than > SBC for sure. Maybe someone will write you with some suggestions. > PAT] I wasted my breath arguing with an SBC rep who insisted I was paying a monthly fee for my long distance with another carrier. I pay the bill; I know what I pay ... No, there isn't a $3.00 per month "gee we love having you as a customer" fee. For any international calls, I use 1010987 which is $.03/minute to most of the countries I call. That's actually cheaper than the plan that I have for domestic LD, but I dislike the extra digits. Clarence A Dold - Hidden Valley (Lake County) CA USA 38.8-122.5 [TELECOM Digest Editor's Note: Can't you get that 1010987 put onto a speed dial button if you do not want to default all your LD traffic to them? PAT] ------------------------------ From: dor@writeme.com (Satchel Paige) Subject: Re: Any News on the Feds v. Norvergence? Date: 8 Nov 2004 21:34:47 -0800 Organization: http://groups.google.com What kind of recourse do I have? I originally reported Norvergence to the FTC in September of 2003. I then posted Norvergence's fraud here to warn everyone about them and to ask everyone to report Norvergence to the FTC as well. Norvergence sued me. And because I could not afford to travel from California to New Jersey, let alone to hire a New Jersey attorney, a default judgement was passed against me. [TELECOM Digest Editor's Note: Good question. 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. ************************ DIRECTORY ASSISTANCE JUST 65 CENTS ONE OR TWO INQUIRIES CHARGED TO YOUR CREDIT CARD! REAL TIME, UP TO DATE! SPONSORED BY TELECOM DIGEST AND EASY411.COM SIGN UP AT http://www.easy411.com/telecomdigest ! ************************ --------------------------------------------------------------- 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. 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 #537 ******************************