From editor@telecom-digest.org Sun Dec 5 23:55:18 2004 Received: (from ptownson@localhost) by massis.lcs.mit.edu (8.11.6p3/8.11.6) id iB64tIX18694; Sun, 5 Dec 2004 23:55:18 -0500 (EST) Date: Sun, 5 Dec 2004 23:55:18 -0500 (EST) From: editor@telecom-digest.org Message-Id: <200412060455.iB64tIX18694@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 #580 TELECOM Digest Sun, 5 Dec 2004 23:56:00 EST Volume 23 : Issue 580 Inside This Issue: Editor: Patrick A. Townson Kazaa Offering Free VOIP Calls (Marcus Didius Falco) What is an AT&T RTSLS? (DevEhf) Service Providers (Bob Phillips) Re: FAX vs VOIP (DevilsPGD) Re: FAX vs VOIP (Lonewolf) Re: Lingo Voip SUCKS! (Tony P.) Re: Lingo Voip SUCKS! (Wesrock@aol.com) Re: Bill of Rights Day Dinner 12/15 (Lisa Hancock) Telecom and VOIP (Voice over Internet Protocol) Digest for the Internet. 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: Sun, 05 Dec 2004 19:07:33 -0500 From: Marcus Didius Falco Subject: Kazaa Offering Free VOIP calls http://news.yahoo.com/news?tmpl=story&cid=528&u=/ap/20041129/ap_on_hi_te/kazaa_internet_calls&printer=1 By ALEX VEIGA, AP Business Writer LOS ANGELES - Free Internet-based phone calls are the newest feature of the popular Kazaa file-sharing program. The offering, in a software upgrade this week, comes as Kazaa's maker, Sharman Networks Ltd., faces increasing pressure to retain a user base eroded by rising competition from other file-sharing services and a full-court press by the recording industry. Many of the computer users sued by the industry were using Kazaa, which was once regarded as the largest file-swapping community. The main reason behind Sharman's foray into Internet-based phone service could be to prove that file-sharing technology has significant commercial uses other than as an unauthorized delivery system for copyright content, said Phil Leigh, senior analyst at Inside Digital Media. That could help bolster Sharman against lawsuits brought by the entertainment industry in the United States and Australia. Alan Morris, executive vice president of Sharman Networks in Sydney, Australia, denied any effort to legitimize Kazaa by adding Internet phone calling. "The notion that we do something as major as that for any reason other than straightforward commercial reasons is no, absolutely not," Morris said. "There's absolutely no way, you go 'OK, this will be really good if they criticize us.'" Internet-based phone calls travel in data packets online instead of being carried through analog telephone lines. Sharman incorporated calling technology developed by Skype Technologies S.A., whose co-founders created Kazaa before selling it to Sharman. ------------------------------ From: fosterdave@hotmail.com (DevEhf) Subject: What is an AT&T RTSLS? Date: 5 Dec 2004 10:49:41 -0800 Organization: http://groups.google.com I've seen the acronym RTSLS after the names of AT&T execs. What does this designation mean? Thanks, Dave ------------------------------ From: phil1630@bellsouth.net (Bob Phillips) Subject: Service Providers Date: 5 Dec 2004 15:11:34 -0800 Organization: http://groups.google.com I've been working on an application to dispatch service orders via Blackberry devices. Does anyone have an opinion on the various service providers out there? Thanks -Bob ------------------------------ From: DevilsPGD Subject: Re: FAX vs VOIP Date: Sat, 04 Dec 2004 20:52:43 -0700 Organization: Posted via Supernews, http://www.supernews.com In message hancock4@bbs.cpcn.com (Lisa Hancock) wrote: > While my arrangement is growing rare these days, using fax machines as > dial up is not. How do businesses that depend on VOIP use their fax > machines? Outsource fax, or a small number of dedicated fax lines to a traditional telco. -- This space intentionally left blank. ------------------------------ From: Lonewolf Subject: Re: FAX vs VOIP Organization: Comcast Online Date: Sun, 05 Dec 2004 12:14:32 GMT I'm on the repair side of VoIP and over the past year or so I'm seeing quite a few installations using T.38 faxing with VoIP. It appears to becoming fairly popular and aside for some verdor specific issues, it appears to work quite well. Lisa Hancock wrote in message news:telecom23.579.14@telecom-digest.org: > John McHarry wrote >> I believe the issue with FAX over VOIP is that VOIP uses lossy >> compression that does not treat FAX modulation gently. This tends to >> be a problem over any compressed link. > For those who don't know, there are two types of data compression > techniques. One type preserves 100% of the original data; the other > "lossy" accepts some loss of accuracy for increased compression > efficiency. (Others can explain data compression better than I can.) > I still use dial-up for certain connections, and even if I had VOIP I > would still need to do so. I wonder if I even could. > While my arrangement is growing rare these days, using fax machines as > dial up is not. How do businesses that depend on VOIP use their fax > machines? ------------------------------ From: Tony P. Subject: Re: Lingo Voip SUCKS! Organization: ATCC Date: Sat, 4 Dec 2004 23:49:43 -0500 In article , hancock4@bbs.cpcn.com says: > Tony P. wrote >> I'm 25 days out from my switch to Vonage and my number still hasn't >> been ported. >> I've been talking to the PUC, Verizon, Vonage etc. What I've gotten >> from this is a clear picture of the anti-competitive nature of Verizon >> and the structure of Vonage's network. > FWIW, a friend of mine switched from Verizon to a competitive carrier > several times (back and forth while he made up his mind) and never had > any trouble. >> It seems that Verizon only has to do rapid LNP with other FCC regulated >> carriers. If you're not FCC regulated they can take as long as they want >> and delay for whatever reason they wish because they're free of >> regulatory burden. > If Verizon is not under any legal obligation to make the switch in a > timely manner, then it is not their fault and you have no basis to sue > them. You have definitely drunk the koolaid. Rules should be applied equally be the carrier FCC regulated or not. > Suppose the VOIP carrier fails to meet technical standards. Will a > subscriber blame Verizon instead of the VOIP carrier? That makes for > extra unnecessary and unprofitable work for Verizon which other > subscribers have to make up the cost. Again -- any switch built since what, 1989 has been IP aware. As it is now, Vonage utilizes capacity on Paetec and Focal Communications switches which in some cases are actually just resellers of Verizon services. All I'm asking for is to break free of the behemoth. > I'm sorry I'm not sympathetic, but it's a double standard. The FCC > declared the VOIP carriers to be free of regulation. That means > they're on their own while other carriers have to put up with the > expense of regulation. Maybe you could avoid Verizon altogether and > use broadband cable instead, as some people are doing. They wanted that regulation in return for regular profit. Of course now they just rape the consumer with these add on fees that in reality flow right back into the pockets of the carrier. The line charge is an example of egregious overcharging by the way. Had you read the thread you would have known that it was my intention to ditch Verizon completely. Already have Cox hooked up and running. > Indeed, it was not that hard for our cable company to lay a > replacement broadband fiber optic cable through our area; and now -- > in competition to Verizon DSL -- they offer high speed Internet. As > such, perhaps another carrier could do likewise and eliminate that > "final mile" contention. > [Just to set the record, I am not connected with Verizon other than > being a subscriber. Indeed, I was unhappy with other LD carriers and > switched to Verizon for all services.] You certainly sound like a Verizon apologist. ------------------------------ From: Wesrock@aol.com Date: Sun, 5 Dec 2004 10:26:26 EST Subject: Re: Lingo Voip SUCKS! In a message dated Sat, 04 Dec 2004 15:47:39 -0500, Fred R. Goldstein writes: > And in any case, the Bells are weaning themselves of LD access > revenues anyway. It's only the rural telcos, who get high fees from > the LD carriers, who are worried. This is a tradition that goes far back. When I was with SBC in Texas, there was a suspicion the owner of one small telephone company had called a number (any number) in the nearby Bell toll center time after time all day because the subsidy from Bell would be greater than his costs. Wes Leatherock wesrock@aol.com wleathus@yahoo.com ------------------------------ From: hancock4@bbs.cpcn.com (Lisa Hancock) Subject: Re: Bill of Rights Day Dinner 12/15 Date: 5 Dec 2004 09:47:56 -0800 Organization: http://groups.google.com Joseph wrote: > Are we celebrating its demise as well? That seems to be the direction > we're going with the present administration in the White House. It is important to remember that our civil rights are all _relative_ and must be balanced against each other. No right is unlimited. For example, your right of free speech must be balanced against my freedom from harassment and private property (the old "yelling fire in a crowded theatre" argument). We look back 50 years ago and often are horrified at things that went on in those days -- things that almost everyone at the time approved of. Who knows what they'll say about our generation 50 years from now? [TELECOM Digest Editor's Note: Lisa, perhaps you are getting the topic of civil *RIGHTS* confused with civil *LIBERTIES*. They are two different things. Do you know the difference between 'civil liberties' and 'civil rights'? And yes, things were pretty horrid for a lot of people fifty years ago in the USA. Regards the 'shouting fire in a crowded theatre' argument, the more contemporary version of that would be calling 911 to report a false fire alarm; a very distasteful thing to do which is NOT covered by any discussion of 'free speech'. And it is beyond the scope of this Digest to spend *very much* time on Bush's politics (as tempted as I have been on occassion) but perhaps you and other readers will explain the difference between 'civil liberties' and 'civil rights'. In the meantime, don't forget that December 15 is 'Bill of Rights Day' here in the USA. Celebrate it as you wish, I guess; either its longevity if you are an optimist or its demise if you are as concerned as many folks about the last election, and in any event tell http://jpfo.org what you have planned in your community. 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 #580 ******************************