From editor@telecom-digest.org Fri Dec 24 06:29:40 2004 Received: (from ptownson@localhost) by massis.lcs.mit.edu (8.11.6p3/8.11.6) id iBOBTdJ13604; Fri, 24 Dec 2004 06:29:40 -0500 (EST) Date: Fri, 24 Dec 2004 06:29:40 -0500 (EST) From: editor@telecom-digest.org Message-Id: <200412241129.iBOBTdJ13604@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 #617 TELECOM Digest Fri, 24 Dec 2004 06:30:00 EST Volume 23 : Issue 617 Inside This Issue: Editor: Patrick A. Townson NYS AG Spitzer Settles Out More Leases (Danny Burstein) Municipal and State Governments to VoIP Industry: Deploy VoIP (Minter) T1/ISDN integration with VoiP? (Dave) Re: T1/ISDN Intergration With VoiP? (T. Sean Weintz) Microsoft Fails to Delay EU Sanctions (Lisa Minter) Consumers Union Launches Telecom Advocacy Web Site (Marcus Didius Falco) Re: Review: E-Mail Program Lacks 'Wow' Factor (T. Sean Weintz) Re: Review: E-Mail Program Lacks 'Wow' Factor (Garrett Wollman) Re: Cromwell vrs. [sic] Sprint Settlement (Rich Greenberg) Re: Cromwell vrs. [sic] Sprint Settlement (Steve Sobol) Re: Telecom Definitions: Meaning For 'Bearer'? (T. Sean Weintz) 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. ---------------------------------------------------------------------- From: Danny Burstein Subject: NYS AG Spitzer Settles Out More Leases Date: Fri, 24 Dec 2004 05:29:00 -0500 Organization: PANIX Public Access Internet and UNIX, NYC (and this time I've double checked that I'm posting the correct url...) "Attorney General Eliot Spitzer today announced settlements with five leading financial institutions in connection with a widespread telecommunications fraud involving NorVergence, Inc., a bankrupt New Jersey-based telephone equipment and service company. "Under the terms of the agreement, the financing companies will forgive approximately $11 million in payments due from New York customers who had signed long-term contracts with NorVergence. Earlier this month, Spitzer announced a $2 million settlement with GE Capital regarding similar NorVergence contracts. The $13 million forgiven under all of these settlements provides relief to more than half of NorVergence customers in ... ( snip, snip. the rest of the press release gives details as to which leasing companies have settled, which ones are still reluctant, etc.) New York. http://www.oag.state.ny.us/press/2004/dec/dec23b_04.html _____________________________________________________ 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 Editor's Note: Danny, to the best of your knowledge are there *still* any business people paying on their Norvergence 'leases' (to financial institutions who were 'holders in due course', but of course!) or have they all wised up to this and put a total freeze on accounts payable as was suggested here many months ago? PAT] ------------------------------ From: Lisa Minter Date: Thu, 23 Dec 2004 13:24:41 -0500 Subject: Municipal and State Governments to VoIP Industry: "Deploy VoIP" http://192.246.69.231/jeff/personal/archives/001467.html December 23, 2004 Municipal and State Governments to VoIP Industry: "Deploy VoIP ... but Give Us All your Money" -- Zen Koan or Catch 22? A Wall Street Journal editorial yesterday (12/22) shined the spotlight on those politicians and policymakers who have been sending mixed messages lately to the VoIP industry. These politicians have been saying on the one hand that consumers should be allowed to avail themselves of the benefits of IP technology, and, at the same time, they have been threatening to extract usurious fees from VoIP service providers. These mixed signals have made it difficult for us would-be innovators and entrepreneurs to know whether or not to deliver IP-based technologies and services to American consumers. Every legislator, governor, and regulator allegedly wants to promote, and allow its constituents to benefit from, new IP-based technologies and services. At the same time, many politicians see VoIP as an easy revenue generator and have blood in their eye for the nascent VoIP industry. Recent FCC and Congressional action indicates a general desire to ensure that the VoIP innovators may continue to bring new technologies and services to consumers with some assurance that government will not stifle its growth through unnecessary fees, taxes, or administrative hassles. Most recently, the FCC indicated that VoIP services must not be subjected to 50 state and countless local rules that would make it impossible for any would-be VoIP provider to deploy a national or global product. Within the past two weeks, however, we have heard rumblings from both state and local authorities that they intend to extract as much blood as possible from the nascent industry. The WSJ properly noted recent efforts by the National Governors Association and by some in Congress who would attempt to impose taxes upwards of 20% on VoIP services. The WSJ editorial did not take note of similar efforts by municipalities, such as Santa Monica, to impose a utility use tax on VoIP services. At least the city of Santa Monica had the nerve to confront the industry directly without having to hide behind a mob of municipalities. Unlike Santa Monica, members of the National Governors Association are attempting to shield themselves within the mob. No individual governor could be accused of thwarting VoIP if all the other governors endorse a nationwide effort. I guess no one wants to be the only governor imposing usurious fees on new IP-based technologies and services. Instead, the governors have joined forces in the hope that if everyone imposes similar fees, they do not individually take the heat for being the only tax-imposing luddite driving away the VoIP industry. Full story at: http://192.246.69.231/jeff/personal/archives/001467.html ------------------------------ From: Dave Subject: T1/ISDN Integration With VoiP? Reply-To: feywrayspamno@hotmail.com Organization: SBC http://yahoo.sbc.com Date: Thu, 23 Dec 2004 20:16:25 GMT If I have VoiP and use a converter to what normally would be a POTS line, what if, instead, the converter went to a T1 or ISDN set up? Could I have 23 or 24 incoming VoiP calls, each going to a different DID number? Could I have an outgoing call center with 23 or 24 agents each talking over VoiP at the same time to 23 or 24 different people? ------------------------------ From: T. Sean Weintz Subject: Re: T1/ISDN Intergration With VoiP? Date: Thu, 23 Dec 2004 16:46:58 -0500 Organization: Posted via Supernews, http://www.supernews.com Dave wrote: > If I have VoiP and use a converter to what normally would be a POTS > line, what if, instead, the converter went to a T1 or ISDN set up? > Could I have 23 or 24 incoming VoiP calls, each going to a different > DID number? Could I have an outgoing call center with 23 or 24 agents > each talking over VoiP at the same time to 23 or 24 different people? So far as I know, no one makes a converter like that. Given that PBX systems are moving towards supporting SIP directly anyway, one would not really be needed. Simply get 24 sip accounts and set the PBX up to use them all. They all work over 1 single ethernet cable -- the sip protocol takes care of telling the PBX what number was dialed for the incoming calls. I think pretty much all PRI functionality can be duplicated in SIP natively. [TELECOM Digest Editor's Note: But, given the amount of bandwidth required for VOIP, even though that may be theoretically possible, is it likely? How many 'computers' and how much internet connectivity would be required to pull that off? PAT] ------------------------------ From: Lisa Minter Subject: Microsoft Fails to Delay EU Sanctions Date: Thu, 23 Dec 2004 14:22:51 EST By Douglas Bakshian and David Lawsky LUXEMBOURG/BRUSSELS (Reuters) - Microsoft Corp. was ordered by a European Union court to change its business practices and immediately market a stripped-down version of Windows after it lost an appeal to delay sanctions imposed earlier this year. The world's largest software maker said it would comply immediately by introducing a stripped-down version of its computer operating system without its Windows Media Player music and video software next month. Microsoft, which will also share specifications with rival makers of server software, had tried to delay penalties that were imposed by the executive European Commission in March. "Microsoft has not demonstrated specifically that it might suffer serious and irreparable damage," said Bo Vesterdorf, president of the Court of First Instance, the EU's second-highest court. The commission had found the U.S. software giant abused the virtual monopoly of Windows and also levied a record 497 million euro ($665 million) fine. Microsoft, which had reached separate settlements worth billions of dollars with rival companies and organizations supporting the commission's case, did not seek to avoid the fine. "We will move forward immediately to comply with today's decision," Microsoft General Counsel Brad Smith said in a conference call with reporters. The company had not decided whether to appeal against Wednesday's order, Smith added, but indicated in a conference call with reporters that there was "cause for optimism" for future litigation. Microsoft had pushed hard for a settlement, which would have required the EU to rescind a major decision for the first time in its history. Smith nevertheless urged the commission to consider fresh settlement talks, arguing the judge had found some merit in Microsoft's arguments on the substance of the case. But Jonathan Todd, a commission competition spokesman, said the court decision upheld the effectiveness of antitrust action and the EU executive was "not in a process of renegotiation." Microsoft stock dipped slightly by late Nasdaq trade on Wednesday, standing at $26.97, down 10 cents, or 0.4 percent. "While the headline value of the court's ruling may have a slight negative effect on Microsoft's stock, we believe that the practical implications of the ruling are minimal," said Charles Di Bona, an analyst at Sanford C. Bernstein & Co. CONSUMER VICTORY "This is a victory for consumers," said Brussels lawyer Thomas Vinje, who represented an industry group that dropped out of the case after a $20 million settlement with Microsoft. Microsoft wanted the penalties, which the commission suspended temporarily during the appeal, frozen until its court case on the substance of the EU ruling finishes years from now. The EU executive argued the market would have moved on and the sanctions would be obsolete. Todd said there was no longer any reason to extend the voluntary suspension. The commission found that Microsoft bundled Media Player to cripple rivals such as RealNetworks Inc.'s RealPlayer, which it shoved off its perch as the dominant player. Now some versions of Windows will be shipped to computer makers without audiovisual software, a decision the commission designed to prompt computer makers to choose from various audiovisual offerings instead of accepting the Windows bundle. "Anything that helps create a level playing field, anything that puts a premium on quality, not on monopoly, is good for RealNetworks," said Dave Stewart, RealNetworks deputy general counsel. "We're going to do what we can to take advantage of the opportunity," Stewart said. The commission ordered Microsoft to share data protocols -- software rules of the road -- with makers of work-group servers that are used in offices to access files and run printers. "Microsoft is not required by the remedy ... to disclose source code, nor does Microsoft dispute that," the judge said. The ruling was a vindication for former Competition Commissioner Mario Monti, whose administration was dogged by a string of high-profile reversals from the court in recent years, and puts his successor, Neelie Kroes, in a strong position. The decision on the sanctions can be appealed to the European Court of Justice, which would take another three to eight months, experts say. Microsoft's main appeal will be heard by a panel of five judges of the lower court that will not include Vesterdorf. To win Wednesday's appeal for so-called interim measures, Microsoft had to show not only that it had a reasonable case but also that it urgently needed relief and that the balance of interests between it and the public weighed in its favor. (Additional reporting by Quentin Webb in Brussels and Reed Stevenson in Seattle.) NOTE: For more telecom/internet/networking/computer news from the daily media, check out our feature 'Telecom Digest Extra' each day at http://telecom-digest.org/td-extra . New articles daily. *** 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, in this instance, Reuters News Service. For more information go to: http://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/17/107.shtml ------------------------------ Date: Thu, 23 Dec 2004 21:50:49 -0500 From: Marcus Didius Falco Subject: Consumers Union Launches Telecom Advocacy Web Site From: Declan McCullagh < > Date: December 22, 2004 11:50:35 PM EST Subject: [Politech] Consumers Union launches telecom advocacy web site For Politech, please: Consumers Union has released a new telecommunications and media online resource: _www.HearUsNow.org_ . I hope that you will take a moment to check it out. The site offers in-depth reading on over 60 consumer related telecom issues. Consumer tips on what to do before you buy, understanding your bills after and making companies listen when you are unhappy (from phone services to copyright rules on digital content). There are also 7 different ways to make a difference in less then 2 minutes (see "Get Heard" on the left bar and click the red link). Hearusnow.org gives consumers the ability to work for change on an individual level and provides hundreds of resources to join efforts already going on across the country. And there is a fun movie to watch, a spoof on a current TV show, but more importantly puts media consolidation (a somewhat dry topic) in to a nice, easily digestible, package. Please help spread the word and tell people to go to _www.HearUsNow.org_ . All the best, --kdg =-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-= Kenneth DeGraff Policy Advocate Consumers Union Publisher of Consumer Reports o/ 202.462.6262 f/ 202.265.9548 e/ kdegraff@consumer.org w/ _http://www.consumersunion.org_ =-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-= ------------------------------ From: T. Sean Weintz Subject: Re: Review: E-Mail Program Lacks 'Wow' Factor Date: Thu, 23 Dec 2004 16:53:52 -0500 Organization: Posted via Supernews, http://www.supernews.com Lisa Minter wrote: > By ANICK JESDANUN, AP Internet Writer > NEW YORK - The Firefox browser has become an instant sensation, in > just a few weeks gaining impressively against Microsoft Corp.'s > market-leading but malware-beleaguered Internet Explorer. > Security experts worried about IE's flaws and vulnerabilities have > recommended Firefox. Others, myself included, were impressed by its > innovative features. > The team that put Firefox together, Mozilla Foundation, now offers a > free standalone e-mail application, called Thunderbird. But this time, > the case for switching from Microsoft products is less compelling. > I just can't see too many people abandoning Microsoft's Outlook, if > they use it. Outlook is the gold standard in e-mail programs, despite > its $109 list price. Among other things, Thunderbird lacks a > calendar application, and its tools for sorting your incoming messages > are rather rudimentary. > If you're happy to sacrifice features for something free, anyone > running a Windows operating system already has Outlook Express. > So why bother with Thunderbird? > In some ways, Thunderbird is more powerful than Outlook Express. It's also more stable and more secure. It doesn't fall prey to the exploits that allow viruses to spread so easily from Outlook. Also, try opening a very large IMAP folder in Outlook or Outlook Express (one with say 50,000 messages in it) - both apps will completely choke and freeze up. (as will most email programs -- eudora, "the bat", etc) Thunderbird handles these with no problem at all. ------------------------------ From: wollman@lcs.mit.edu (Garrett Wollman) Subject: Re: Review: E-Mail Program Lacks 'Wow' Factor Date: Fri, 24 Dec 2004 01:01:31 +0000 (UTC) Organization: MIT Laboratory for Computer Science In article , Lisa Minter wrote: > By ANICK JESDANUN, AP Internet Writer [entire text of wire-service news story deleted] > I believe that this constitutes a 'fair use' of the copyrighted > material as provided for in section 107 of the U.S. Copyright > Law. Having actually read 17 USC 107,[1] I believe quoting an entire wire-service article verbatim is far from "fair use", in particular: (3) the amount and substantiality of the portion used in relation to the copyrighted work as a whole; and Copying an entire work verbatim is rarely considered "fair use" regardless of the purpose; even a university professor who wants to distribute chapters of an out-of-print source to her class is expected to get permission from the copyright owner. (4) the effect of the use upon the potential market for or value of the copyrighted work The authors of these wire-service articles frequently work as independent contractors, paid by the article for stories they write. News organizations are in turn charged substantial fees to reproduce the wire service's material. If every wire-service article that happens to catch Lisa's eye (apparently without regard to its relationship to telecommunications) is reposted here, the end result will be that news organizations will no longer pay to have the stories written. That would be a bad result for everyone. -GAWollman [1] I had to consider carefully the implications of the copyright law for my own Web site, which contains many short snippets of broadcast radio programming. I came to the conclusion that my use did constitute "fair use", in part because my snippets are very small relative to the whole, and because they have no effect on the commercial value of the works quoted. Only one station has ever objected, and (although it was clear to me that they did not understand the law) I complied with their request immediately. -- 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: richgr@panix.com (Rich Greenberg) Subject: Re: Cromwell vrs. [sic] Sprint Settlement Date: 23 Dec 2004 16:11:49 -0500 Organization: Organized? Me? In article , Joseph wrote: > Bloomingdale's, Bon March (now Bon-Macy's soon to be just Macy's), > Burdines-Macy's, Goldsmith-Macy's, Lazarus-Macy's, Macy's East/West, > Rich's are some of their stores. At one time Foley's in Houston was > part of the Federated Department stores. It's unlikely that they have > any stores in your area of Kansas. Rich's has been Rich's-Macy's for some time and is about to become just plain Macy's. Rich Greenberg N6LRT Marietta, GA, USA 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, Red & Shasta (RIP),Red, husky Owner:Chinook-L Atlanta Siberian Husky Rescue. www.panix.com/~richgr/ Asst Owner:Sibernet-L ------------------------------ From: Steve Sobol Subject: Re: Cromwell vrs. [sic] Sprint Settlement Date: Thu, 23 Dec 2004 13:12:58 -0800 Organization: Glorb Internet Services, http://www.glorb.com Joseph wrote: > Bloomingdale's, Bon March (now Bon-Macy's soon to be just Macy's), > Burdines-Macy's, Goldsmith-Macy's, Lazarus-Macy's, Macy's East/West, > Rich's are some of their stores. At one time Foley's in Houston was > part of the Federated Department stores. Foleys, BTW, is now owned by May Department Stores. -- JustThe.net Internet & New Media Services, http://JustThe.net/ Steven J. Sobol, Geek In Charge / 888.480.4NET (4638) / sjsobol@JustThe.net PGP Key available from your friendly local key server (0xE3AE35ED) Apple Valley, California Nothing scares me anymore. I have three kids. ------------------------------ From: T. Sean Weintz Subject: Re: Telecom Definitions: Meaning For 'Bearer'? Date: Thu, 23 Dec 2004 16:47:48 -0500 Organization: Posted via Supernews, http://www.supernews.com toddmueller@gmail.com wrote: > 'Bearer' channels are payload channels, they 'bear' the load. For instance ISDN "B" Channels? ------------------------------ 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 #617 ******************************