TELECOM Digest     Sat, 12 Mar 2005 22:53:00 EST    Volume 24 : Issue 110

Inside This Issue:                             Editor: Patrick A. Townson

    Qwest Cost Creep (jared)
    FCC Wants Comments Re: Should VoIP co's Get Numbers Direct (Jack Decker)
    Enron Update, was: FCC to Cellcos: Clean up Your Bills (Danny Burstein)
    Satellite Radio as "Broadcast Audio Internet"? (AES)
    Re: Privacy Self-Regulation, A Decade of Disappointment (Peter Pearson)
    A Decade of Disappointment - Part I (Patrick Townson)
    Re: Wiring Two Lines on One Jack (Tony P.)
    Re: Cell Phone Radiation Dangers (Steve Sobol)
    Re: AT&T Billing (Tim@Backhome.org)

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: Sat, 12 Mar 2005 16:25:15 -0700
From: jared@nospam.au (jared)
Subject: Qwest Cost Creep


In the middle of last year I changed to QWEST and a plan that reduced
my monthly charges to about $33. Now in March it's up to > $50. Even a
simple phone line with no features is apparently $28 per month
 ... that's only twice what QWEST advertises (i.e., before fine print).

One of the tricky changes was to start charging a monthly fee for long
distance that had been bundled in the plan. No notice, just a few
dollars more. I asked the customer service representative why and all
she could say was that they didn't know that there was going to be a
charge for long distance with that plan.


[TELECOM Digest Editor's Note: That's a problem (one of several) I had
with SBC:  I'd call to complain the bill had gone up, they would
review it and say "if we do thus and so, the bill will go down to be
X dollars." I'd say okay, then the next month the bill would arrive
and be higher still. I'd have to talk to two or three different people
(with a wait on hold for each of them) to get the promised adjustment. 
None of them knew anything about what the others had said or promised.

Once they transferred me to a man 'in Topeka, who is our employee but
he deals with state regulatory matters'. The man talked to me for 
about thirty minutes, detirmined I was 'eligible for lifeline service'
(a program of reduced rates for handicapped/elderly people) and told
me absolutely what my new monthly rate would be after he had audited
my entire bill. Guess what? When the next bill arrived it was **no
where close** to that amount. Bell said the reason the bill was 25
pages long that month was because they had to prorate it since the
'guy in Topeka' had re-rated me. The next month's bill _was_ a few
pages (not many!) smaller, but the bottom line total was still
higher. Then, according to the service rep they had detirmined I was
not eligible for lifeline rates unless I would send them once again
send them notes from doctor, SRS (Kansas medicaid public assistance)
and some other paperwork. When I finally fled to Prairie Stream and
Cable One (since SBC would not allow Prairie Stream to handle my DSL),
they had me up to $140 per month; I was choking on the phone bill. And
the lies they tell about their various service offerings ... their
claims ... just incredible.  I was so happy to get out of their noose.
PAT]

------------------------------

From: Jack Decker <jack-yahoogroups@withheld on request>
Date: Sat, 12 Mar 2005 18:07:40 -0500
Subject: FCC Wants Comments Re: Should VoIP co's Get Numbers Direct?


The following is an excerpt from an FCC public notice, which can be
read in full at:

PDF: http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-05-663A1.pdf
DOC: http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-05-663A1.doc
TEXT: http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-05-663A1.txt

The basic issue here is whether VoIP companies will be allowed to
obtain numbers directly from NANPA.  Right now, when a VoIP company
wants a block of numbers, they have to go to a CLEC that has numbers
assigned to them, and use numbers out of the CLEC's number pool.  The
problem with this is that the CLEC then owns the numbers rather than
the VoIP company.  Consider the case of where a CLEC is giving poor
service or goes out of business; calls to customers may not complete
properly and it may not be the VoIP company's fault, but rather the
fault of the CLEC that owns the number.

So, allowing this change would let the VoIP company to own their own
numbers, and therefore they would have both more flexibility and more
responsibility.  When a CLEC that the VoIP company partners with isn't
completing calls properly, the VoIP company could move the termination
point for the numbers to another CLEC.  I think allowing this change
would allow VoIP companies to provide better service to customers, and
by the way it would also probably remove the current impediments for
customers wanting to take their phone number from one VoIP provider to
another (or to a landline or cellular company, for that matter -- in
other words, local number portability for VoIP numbers would probably
be a reality).

Maybe I'm missing something but I don't see any real downside to this.
Those that just don't like VoIP will probably find some reason to
oppose it but I think that if VoIP companies had control of their own
number space, rather than using numbers out of the various CLEC's
pool, it would make thing far easier for everyone.  Note this has
nothing to do with whether they would still use the CLEC's for actual
call completion, it only addresses who owns the block of numbers out
of which customer numbers are assigned.

Comments are due by April 15 and those who wish to send a comment can
go to http://www.fcc.gov/cgb/ecfs/ for details.  

Instructions for sending an e-mail comment are at:

http://www.fcc.gov/cgb/ecfs/email.html or you can send a brief comment
to the FCC using the online form at
http://gullfoss2.fcc.gov/prod/ecfs/upload_v2.cgi . 

You will need the Proceeding number, which is 99-200 (this is called a
"CC Docket No."  on the Public Notice).

Here is the excerpt:

PUBLIC NOTICE
Federal Communications Commission
445 12th St., S.W.
Washington, D.C. 20554
News Media Information 202 / 418-0500
Internet: http://www.fcc.gov
TTY: 1-888-835-5322

DA 05-663
March 11, 2005

WIRELINE COMPETITION BUREAU SEEKS COMMENT ON RNK, INC. D/B/A RNK
TELECOM, NUVIO CORPORATION, UNIPOINT ENHANCED SERVICES D/B/A POINTONE,
DIALPAD COMMUNICATIONS, INC., VONAGE HOLDINGS CORPORATION, AND VOEX,
INC. PETITIONS FOR LIMITED WAIVER OF SECTION 52.15(g)(2)(i) OF THE
COMMISSION'S RULES REGARDING ACCESS TO NUMBERING RESOURCES

PLEADING CYCLE ESTABLISHED:

CC Docket No. 99-200

Comment Date: April 11, 2005
Reply Comment Date: April 26, 2005

RNK, Inc. d/b/a RNK Telecom (RNK), Nuvio Corporation (Nuvio), Unipoint
Enhanced Services d/b/a PointOne (PointOne), Dialpad Communications,
Inc. (Dialpad), Vonage Holdings Corporation (Vonage), and VoEX,
Inc.(VoEX) have filed petitions with the Commission for a limited
waiver of section 52.15(g)(2)(i) of the Commission's rules. The
petitions request a limited waiver of the Commission's numbering
rules to allow RNK, Nuvio, PointOne, Dialpad, Vonage, and VoEX to
obtain numbering resources from the North American Numbering Plan
Administrator (NANPA) and/or the Pooling Administrator (PA). RNK,
Nuvio, Point One, Dialpad, Vonage, and VoEX seek the same relief that
the Commission granted in an Order allowing SBCIS to obtain numbering
resources directly from the NANPA and/or the PA until the Commission
adopts final numbering rules for IP-enabled services.

We invite comment on the Petitions for Limited Waiver. Pursuant to
applicable procedures set forth in sections 1.415 and 1.419 of the
Commission's rules, interested parties may file comments on or
before April 11, 2005; and reply comments on or before April 26,
2005. Comments may be filed using the Commission's Electronic
Comment Filing System (ECFS) or by filing paper copies. See Electronic
filing of Documents in Rulemaking Proceedings, 63 Fed. Reg. 24121
(1998).

[End of excerpt]

I have Gmail invites available if anyone needs one -- e-mail me.  If I
think there's a chance you might be a spammer, I'll probably ignore
your request.

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: Danny Burstein <dannyb@panix.com>
Subject: Enron Update, was: FCC to Cellcos: Clean up Your Bills
Date: Sat, 12 Mar 2005 22:55:57 UTC
Organization: PANIX Public Access Internet and UNIX, NYC


In <telecom24.109.9@telecom-digest.org> Tony
P. <kd1s@nospamplease.cox.reallynospam.net> writes:

> I don't for a moment think the Narragansett Electric was going to
> walk away owning just the distribution network and not make people pay
> top dollar for it. All this at the time that our electric system
> infrastructure is crumbling.

> There are echoes of Enron all over the place. Now you just have to dig
> a bit deeper to find them.

Speaking of Enron:

"Federal regulators handed a major victory Friday to Western utilities
and cities trying to escape exorbitant contracts they made with
disgraced energy giant Enron Corp. during the power crunch of 2000-01.

"In a six-page order issued Friday evening, the Federal Energy
Regulatory Commission determined that Enron was engaging in illegal
activity at the time it entered the contracts with the utilities - and
that therefore, a hearing should be held to determine whether Enron
should be allowed to collect profits it would have received had those
contracts been fulfilled.

http://online.wsj.com/article/0,,SB111060370422077742,00.html?mod=home_whats_news_us
	(paid subscription

Comment: fascinating that this was released by the feds Friday evening, 
eh? That time, as we all know, is used when you want a story to be 
buried ...

_____________________________________________________
Knowledge may be power, but communications is the key
		     dannyb@panix.com 
[to foil spammers, my address has been double rot-13 encoded]

------------------------------

From: AES <siegman@stanford.edu>
Subject: Satellite Radio as "Broadcast Audio Internet"?
Date: Sat, 12 Mar 2005 13:31:06 -0800
Organization: Stanford University


Random thoughts re satellite radio (as it might be, not necessarily as 
it is):

1) Think of a satellite radio system in technical terms as basically a
couple of hundred one-way high-audio-quality phone lines coming into
your house, office or car, no matter where you are.  If you buy the
service and get your radio authorized, you can listen to any line you
want, any time you want.  There is however no way for any line to
"ring your phone" individually, and no way for the system to determine
what you're actually listening to, or to charge you on an individual
basis for listening to any individual line.

In other words, it's kind of a one-way broadcast audio Internet.

2) Suppose a commercial firm wanted to build and provide such a
satellite radio service with about the same technical capabilities and
the same current or likely magnitude of customer base as XM or Sirius
at present or in the foreseeable future, but with no content ­­ in
other words a kind of "common carrier" service ­­ with income derived
from (a) listener subscriptions and (b) selling channels to content
providers.

What might this cost? ­­ that is, what might be a subscriber's monthly
"phone bill", and what might be the cost to a content provider to buy
a channel, just to cover the operating costs of the system, plus a
modest profit for the provider?

3) Obviously this depends on how the system's costs are allocated
between these two sources, but might the subscriber's cost be about
the same as XM or Sirius subscription rates at present, and channel
costs to content providers be maybe thousands or tens of thousands per
month, not millions per month?

4) That would be an interesting system.  "Broadcasters" ­­ aka
"content providers" ­­ could purchase channels, provide content (e.g.,
music), and cover their costs of buying the channel and generating the
content by selling advertising, although without further technical
developments they'd have trouble determining just how much audience
they were delivering to their advertisers, and thus what they could
charge for the ad slots on their channel.

5) But if the channels were cheap enough a large number of "interest
groups" of all types ­­ political, religious, ethnic, athletic,
social, religious, academic, educational, environmental, you name it ­­

Could buy (or share) channels, and send content to their members,
or to broader audiences, supported by their own membership or their
donors or sponsors in the manner of KPFA, KQED, WBAI, the Sierra Club,
and so on.

That would be a socially interesting and socially valuable/desirable
situation, at least IMHO.  In fact, maybe that's the way satellite
radio should be required (legislatively) to operate . . . ?

6)  What if any of the above aspects does satellite radio have now?  

Does or will XM or Sirius sell a channel to a content provider and/or 
interest group now (disclaiming any responsibility for what's on it)?  

If they sell to some content providers now, can they be required to sell 
to any and all providers willing to pay?  

Assuming they get up to some acceptable level of subscribers, can or
could subscriber fees similar to those at present cover their basic
operating costs (i.e., just for providing the empty channels) and
modest profit?

Or are they counting on advertising revenues for a major portion of 
their future profits? (as do essentially all other forms of commercial 
media, radio, TV and print, at present)

7)  My personal take or viewpoint on all this is summed up in:

     "Power tends to corrupt.  Absolute power corrupts absolutely."   
      British philosopher Lord Acton around 1890.

      "Dependence on advertising tends to corrupt.  Total dependence 
       on  advertising  corrupts totally."   Today's version.

The second line is my view of the situation in essentially all areas
of journalism and broadcast media today.  The right kind of satellite
radio could be a way around it.

------------------------------

From: Peter Pearson <ppearson@nowhere.invalid.lga.highwinds-media.com>
Subject: Re: Privacy Self-Regulation, A Decade of Disappointment
Date: Sat, 12 Mar 2005 11:26:54 -0800


Monty Solomon wrote:

> EPIC Report: Privacy Self-Regulation, A Decade of Disappointment:

>      http://www.epic.org/reports/decadedisappoint.html

Summary: Freedom is ugly. The FTC should do something. The "specifics",
if you can call them that, of the "something" are: (1) abandon its faith,
(2) reexamine something, (3) reexamine something else, (4) investigate
something, (5) investigate something else, and (6) develop a mechanism
for opting out.


Peter Pearson
To get my email address, substitute:
nowhere -> spamcop, invalid -> net


[TELECOM Digest Editor's Note: I went to that web site and read
entirely the essay mentioned (A Decade of Disappointment) and found
it well worth the time to reprint here for inclusion in our archives.
But it is _quite large_ so it will appear in two parts; much of it
will appear in this issue, the balance in the next issue.  PAT]

------------------------------

From: Patrick Townson <ptownson@cableone.net>
Subject: A Decade of Disappointment - Part I
Date: Sat, 12 Mar 2005 15:43:22 -0600


  Privacy Self Regulation: A Decade of Disappointment
  By Chris Jay Hoofnagle
  March 4, 2005

  A hi-resolution version report is available in PDF (2.5 MB).

  [Front Cover: Lists of personal information for sale from website
   registrations.]


  [Inside Front Cover: Letter forwarded to EPIC explaining that an
   individual has no rights in personal information held by the company,
   Locateplus.com.]


  Summary

  The Federal Trade Commission (FTC) is capable of creating reasonable
and effective privacy protections for American consumers. There is no
better example of this than the Telemarketing Do-Not-Call Registry.
The Registry, which was created and is now run by the FTC, makes it
easy for individuals to opt-out of unwanted telemarketing.  Now, more
than 80 million numbers now no longer ring at the dinner hour.

  Prior to the creation of the Registry, the telemarketing industry
created self-regulatory protections that were largely useless.  One
had to write a letter to opt out of telemarketing, or pay to opt out
by giving their credit card number to the Direct Marketing Association
(DMA). The industry's self-regulatory efforts didn't even cover all
telemarketers-only those that were members of the DMA.  At its peak,
the self-regulatory opt-out system had less then 5 million
enrollments.

  FTC's success in the telemarketing field demonstrates that it can
protect Americans' privacy effectively and fairly. However,
telemarketing was a 20th century problem.  This report argues that it
is time for the agency to move into the 21st century.  It is time for
the agency to apply the principles of telemarketing privacy regulation
into the online world.

  The FTC can protect privacy better than the industry can with
self-regulation. We now have ten years of experience with privacy
self-regulation online, and the evidence points to a sustained failure
of business to provide reasonable privacy protections.

  New tracking technologies exist that individuals are unaware of, and
old tracking technologies continue to be employed. Some companies
deliberately obfuscate their practices so that consumers remain in the
dark.  Spyware has developed and flourished under
self-regulation. Emerging technologies represent serious threats to
privacy and are not addressed by self-regulation or law.

  Self regulation has failed to produce easy to use anonymous payment
mechanisms.

  And finally, the worst identification and tracking policies from the
online world are finding their way into the offline world. In other
words, the lack of protection for privacy online not only has resulted
in a more invasive web environment, but has also started to drag down
the practices of ordinary, offline retailers.

  EPIC calls upon the Federal Trade Commission and Congress to
seriously reconsider its faith in self-regulatory privacy approaches.
They have led to a decade of disappointment; one where Congress has
been stalled and the public anesthetized, as privacy practices
steadily worsened.  We call on the government to create a floor of
standards for protection of personal information based on Fair
Information Practices.


  I. The FTC Registry Is Better Than Market Alternatives

  The Federal Trade Commission's (FTC) Telemarketing Do-Not-Call
Registry was a stunning privacy success.  Americans enrolled 10
million numbers in the Registry in its first day of operation.  Now,
the phone has stopped ringing on the more than 60 million numbers that
were enrolled by the public.  The nuisance of telemarketing will now
be a thing of the past.  Those who wish to receive telemarketing may
still do so, but others have an easy option to preserve the dinner
hour from interruption.

  When one analyzes the decisions made by the FTC, it reveals that the
agency took steps to effect consumers' desires.  The FTC publicized
the existence of the Registry and gave it a simple name and URL on the
Internet.  The FTC allowed people to enroll free by telephone or by
the Internet.  The FTC minimized "authentication" burdens.  That is,
the FTC made it easy for people to enroll by not requiring the
consumer to jump through unnecessary hoops. Some from the industry
suggested that only the line subscriber-not even a spouse or
roommate-could enroll.

  The Do-Not-Call Registry was a success because the FTC took the
opposite approach from the self-regulatory system created by the
Direct Marketing Association (DMA).  In every respect, the FTC ensured
that the Registry would be easy to use and fair, while the DMA's
opt-out mechanism was difficult to use and relatively unknown.

  For starters, the DMA's system only applied to the industry
association's members.  Telemarketers who had not joined the group
were not bound to comply with consumers' desire to opt-out.  The FTC's
approach applied to a much broader group of telemarketers.

  Second, the DMA's list was named the "Telephone Preference Service."
The name and acronym, "TPS," had no meaning to the public.  To some,
it could mean a list of people who preferred to be telemarketed.  The
FTC approach, on the other hand, was sensibly named and assigned a
easy to remember URL, http://donotcall.gov, on the Internet.

  Third, the DMA's list required the consumer to actually write a
letter for free enrollment.  To enroll online, the consumer had to pay
a fee and give their credit card number to the DMA.  The FTC's
approach allows free Internet, mail, and telephone enrollment.

        The FTC's Registry is universal, free, and easy to
use. Individuals could enroll online or by phone.  The DMA's only
applied to its members, cost money to enroll online, and was difficult
to find. It's no wonder why the DMA's list only had 5 million
enrollments, while the FTC's has more than 80 million.

  These forces combined to make the DMA's market approach to
telemarketing ineffective.  The numbers speak for themselves.  USA
Today commented in 2002 that: "In 17 years, just 4.8 million consumers
have signed up with the DMA's do-not-call list. By contrast, just five
states -- New York, Kentucky, Indiana, Florida and Missouri -- have
signed up roughly the same number in far less time."[i]

  Today's self-regulatory approaches to Internet privacy are much like
the failed ones employed by the DMA for telemarketing.  They are
difficult to use, confusing, and often offer no real protection at
all.  This report details the current state of privacy on the
Internet, and illustrates the myriad ways in which threats to privacy
are becoming ever more grave, as new technologies are developed, new
practices become commonplace, and companies are not held accountable
for disregarding privacy risks.  Collection of personal information on
the Internet runs rampant, both through direct and indirect means,
both in the open and in secret.  It is imperative that the FTC act now
to correct these market failures.  The FTC effectively and fairly
corrected the failures of a 20th century nuisance-telemarketing.  It
is time for the agency to move into the 21st century and correct the
failures of self-regulation to meaningfully protect Internet privacy.

  II. Ten Years of Self-Regulation and Still No Privacy In Sight

  EPIC has completed three Surfer Beware reports assessing the state
of privacy on the Internet. "Surfer Beware I: Personal Privacy and the
Internet," a 1997 report, reviewed privacy practices of 100 of the
most frequently visited web sites on the Internet.  It checked for
collection of personal information, establishment of privacy policies,
cookie usage, and anonymous browsing.  The inquiry found that few
sites had easily accessible privacy policies, and none of these
policies met basic standards for privacy protection.  However, at that
time, most of the sites surveyed allowed users to access web content
and services without disclosing any personal data. The report ended
with a recommendation of continuing support for anonymity and the
development of both good privacy policies and practices.

  In 1998, EPIC produced "Surfer Beware II: Notice Is Not Enough," a
report based on a survey of the privacy practices of 76 new members of
the Direct Marketing Association ("DMA"), a proponent of
self-regulation of privacy protection. The DMA released guidelines in
1997 that would require all future members of the DMA to publicize
privacy policies and provide an opt-out capability for information
sharing.  Of the 76 new members surveyed, only 40 had web sites, and
only 8 of these sites had policies satisfying the DMA's requirements.
The report concluded that DMA's self-regulation efforts were not
effective.

  The 1999 report "Surfer Beware III: Privacy Policies without Privacy
Protection" assessed the privacy practices of the 100 most popular
shopping web sites on the Internet. It examined whether these sites
complied with common accepted privacy principles, used profile-based
advertising, and employed cookies. The survey determined that 18 of
the sites had no privacy policy displayed, 35 of the sites used
profile-based advertising, and 86 of the sites used cookies. None of
the companies adequately addressed Fair Information Practices,
commonly-accepted responsibilities covering collection, access to, and
control over personal information. Surfer Beware III concluded that
current practices of the online shopping industry provided little
meaningful privacy protection for consumers.

  The Federal Trade Commission ("FTC") has given self-regulation a
decade to produce reasonable privacy protections online.  The FTC
first visited online privacy in 1995, and with minor fluctuations
since then, has adopted a policy that embraces the idea that
self-regulation is "the least intrusive and most efficient means to
ensure fair information practices online, given the rapidly evolving
nature of the Internet and computer technology."[ii] It certainly is
the least intrusive approach for companies exploiting personal
information, but it has not efficiently ensured Fair Information
Practices.  Of the five Fair Information Practices[iii] endorsed by
the FTC-notice, choice, access, security, and accountability-only
notice can be said to be present as a result of privacy statements.

  The first fluctuation in the FTC's commitment to self-regulation
occurred in 1998, after the agency's survey of online practices showed
that the lowest level of protection for consumer, notice of privacy
practices, was not widely implemented.  In a survey of 1400 web sites
conducted by the Commission, 92% of the commercial sites collected
personal information but only 14% had privacy notices.  Of the
commercial sites, only 2% had a "comprehensive" privacy policy.[iv] In
reaction to these findings, the FTC was "still hopeful" that industry
efforts would produce adequate privacy protections.[v] At the time,
Chairman Pitofsky recommended that Congress pass legislation if
self-regulation failed to produce significant progress.[vi]

  A year later in testimony to Congress, the FTC renewed its faith in
self-regulation, noting that many web sites had adopted privacy
policies.  But protections beyond mere disclosure of practices lagged
behind.  Only a small number of surveyed sites had incorporated
choice, access, and security into their practices. No meaningful
avenue for enforcement existed at all.  Commissioner Sheila Anthony
concurred with the report's findings but dissented from its
recommendations, noting, "industry progress has been far too slow
since the Commission first began encouraging the adoption of voluntary
fair information practices in 1996. Notice, while an essential first
step, is not enough if the privacy practices themselves are toothless.
I believe that the time may be right for federal legislation to
establish at least baseline minimum standards."


        "Notice, while an essential first step, is not enough if the
privacy practices themselves are toothless."


  In 2000, a 3-2 majority of the FTC formally recommended that
Congress adopt legislation requiring commercial web sites and network
advertising companies to comply with Fair Information Practices.[vii]
However, a year later with the appointment of a new FTC Chairman, the
FTC embraced self-regulation again.  Chairman Muris decided to focus
the Commission's attention on enforcing existing laws rather than
create new legislative protections for online privacy.[viii] Chairman
Muris indeed has expanded privacy protections through the creation of
a do-not-call list and with application of the agency's powers to
prevent unfair and deceptive trade practices.

  The overall effect of the FTC's approach has been to delay the
adoption of substantive legal protection for privacy. The adherence to
self-regulatory approaches, such as the Network Advertising Initiative
that legitimized third-party Internet tracking and the Individual
References Service Group principles that concerned sale of SSNs,
allowed businesses to continue using personal information while not
providing any meaningful privacy protection.  Ten years later, online
collection of information is more pervasive, more invasive, and just
as unaccountable as ever-and increasingly, the public is anesthetized
to it.

  It doesn't have to be this way. The FTC has been effective in
protecting privacy when dealing with 20th century nuisances.  It's
time for the FTC to apply the lessons from telemarketing and other
efforts to address the 21st century problem of Internet privacy.



  III. Today's Tracking Methods Are More Pervasive and Invasive

  Seven years ago, EPIC's report Surfer Beware I reviewed the status
of Internet users' privacy rights and protections on the 100 most
frequently visited web sites.  The report was concerned primarily with
the solicitation, collection, use, and protection of personal
information obtained either from user-input forms or cookies.

  Today, there are many more methods through which users can be
tracked, profiled, and monitored in the online world.  Cookie
technology has matured-cookies are widespread and new uses have been
developed. Entirely new technologies have emerged as well, some of
which are all but unknown to consumers.  Few of these methods are
regulated, either internally by industry or externally by
government. Without privacy legislation to protect Internet users from
improper use of the information collected on the web, companies are
unlikely to voluntarily cease privacy-invasive practices.

  Cookies

  Surfer Beware I discussed an Internet tracking technology over which
there was "a great deal of controversy"-cookies.  It found that about
a quarter of the most frequently visited web sites used
cookies. Today, many websites use cookies for one reason or
another. In addition, there are several new wrinkles in the use of
this tracking technology.

  Third Party Cookies

  Today, websites that a user explicitly visits are not the only
entities which place cookies in your web browser-many web sites
contain advertising served by outside commercial providers, and these
providers may also send a cookie to your browser.  These are known as
"third party cookies."  Some web browsers, such as Firefox allow users
to block third party cookies.

  Many web pages today have arrangements with third party ad servers
that serve advertisements to their pages.  For example, the MSN
Privacy Statement lists two dozen third party ad networks that may
place cookies in a user's browser.[ix]

  Privacy policies (such as MSN's) tend to frame these third party
cookies as a benefit to the user, allowing advertisers to "deliver
targeted advertisements that they believe will be of most interest to
you."

  Persistent Cookies

  A persistent cookie is one that remains on a user's computer after
she has quit the browser.  These cookies can be used to set and
remember a user's web site preferences, settings, and passwords from
one browser session to the next, but can also be used for tracking and
monitoring purposes.  A troubling recent trend is to design these
cookies to remain not just for many browser sessions, but for many
years.  Google's search cookie, for example, will not expire until
January 17, 2038.  This kind of long range tracking of users raises
significant privacy risks.

  Web Bugs

  A web bug is a graphic on a web page that allows tracking and
monitoring of visitors to that page. Web bugs are usually invisible,
"clear" images only 1-by-1 pixel in size. They are capable of
transmitting, back to the bug's originating server your Internet
Protocol ("IP") address, the page you visited, the time you visited,
browser information, and information from existing cookies in the
browser.

        For market approaches to work, consumers must grasp both
technology and practices.  But in a Pew Internet Report, 56% surveyed
couldn't identify a cookie.[x]

  Web bugs are sometimes used for the innocuous purpose of counting
how many times a particular page is viewed and gathering statistics
about browser usage and web site usage. There are, however, much more
invasive uses, such as compiling a detailed web-browsing profile of a
particular user.

  Web bugs are designed specifically to be secret and invisible.  Many
Internet users today are aware of cookies, and may perceive them from
the appearance of visible advertisements.  There are also tools to
manage cookies. Web bugs, however, can transmit information and set
cookies even when there is no telltale banner advertisement on the
website tipping off a user that information might be collected about
them. Furthermore, just one "allowed" cookie from an ad network opens
the door for all web bugs within that network to collect browsing
information about that user.  With companies such as DoubleClick,
providing advertising to countless web sites, this risk is
significant. For instance, if a user with a DoubleClick cookie in
their browser loads a web page with a DoubleClick web bug on it, that
bug can grab the identifying information in the cookie and transmit it
back to the server along with the other information collected by the
bug.

  Google's Gmail Content Extraction

  On April 1, 2004, Google announced the launch of their new Gmail
service.  Gmail is a web-based e-mail service offering one-gigabyte of
e-mail storage to users.  Gmail is supported by advertisers who buy
keywords, much like the Google search engine's AdWords advertising
program, which lead to targeted advertisements displayed alongside an
e-mail message in a Gmail user's inbox. Gmail uses "content
extraction" (a term from Google's patents) on all e-mails sent to and
from a Gmail account in order to target the advertising to the user.

        "If Google ogles your e-mail, will Ashcroft be far behind?"[xi]

  Many privacy advocates hold the position that the Gmail service
violates the privacy rights of both Gmail users and non-subscribers.
Non-subscribers who e-mail a Gmail user have "content extraction"
performed on their e-mail even though they have not consented to have
their communications monitored, nor may they even be aware that their
communications are being analyzed.

  This is a significant development in Internet tracking technology
because it is one of the first with the capacity and the structure to
monitor and record not just transactional data and personal
information, but the content of private communications.

  Spyware

  Spyware and adware are extremely invasive and annoying technologies
that have flourished in the self-regulatory world of Internet
privacy. Both can be broadly described as pieces of software placed on
a user's computer by a third party that perform unwanted
functions. Spyware and adware collect information about the user,
sometimes in complete secrecy without the knowledge of the user.  Some
programs display pop-up ads on the user's monitor, while others track
and record everything the user does online.  Information is sometimes
collected by the programs for the sole purpose of sending that data
back to an advertiser, and other times used to immediately serve
pop-up ads to the user. Users often inadvertently download and install
spyware and adware along with other desired computer programs, most
commonly file-sharing applications.  McAfee, an Internet security firm
that sells popular virus protection and other personal computer
security programs, reported more than 2.5 million "potentially
unwanted programs" on its customers' computers, as of March 2004.[xii]


[TELECOM Digest Editor's Note: In the next issue of the Digest, we
will begin with Part IV of this essay, discussing even more nefarious
schemes to invade your privacy getting started.   PAT

------------------------------

From: Tony P. <kd1s@nospamplease.cox.reallynospam.net>
Subject: Re: Wiring Two Lines on One Jack
Organization: ATCC
Date: Sat, 12 Mar 2005 15:58:25 -0500


In article <telecom24.109.7@telecom-digest.org>, Wesrock@aol.com says...

> In a message dated Fri, 11 Mar 2005 21:34:59 -0500, Marcus Didius Falco
> <falco_marcus_didius@yahoo.co.uk> writes:

>> Many years ago the standard was somewhat different, and the yellow
>> wire was sometimes used as a ground. Then, for a time, I think the
>> yellow wire was used to power the lights on princess phones. Almost
>> certainly the yellow wire is either dead or shorted to one of the
>> other wires. Check this with a volt meter.

> The yellow wire was indeed used for ground, required for the generally
> used type of party-line ringing, and also for calling party
> identification when DDD came along.

> Two wires were required, as for all electrical circuits, for the
> lights on Princess and Trimline phones.  They were normally on
> yellow-black.  Usually a wall war was used, but there were also
> separate plug-in transformers with binding post terminals that could
> be put in an inconspicuous location and multipled (normally on the
> yellow-black) to several Princess or Trimline phones.

Yep -- I remember that setup well. There were different wall warts
depending on the configuration being set up. Our house had one but the
current was higher because there were two Trimlines and one Princess
in use.
 
> Later examples of Trimline phones got the power for the lights from
> the phone pairs (another task for the C.O. battery).

Yep, got one of those on my desk right now. A yellow Trimline to be 
specific. Has green LED's to provide the lighting. 


[TELECOM Digest Editor's Note: One thing I have noticed which is
different between the older Trimline phones (with a separate power
supply) and the newer units is that the newer units (with an LED to
light the buttons) run from telco battery instead of an external power
supply. The old units would stay lighted all the time unless you
flipped the switch to turn off the light bulb. The newer units (with
an LED powered from telco battery) are dark when the phone is on hook
and also go dark for a few seconds as the buttons are pressed. That
is unfortunate, because the older units also made very nice 'night
lights' in a darkened room. With the newer (telco battery powered
LED) units, you can not see the phone in a dark room until you have
already found it and have it off hook.  PAT]

------------------------------

From: Steve Sobol <sjsobol@JustThe.net>
Subject: Re: Cell Phone Radiation Dangers
Date: Sat, 12 Mar 2005 14:02:03 -0800
Organization: Glorb Internet Services, http://www.glorb.com


Tony P. wrote:

>>> Consider that Ms. Wood readily admits she has an agenda (she has an
>>> axe to grind with cell phone manufacturers over what she perceives as
>>> "iron-clad control over phone releases and pricing, its
>>> ever-lengthening contracts, and the annoying habit it has of crippling
>>> Bluetooth phones so that [she] can't use them the way [she wants]
>>> to").  I would thus take this with a heavy handful of salt.

If Miss Wood thinks that retail phone pricing and contracts are the
fault of the MANUFACTURERS, she's probably too stupid to carry a cell
phone in the first place. I doubt the removal of certain functions is
done by the manufacturers on their own, either.

> The problem is that many of the headsets are now Bluetooth enabled.
> Those put out signals on what, 2.4GHz at relatively low power.

So? My phone runs on 1.9GHz ... I still haven't heard anything
definitive either way, either that cell phones DO or DON'T cause
illness.

JustThe.net - Apple Valley, CA - http://JustThe.net/ - 888.480.4NET (4638)
Steven J. Sobol, Geek In Charge / sjsobol@JustThe.net / PGP: 0xE3AE35ED

"The wisdom of a fool won't set you free"
     --New Order, "Bizarre Love Triangle"

------------------------------

From: Tim@Backhome.org
Subject: Re: AT&T Billing
Date: Sat, 12 Mar 2005 15:17:32 -0800
Organization: Cox Communications


> [TELECOM Digest Editor's Note Yet, Traditional Bell and its apologists
> keep talking complaining about what a bum deal telco is getting from the
> alternative services such as the CLECs and VOIP, etc.

> This is just IMO, but I think AT&T, SBC, etc have mostly brought on
> their own troubles over the years.  PAT]

No doubt about it.  They were the most arrogant suits in town in the
1950s and 60s.  Had they been able to reason objectively they would
have never let Carterfone get out of hand.

Then again, their history from the late 1800s, on through WWII, made
them feel they were more powerful than the U.S. Government or any mere
private enterprise domestic corportation.

------------------------------


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 !

              ************************

Visit http://www.mstm.okstate.edu and take the next step in your
career with a Master of Science in Telecommunications Management
(MSTM) degree from Oklahoma State University (OSU). This 35
credit-hour interdisciplinary program is designed to give you the
skills necessary to manage telecommunications networks, including
data, video, and voice networks.

The MSTM degree draws on the expertise of the OSU's College
of Business Administration; the College of Arts and Sciences; and the
College of Engineering, Architecture and Technology. The program has
state-of-the-art lab facilities on the Stillwater and Tulsa campus
offering hands-on learning to enhance the program curriculum.  Classes
are available in Stillwater, Tulsa, or through distance learning.

Please contact Jay Boyington for additional information at
405-744-9000, mstm-osu@okstate.edu, or visit the MSTM web site at
http://www.mstm.okstate.edu

              ************************

   In addition, gifts from Mike Sandman, Chicago's Telecom Expert
   have enabled me to replace some obsolete computer equipment and
   enter the 21st century sort of on schedule. His mail order 
   telephone parts/supplies service based in the Chicago area has
   been widely recognized by Digest readers as a reliable and very
   inexpensive source of telecom-related equipment. Please request
   a free catalog today at http://www.sandman.com 
   ---------------------------------------------------------------

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 V24 #110
******************************