For your convenience in reading: Subject lines are printed in RED and
Moderator replies when issued appear in BROWN.
Previous Issue (just one)
TD Extra News
For your convenience in reading: Subject lines are printed in RED and
Moderator replies when issued appear in BROWN.
Previous Issue (just one)
TD Extra News
TELECOM Digest Fri, 25 Mar 2005 16:52:00 EST Volume 24 : Issue 131
Inside This Issue: Editor: Patrick A. Townson
Symantec's Self Serving Warnings - 2 Comments (Marcus Didius Falco)
What's Historic? (Wesrock@aol.com)
CDR Collection (Matt)
Telecom Reform: Here Come the States (Jack Decker)
Clearwire May Block VoIP Competitors (Jack Decker)
Adelphia Offers Feds $725 Million to Settle Fraud (Telecom dailyLead)
Packet8 Number Portability (kwyet)
911,Taxes,Fees, was: Texas Sues Vonage Over 911 Problem (Danny Burstein)
PSAP Locations, was: Texas Sues Vonage Over 911 Problem (Danny Burstein)
Re: Texas Sues Vonage Over 911 Problem (Thor Lancelot Simon)
Re: Texas Sues Vonage Over 911 Problem (Justin Time)
Re: New Long Range Cordless Phones? (Dave)
Re: Intertel Eclipse Telephone Programming (T. Sean Weintz)
Re: What Happened To Channel 1 (Dan Lanciani)
Re: Our Telephonic Primacy (John Smith)
Re: Some Concerned About Privacy Implications of E-ZPass (Isaiah Beard)
Re: Some Concerned About Privacy Implications of E-ZPass (B Margolin)
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: Thu, 24 Mar 2005 21:30:35 -0500
From: Marcus Didius Falco <falco_marcus_didius@yahoo.co.uk>
Subject: Symantec's Self Serving Warnings - 2 Comments
http://comment.zdnet.co.uk/other/0,39020682,39192261,00.htm
This story was printed from ZDNet UK, located at http://comment.zdnet.co.uk/
Story URL: http://comment.zdnet.co.uk/other/0,39020682,39192261,00.htm
Symantec's self serving warnings
Fran Foo
ZDNet Australia
March 22, 2005, 13:10 GMT
Apple has apparently become a victim of its own success since Mac OS X
is gaining in popularity, Symantec expects it to become a target for
more attacks and intense vulnerability scrutiny.
This trend was published in Symantec's Internet Security Threat Report
for July to December 2004.
To back its claim, Symantec cited several reasons ranging from Mac OS
X's heredity to attacking the intelligence of loyal Mac fans.
"With a newly designed operating system based on a BSD-Unix lineage,
Mac OS X has begun to not only capture the attention of users but of
vulnerability researchers as well."
"Contrary to popular belief, the Macintosh operating system has not
always been a safe haven from malicious code," the report said. Sure,
Microsoft's attempts at security are often scoffed at but to infer
that Mac users (or those of Unix, Linux etc.) are living in a bubble
is ignorance on Symantec's part.
Another point of contention was Apple's new products. Increased
adoption of the Mac mini the company's low-priced computer will
escalate malicious activity since it could be purchased by less
security-savvy users, the report stated.
I can understand how non-IT literate users at large struggle to
understand the difference between a virus and a worm but is Symantec
saying only technologically-competent people purchase Windows
machines? Rebooting a machine multiple times a day can't be that hard
(I should know).
It's difficult to grasp the reasoning behind these statements.
Symantec's only piece of solid evidence is reference to 37 previous
high-impact vulnerabilities in Mac OS X all of which have been
patched. Juxtaposed against the 17,500 Windows-based viruses and
threats, it's clearly an uneven contest.
One telling finding in the report was the decline in bot-scanning
activity during the second half of 2004 Symantec recorded a dip from
30,000 per day to 5,000 on a daily basis. The company concluded that
the decrease corresponded with the availability of Windows XP Service
Pack 2.
"Ports 445 and 135 are common paths for bot networks to spread onto
computer systems, either through unpatched vulnerabilities or bad user
name and password choices.
"Many common bot network applications, including Gaobot, target
vulnerabilities that are accessible through these Windows ports as a
method of infecting new systems. The sudden drop in bot network
scanning indicates that Service Pack 2, in addition to cumulative
patches, may have been successful at reducing the number
vulnerabilities in Windows XP systems that are subject to remote
compromise," Symantec said.
If Microsoft does a stellar job at improving the security of its
products coupled with the availability of proprietary anti-spyware and
antivirus solutions which platform will be Symantec's new engine for
growth?
Copyright 2005 CNET Networks, Inc.
Mac Threats: Is Symantec Crying Wolf?
March 23, 2005
By David Coursey
In a perfect would, people might pay for security software based on
the number of attacks prevented and the severity of those threats. The
bigger the threat, the harder the software works and the more it
protects, the more you pay. Seems fair enough.
In the case of Mac OS X, if you paid for what you got, the price for
security software would be zero. The price would thus equal the number
of virus and malware threats that target Apple's Unix-based operating
system.
RELATED LINKS
* Mac OS X Patch Includes IDN Browser Fix
http://www.eweek.com/article2/0,1759,1778335,00.asp
* Mac OS X Will Become a Target, Symantec Warns
http://www.eweek.com/article2/0,1759,1777982,00.asp
* Mac OS X: Virus-free=97For Now
http://www.eweek.com/article2/0,1759,1777202,00.asp
So why do Mac users pay so much often as much at $70 for anti-virus alone
and as much as $150 for a security "suite." Using the same math, Windows
anti-virus software would probably cost $1,000 a desktop, yet it's easy to
find software for as little as $20 in the stores.
Mac OS X users pay significantly more for protection than Windows
users, protection so far they have needed only in theory or "just in
case" a big new threat appears. People are getting wise to this. So is
it any wonder that Symantec, in the eternal search for the next
dollar, is out with a report that seems to predict dire consequences
for future Mac users? It's like a teacher once told me, "Sell the
sizzle, not the steak. Especially when you don't have any steak."
I suppose it's to the anti-virus industry's credit that some bored
anti-virus developer hasn't launched an OS X threat merely to justify his
or her continued employment. Still, with no threats, it's not like the
software really requires much dev time.
It was not my plan to return to Macintosh security so soon, having
just written about it last week.
Click here to read David Coursey's column "Mac OS X: Virus-Free For Now."
But my friend and co-worker Ryan Naraine wrote a story this week in
which Symantec talks about the growing threat viruses and malware pose
to Mac OS X users, mentioned earlier. This claim is based on an
internal assessment conducted for the company's "Security Threat
Report," issued twice yearly.
Ryan's story quotes the company as predicting that with the
"introduction and popularity of OS X Apple has become a target for new
attacks and vulnerabilities."
Click here to read "Mac OS X Will Become a Target, Symantec Warns."
Indeed, a Morgan Stanley report out this week predicts Apple could
nearly double its share of the worldwide PC sales this year, thanks to
iPod users buying a Mac as well. Going from 3 percent to 5 percent
will be dramatic for Apple, but hardly noticeable in the broad
marketplace. Given OS X's small global installed base, even this
projected doubling of sales may not be enough to attract too much
unwanted attention.
"Contrary to popular belief," the Symantec Threat Report continues,
"the Macintosh operating system has not always been a safe haven from
malicious code. Out of the public eye for some time, it is now clear
that the Mac OS is increasingly becoming a target for the malicious
activity that is more commonly associated with Microsoft and various
Unix-based operating systems."
Next Page: Threats will grow.
Having recently spoken to Symantec's Mac product manager, I got a
sense that the threat to Mac OS X is likely to grow over time, but not
into something we should stay up nights worrying about. But this
Symantec Threat Report sounds like the Mac has never been secure and
is only going to get worse over time. The comparison to Microsoft
sounds downright ominous. Ryan's story includes more quotes from the
report that are equally frightening or more so.
Is it any surprise that Symantec would beat the drums of fear as
loudly as possible? This is, after all, a company that has for years
persuaded Mac users to pay $70 for software "necessary" to protect
their computers against nonexistent threats.
This makes me wonder whether the real threat that concerns Symantec
isn't from Mac OS X viruses and malware. Rather, it's customers
noticing that they've paid a lot of money for Norton anti-virus
software that they didn't really need.
For more insights from David Coursey, check out his Weblog.
How can Symantec keep those customers in line and writing checks? By
scaring the living daylights out of them, that's how. They even invoke
the "M" word as a warning of what could be in store!
It's prudent to protect yourself. But what you pay for the protection
ought to have some relationship to the threat.
While my "value pricing" concept will never fly, there really should
be some relationship between what we pay and the protection we
get. Compared with what Windows users pay, $70 is more protection than
any Mac requires. Yet that's what Symantec and some competitors
charge.
Mac users deserve a break.
Contributing Editor David Coursey has spent two decades writing about
hardware, software and communications for business customers. A full
bio and contact information may be found on his Web site,
www.coursey.com.
Check out eWEEK.com's Macintosh Center for the latest news, reviews and
analysis on Apple in the enterprise.
Copyright (c) 2005 Ziff Davis Media Inc.
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 . Hundreds of 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,
For more information go to:
http://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/17/107.shtml
------------------------------
From: Wesrock@aol.com
Date: Thu, 24 Mar 2005 20:14:58 EST
Subject: What's Historic?
This item forwarded from another list (and which apparently
originated in a newspaper) calls Basking Ridge "historic."
To many of us 195 Broadway would be historic. Basking Ridge was
a johnny-come-lately and I remember the panic among Manhattan workers
and how AT&T held driving lessons for employees from NYC.
Wes Leatherock
wesrock@aol.com
Verizon to pay $125M for AT&T's 'Pagoda' Offspring to buy former
telecom giant's HQ
Tuesday, March 22, 2005
BY GEORGE E. JORDAN
Star-Ledger Staff
Verizon has agreed to pay about $125 million for the sprawling Basking
Ridge campus that once served as the historic headquarters of AT&T,
according to five people with knowledge of the transaction.
Verizon, the nation's biggest telephone company, eventually could move
its operations center and up to 1,000 employees from Manhattan to the
10 interconnecting buildings in Somerset County, said the sources.
------------------------------
From: Matt <mattmorgan64@msn.com>
Subject: CDR Collection
Date: 25 Mar 2005 09:28:45 -0800
I have a NItsuka PBX (Not sure of mod # yet); from which I would like
to pull incoming CDR records, for the purposes of parsing the phone
number and bringing the customer up automatically in our customer
system.
The PBX has a PC attached to it, which I believe is used for voice
mail.
None of the phones have any sort of data port.
Any idea where the most likely place for a port to obtain this data
would be? Given the age of the thing, If there is a port at all, I'm
guessing it will be a DB9 or 25 serial port.
Thanks,
Matt
------------------------------
From: Jack Decker <jack-yahoogroups@withheld on request>
Date: Fri, 25 Mar 2005 11:48:53 -0500
Subject: Telecom Reform: Here Come the States
Those of you on the MI-Telecom list can pretty much skip this
commentary (it's a condensed version of my earlier commentary in the
previous message) and scroll right down to the excerpt. For those of
you on the VoIP News list, here's a little preliminary commentary:
I am passing along this item not because I agree with it -- for the
most part, I do NOT -- but because for some reason the libertarian
think tanks seem to have more influence with legislators than they
should. Since there are no libertarian legislators elected by the
people (in most states), one wonders why libertarian think tanks are
even paid any attention. Further, I wish someone with the
investigative skills would follow the money trail on these
organizations -- they have to get their funding from somewhere, and I'm
very suspicious that some of their funding may be coming from Some Big
Company in Texas.
But more to the point, these people are lobbying for deregulation of
the telephone industry. It seems to me that competition is a good
thing, and deregulation is a bad thing when one company (the ILEC)
still has effective bottleneck control over an industry. What I see
happening here may be nothing less than a sneaky way to re-establish
the Bell monopoly.
The attack is as follows: Paint VoIP as a formidable competitor. Get
state legislators to agree that VoIP offers significant and ubiquitous
competition, even though less than 1% of the public uses VoIP and VoIP
currently has significant shortcomings (such as lack of "enhanced"
911). Then when the phone companies are deregulated, they will put
the screws to VoIP, by first refusing to sell broadband connectivity
(DSL) unless the customer also buys dial tone, and should the customer
agree to that, they will then play games with packet routing and
traffic shaping to degrade the service of VoIP companies.
Well, except of course for their own deregulated VoIP offerings, which
(unless the customer subscribes to a "premium" service at a very high
price) will look a lot more like traditional phone service (limited
calling areas and per-minute billing). That traffic will ride the
expressway, while competitors' VoIP traffic may be relegated to the
gravel roads, so to speak. And without regulation, they will be able
to raise rates at will.
End of my commentary, here's an excerpt of the article that inspired
it (note the date -- one could hope this is just an April Fool's joke,
but I suspect it is deadly serious).
http://www.heartland.org/Article.cfm?artId=16648
Telecom Reform: Here Come the States
Alabama leads the way
Written By: Steven Titch
Published In: IT&T News
Publication Date: April 1, 2005
Publisher: The Heartland Institute
In February, Alabama became the latest state to place telecom reform
on its legislative agenda.
Senate Bill 114 and its House counterpart, House Bill 112, call for
deregulation of wireline dial-tone services. The law would still allow
the Alabama Public Service Commission (PSC) to field complaints and
adjudicate disputes between consumers and local phone companies, but
the PSC would no longer set rates or dictate the way companies bundle
their services. Similar reform bills are on the docket, or headed for
it, in Illinois, Indiana, Texas, Wisconsin, and other states.
The Alabama bill recognizes the reality of intermodal competition from
wireless and voice over Internet Protocol (VoIP) services. It affirms
that telecommunications is becoming increasingly competitive as
service platforms shift away from proprietary, closed narrowband
networks to broadband connections based on open standards that support
diverse, customizable multimedia services.
Telecom reform advocates recognize that telephone service offered on
broadband platforms simply cannot be regulated as it was in the
past. Reform is necessary. The only question is what form it should
take. Many opponents of reform refuse to acknowledge that the current
scheme, even as it keeps rates low for some, is unsustainable.
Full story at:
http://www.heartland.org/Article.cfm?artId=16648
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: Jack Decker <jack-yahoogroups@withheld on request>
Date: Fri, 25 Mar 2005 12:20:55 -0500
Subject: Clearwire May Block VoIP Competitors
http://www.crn.com/sections/breakingnews/dailyarchives.jhtml?articleId=159905955
Clearwire May Block VoIP Competitors
Vonage says it's been blocked; Company's terms of service "prohibits"
use of certain high-bandwidth applications.
By Paul Kapustka,
Advanced IP Pipeline 2:32 AM EST Fri. Mar. 25, 2005
Someday, customers of wireless broadband provider Clearwire Corp. may
be able to use Voice over IP services. But right now, Craig McCaw's
newest company is giving its customers the silent treatment by
apparently blocking outside VoIP providers from its network.
In what the company claims is an effort to preserve the performance of
its pre-standard WiMAX network, Clearwire says it reserves the right
to prohibit the use of a wide range of bandwidth-hungry applications,
a list that apparently includes VoIP as well as the uploading or
downloading of streaming video or audio, and high-traffic Web site
hosting. According to the company's terms of service, Clearwire
reserves the right to restrict access or terminate service to
customers who don't comply with its rules.
While a company executive claimed the restrictions were necessary to
ensure network performance reliability, Clearwire could not explain
how that issue would be resolved when it offers its own VoIP services
in the near future. Earlier this month, Clearwire signed an agreement
with Bell Canada under which Bell Canada will provide VoIP systems and
services for Clearwire, at a date and price yet to be announced.
Full story at:
http://www.crn.com/sections/breakingnews/dailyarchives.jhtml?articleId=159905955
[TELECOM Digest Editor's Note: Aren't there, in most communities a
choice of other highspeed data services, such as AOL? PAT]
------------------------------
Date: Fri, 25 Mar 2005 13:06:53 EST
From: Telecom dailyLead from USTA <usta@dailylead.com>
Subject: Adelphia Offers Feds $725 Million to Settle Fraud Charges
Telecom dailyLead from USTA
March 25, 2005
http://www.dailylead.com/latestIssue.jsp?i=20348&l=2017006
TODAY'S HEADLINES
NEWS OF THE DAY
* Adelphia offers feds $725 million to settle fraud charges
BUSINESS & INDUSTRY WATCH
* Supreme Court set to consider Brand X
* Debate emerges over mobile phone virus threat
* Report: Price key for telcos in broadband sales
USTA SPOTLIGHT
* Timberwolves? and Wireless Business Opportunities
EMERGING TECHNOLOGIES
* TiVo's deal with Comcast cements DVR service's future
VOIP DOWNLOAD
* Equipment makers battle for share of VoIP market
* VoIP brings new opportunities for test industry
* Huawei tops worldwide VoIP media gateway shipments
REGULATORY & LEGISLATIVE
* West Virginia lawmakers lay out broadband plans
Follow the link below to read quick summaries of these stories and others.
http://www.dailylead.com/latestIssue.jsp?i=20348&l=2017006
------------------------------
From: kwyet <kwyet80@msn.com>
Subject: Packet8 Number Portability
Date: 24 Mar 2005 14:07:55 -0800
Packet8 has been ok for me. Just one thing thats been irritating. The
claims on their website at times don't jive with reality. For one,
they claimed that virtual numbers were available for Canadian area
codes. That was simply a lie. They were aware of this contradiction but
chose to ignore it for a very long time. Finally they removed the
claim.
Secondly, they claim that it takes up to six weeks to have your number
ported. That may be true for some, but it hasn't been true for me. It
has been 9 weeks for me and still no "status updates" on my account.
Their standard reply when called on this matter is, "I'll pass this to
the LNP department".
On one call to support, I was led to believe it was stalled because of
my phone company. I entered a complaint with my States's PSC only to
receive a call from my phone company saying all they need is a PON and
that Packet8 would know exactly what that is. Well ... I called
support again. Same response as quoted above. Oh ... and he also said
that the website is incorrect ... that it hasn't been updated yet to
reflect that they are backed up and the time is actually more than 6
weeks. Support told me that 10 days ago. Does it take 10 days to
update a sentence on a website? Naw it dutton.
------------------------------
From: Danny Burstein <dannyb@panix.com>
Subject: 911, Taxes, and Fees, was: Texas Sues Vonage Over 911 Problem
Date: Thu, 24 Mar 2005 23:09:40 UTC
Organization: PANIX Public Access Internet and UNIX, NYC
Thor Lancelot Simon wrote:
> *If* Vonage were willing to pay the same fees other local exchange
> carriers pay for 911 connectivity *in each LATA*, *then* Vonage could
> route 911 calls correctly. Avoiding this *cost* has been a major
> competitive win for Vonage all along and it is hard to not see it as
> a major reason, if not _the_ reason, why Vonage has fought state
> regulation as a local exchange carrier: by avoiding regulatory mandates
> like 911 service standards Vonage avoids the cost of compliance.
So let me get this straight. Local (and state) gov'ts pretend that a
911 PSAP (Public Safety Answering Position) isn't part of the standard
functions of government, and therefore they get the telcos to pass
through a separate "911 fee" (read tax).
Oh, for good measure, if you look at umptity audits you'll find that
the amount of the "911 fee" has next to nothing to do with how much
money is acually put into the PSAP. To the government, it's all one
big pot of money.
What's next? Perhaps the county will claim that libraries are special,
so there needs to be a separate tax, excuse me, fee, on all book
sales? Oh, and just think how much money they could kick over to the
library if they extended that tax, excuse me, fee, onto all blank
paper and pens and copying supplies?
> People's safety in emergency situations should be quite simply out of
> bounds for this kind of political maneuvering. Of course, it's not,
> but darn it, it ought to be.
Absolutely. And 911 issues shouldn't be used as a tag for governments
to extract more money from the working folk.
How's about instead of attacking Vonage for this we directed some ire
against the politicians that do everything they can to hide the level
of taxation they're hitting us with?
_____________________________________________________
Knowledge may be power, but communications is the key
dannyb@panix.com
[to foil spammers, my address has been double rot-13 encoded]
------------------------------
From: Danny Burstein <dannyb@panix.com>
Subject: PSAP Locations, was: Texas Sues Vonage Over 911 Problem
Date: Thu, 24 Mar 2005 23:26:32 UTC
Organization: PANIX Public Access Internet and UNIX, NYC
( PSAP = Public Safety Answering Point = the 911 centers )
In <telecom24.130.6@telecom-digest.org> hancock4@bbs.cpcn.com writes:
> The states in my area allow a 911 fee to be tacked on to phone
> bills. The money goes to the run the 911 call centers.
And there's a Santa Clause.
> IIRC, it was previously discussed here the VOIP fails to send the
> calling number for Caller ID displays, so the recipient gets a
> meaningless 111-111-1111 display.
Many, and soon just about all, VOIP phones send across the Caller ID
string associated with the account. The fact that (many) PSAPs can't
use regular consumer CNID and do a comparison/sanity check against
both the ANI string and the "911" caller info is due to their own
equipment limitations.
(This is separate from the very real issue of the small number of folk
who'd get a VOIP account in Lenexa, Ks, and then take the adapter with
them and make calls that are physically coming from Uzbekistan)
> As to the editor's comments, there are conventional phone numbers that
> will reach the emergency center and will be answered (at least in my
> area). But how would a VOIP know what number to use, esp when the
> caller can "float" and be anywhere? Further, such numbers change when
> area codes change or for other reasons; that was a factor in
> establishing "911" as a unified constant emergency number in the first
> place.
Conveniently enough, the FCC maintains a list of PSAPs:
"Information regarding PSAP ID, PSAP Name, and PSAP County can be
obtained from the FCC's Master PSAP Registry. The following
state listings have been updated: Arizona, Arkansas, California,
(etc., etc., and so forth)."
http://www.fcc.gov/911/enhanced/reports/psapregistry.html
So it would be trivial for the VOIP folk to do a translation of all
calls placed to "911" and route them to the PSAP serving the
registered "home" of the customer.
Now in regards to figuring out the exact boundaries, well, isn't it
about time the local gov'ts got their acts together? In many parts of
the country you'll find little or no coterminality between, oh,
sanitation services, postal zip codes, water supply, fire protection,
school districts, and police coverage. Now whose fault is that?
As a side note, wouldn't it be nice if the Feds got together and had a
_central_, national, number for help? One that got a little office in,
say, Cheyenne and had tie lines to every 911 PSAP?
Right now, for example, if I'm in East Cupcake, NY and on the phone
with a friend of mine in Walla Walla and he collapses onto the floor,
how am I supposed to get him help? Watcha wanna bet that if I called
my local PSAP they wouldn't have a clue?
With a central office (at least available to the PSAPs, but really should
be open to all) life would be much simpler.
_____________________________________________________
Knowledge may be power, but communications is the key
dannyb@panix.com
[to foil spammers, my address has been double rot-13 encoded]
------------------------------
From: tls@panix.com (Thor Lancelot Simon)
Subject: Re: Texas Sues Vonage Over 911 Problem
Date: Thu, 24 Mar 2005 21:19:45 UTC
Organization: Public Access Networks Corp.
Reply-To: tls@rek.tjls.com
In article <telecom24.130.6@telecom-digest.org>,
<hancock4@bbs.cpcn.com> wrote:
> Thor Lancelot Simon wrote:
>> *If* Vonage were willing to pay the same fees other local exchange
>> carriers pay for 911 connectivity *in each LATA*, *then* Vonage could
>> route 911 calls correctly. Avoiding this *cost* has been a major
>> competitive win for Vonage all along and it is hard to not see it as
>> a major reason, if not _the_ reason, why Vonage has fought state
>> regulation as a local exchange carrier: by avoiding regulatory mandates
>> like 911 service standards Vonage avoids the cost of compliance.
> Excellent points.
> The states in my area allow a 911 fee to be tacked on to phone
> bills. The money goes to the run the 911 call centers.
It's not just that. To actually do the interconnection, Vonage would
need to build some infrastructure: they'd need trunks into every LATA
in which they offered 911. A responsible telco would, it seems to me,
see this as an unavoidable part of the cost of offering a service for
emergencies reachable by dialing 9-1-1, because you basically can't
give callers the same user interaction they expect in an emergency if
you *don't* have those trunks. Packet8 is an example of a VoIP telco
that is responsible and does the right thing: they *don't* offer a
service that works in an unexpected and dangerous way when the user
dials 9-1-1; they *do* offer genuine 911 service -- enhanced 911,
even, though I have to question whether this is desirable, because
of the low quality of the location information for VoIP -- everywhere
they have managed to run trunks to. They charge their users separately
for this service; we can argue about whether it should be a mandated
service or not but it certainly seems equitable to charge for it if it
is not mandated, and that's what they do.
What Vonage does is provice fake 911 service that may be adequate for
many callers much of the time, but emergencies by defintion are not
"many/much" situations: they are emergencies; they are exceptions.
And for callers in some areas, the service is worse than inadequate,
it actually makes emergencies worse, by wasting the caller's and the
emergency personnel's time by sending the calls somewhere that cannot
handle them at all.
Thor Lancelot Simon tls@rek.tjls.com
"The inconsistency is startling, though admittedly, if consistency
is to be abandoned or transcended, there is no problem." - Noam Chomsky
------------------------------
From: Justin Time <a_user2000@yahoo.com>
Subject: Re: Texas Sues Vonage Over 911 Problem
Date: 25 Mar 2005 11:23:48 -0800
From two different responses by our editor:
> [TELECOM Digest Editor's Note: But wouldn't the ideal arrangement be
> like here? A number designated for 'emergency but not 911' phone is
> terminated on the consoles of the persons who respond for police, etc,
> and they are tipped off "if this line, with its unusual cadence in
> ringing goes off, it is to be treated like any other emergency call".
> Our dispatchers answer not only the occassional 911 call, but they
> also answer for the city hall offices. The PSAP people (at Vonage, and
> elsewhere) are told to connect with them as needed _using one of the
> back lines_ on the city hall group; a line which would almost never
> get calls on its own. Now, if _that phone_ rings/flashes, treat it as
> a priority emergency call. The same woman sitting there taking calls
> for the city hall centrex/switchboard sees that one phone give out a
> continuous (never pausing) ring with the light on the wall flashing at
> a furious pace says 'ah, it is an emergency call from a system which
> cannot (for whatever reason) use 911. She answers it and makes
> dispatch as needed. Does not seem like that major of problem. That
> single phone, by the way, also has a caller-ID device on it, and a
> rather detailed map on the wall as well, so the dispatcher gets the
> essence of the desired information, even if not every single bit of
> it. Ah, but that would involve _training_ the dispatchers in possibly
> a new procedure. Do you think their Civil Servants Union would allow
> that sort of a requirement?
A couple of misconceptions need to be addressed here Pat. First of
all not everywhere is "like here" meaning Independence, Kansas. Let's
move your scenario out of the rural area and into a major city. The
PSAP operators in this major city on the Eastern Seaboard only answer
two types of calls, they are either 9-1-1 or 3-1-1. The PSAP, with
its equipment and 20 operators per shift is funded through the fees
collected on telephone numbers terminating within its service area.
The cellular companies pay a fee for each of their trunks that
terminate in their cell sites within the service area. The local
cable companies which provide telephone service bundled with their
television and data services pay a fee to help support the PSAP. It
seems everyone pays a fee to support the PSAP except the VOIP people
who claim their having to pay the fee would be anti-competitive
"because they are not a phone company." If it walks like a duck,
looks like a duck, quacks like a duck, the obvious conclusion would be
that it is what it puports to be - unless it is a VOIP provider.
> [TELECOM Digest Editor's Note: If the caller wishes to travel around,
> as for example with a cellular phone, that certainly is not the VOIP
> carrier's fault. But Vonage, as far as I know, deliberatly takes two
> or three days *after* receiving an email request from someone asking
> to be included in the PSAP database to detirmine _where_ to route the
> call which gets _aliased_ in dialing to '911'. In larger metropolitan
> areas, of course, most everyone gets redirected to the same number. In
> smaller, more rural areas like mine, Vonage has to inquire of the
> local authorities _exactly where_ the call is to be routed. They found
> in their own research that the 'county seat' for Montgomery County,
> Kansas is Independence; that the jail and courthouse are here, and
> that in fact, Independence has its own police department as well, so
> it was easy enough to inquire of local authorities, "which phone
> number should calls aliased to our 911 be funneled through?" And Lisa,
> they do _not_ get all ones or zeros or some other flaky number on
> their caller ID display, they get an actual number, although as the
> lady told me, "at first glance, the screen display looks odd; it is
> not what we usually see for an Independence or Independence Rural
> location." When Vonage wrote me email to say it was 'now turned on'
> they did include a cautionary note: "this only works correctly if
> you are stationary in location. If you travel around or move to
> another location it may not be the best way to reach emergency res-
> ponders." PAT]
Now your example of "If the caller wishes to travel around,
as for example with a cellular phone, that certainly is not the VOIP
carrier's fault." is rather rife with flaws. If I travel to
Independence, Kansas with my cell phone, which has an eastern city's
identification, the PSAP in Independence would know the 9-1-1 call was
local because it would ring in from the cellular switiching site based
on the tower I was using. My call from my cellular phone wouldn't be
routed to the PSAP that handles the NPA-NXX on the phone, but the PSAP
that handles emergency services where the TOWER is located. Now, are
you beginning to see the problems with being able to take your VOIP
phone traveling and use the service wherever you have a broadband
connection?
The VOIP carriers are using the telephone number assigned to the
adapter for routing to the PSAP rather than the location of the
router/gateway or whatever is the first unit to handle the call.
Until some method is determined to associate a physical address with a
connection, the problem will remain. People who think that VOIP is
the answer to their telephone needs are being left hanging
high-and-dry when it comes to emergency services.
Oh, those 3-1-1 non-emergency calls are just that, a non-emergency in
the training of the PSAP operators. A 3-1-1 call will go unanswered
should an active call on 9-1-1 be in process. The busiest hour for
calls in this PSAP just happen to be the two hours before and after
the bars close.
One other point about the difference between a 9-1-1 call and a 3-1-1
call. All 9-1-1 calls are delivered with ANI and perform a "data dip"
to provide the ALI or location of the caller. 3-1-1 calls, by FCC
mandate will only deliver Caller ID - if provided.
Rodgers Platt
[TELECOM Digest Editor's Note: Aside for a minute the fact that I do
not approve of 311 or the idea of police acting as the Answering
Service for the entire government, which is what they would like,
let's just talk about your cellular comparison. Yes, if you came here
to visit from wherever, your cellular call to 911 would get routed as
you say. But you have had a stroke, or for some other reason are
unable/unwilling to speak, what _display_ will the 911 person _here_
receive? Your east coast address/phone number ID will be useless ...
will it give the outgoing phone number of the local tower? What good
will that do? By using GSM, I suppose _your_ phone could transmit to
_our_ tower some string to be used as your 'temporary location' to be
passed along as the 'ID' to _our_ dispatcher ... that might work.
Maybe VOIP could do something similar: A call on a VOIP phone to 911
would be intercepted by the broadband carrier handling your traffic
and routed _from that point_ over a phone line to the local 911 spot.
I do not honestly know _how_ Vonage handles it; only that they warn
you repeatedly prior to getting the adapter turned on that "if you
wish to use 911 from this adapter, you _must_ tell us the main address
(house number, apartment number, etc) where the police or firemen or
doctor or whoever is to go to find you and your distress. We need
that information to make 911 work. It is _not_ optional." Then two or
three days later they advise you the work is finished.
I should also point out that a 911 call is a rarity here; there are
one or two per _day_ between the various places they respond for,
including Independence PD, 'Independence Rural', Montomgery County
Sheriff, Cherryvale, KS PD (overnight, when the one officer on duty
there is the only staff person on duty in the town of 2000 people).
And, she answers the City Hall centrex, and is the receptionist for
the Police Department which is in the basement of our City Hall.
And, on the occassion of a 911 call arriving, she _immediatly_ says
on the radio 'nine one one call, stand by ... ' which means all the
officers on the street, etc who may be chattering on the radio know
to shut up and wait and listen. Using my scanner, I will hear her
sometimes 'patching in her headset line' and a one-way conversation
while she questions the caller: 'which way did you see them go? what
kind of car was it, etc' and she will repeat back to the caller (and
over the air of course) whatever the caller told her; officers all
over southeast Kansas listening in and ready to move out if it
involves their area. The overwhelming majority of our 'crime' around
here involves teenagers and other young guys who are rowdy and very
possibly had been drinking. They (police) also claim there is a
'terrible problem with drugs' here; my local attorney just laughs
and says "that is the usual police BS; they find some kid with a bunch
of old cola bottles and the powder that _could_ be used to make
meth so police claim the kid has a 'meth lab' going on". The usual
give and take you find between police and defense lawyers everywhere.
PAT]
------------------------------
From: Dave <newsgroups@dave!!!christense!!n.o!!!r!!!g>
Subject: Re: New Long Range Cordless Phones?
Date: Thu, 24 Mar 2005 10:43:14 -0900
If I set up another computer with Asterix running, this kludge isnt
going to be terribly cost effective. The rate for the additional
electricity (38-43 cents per KWH) will negate the advantages.
The other problems with sourcing VOIP from a provider in Alaska is
that a) all high speed connections are metered and b) no VOIP carriers
offer TN's in the 907 NPA, and being in a small rate center the odds
of having a local TN are even less.
Other then costs and time involved in getting a tech class ham
license, can someone estimate what the costs and legalities involved
in setting up a mobile radio system with a (pseudo-encrypted) PSTN
gateway? Then I could 'legally' do what these devices do. The
terrain is pretty open and flat and I have a barn that I could mount
my equipment on which is above the treeline. At least if i'm going to
burn additional dead dinosaurs I can have a higher 'gee-whiz' factor.
Or should I just say forget this idea and go back to Iridium?
Thanks in advance.
Tony P. wrote:
>> I'm living in a rural Alaskan town and traditional cell service is
>> spotty to none, even with an old bag phone and roof antenna so I was
>> thinking that this could be an interesting approach to local mobile
>> phone service.
> I highly doubt that it is legal in the U.S. However, modifying your
> 802.11 gear and using say a PalmOS type machine with an 802.11 card
> you could probably cobble together a VoIP solution that has a linear
> range of 11 miles or so, depending on what type and pattern of
> radiator you decide to use.
> From what I've read about these units they operate in the amateur
> radio band so I take sort of strong offense to that.
------------------------------
From: T. Sean Weintz <strap@hanh-ct.org>
Subject: Re: Intertel Eclipse Telephone Programming
Date: Thu, 24 Mar 2005 15:46:33 -0500
Organization: Posted via Supernews, http://www.supernews.com
T. Sean Weintz wrote:
> marcsanders2003@yahoo.com wrote:
>> Anybody with technical knowledge of the InterTel Eclipse telephone
>> system? Here's what I'm trying to do:
>> I'm trying to set up a shared mailbox. In other words, I've added a
>> new extension, 262, and I want it to use the voice mailbox of 214. So
>> both extensions will be using mailbox 214. I would also like
>> notification of messages to go to 262.
>> It seems fairly simple, but so far nothing seems to work.
>> Any help would be appreciated.
> I don't think that can be done.
> [TELECOM Digest Editor's Note: Quite a few years ago, I had two lines
> in Skokie, IL -- ORchard 7 9510 and ORchard 7 9511. Both had Voicemail
> on them from Ameritech; both were handled from 9511. I think what
> Ameritech told me was there was only one voicemail box in reality,
> probably on 9511 (which was a roll-over line from 9510) and that the
> voicemail on 9510 was 'aliased' to 9511. When someone dialed into 9510
> and the voicemail was to pick up, the alias pointed at 9511; not
> only for the storage of messages, but also notification in the form
> of a flashing red LED on the phone. PAT]
Yeah ... Ok, they could do it in a similar way ... what I describe below
works intertel Axxes and probably Eclipse systems with very recent
firmware, since they are basically the same as AXXESS from what I hear.
Older eclipse systems may be a different story..
1) Create a call routing announcement that plays nothing and immediately
times out to mailbox 214.
2) For the forwarding path for ext 262, instead of having it go to
voicemail (default ext for that is usually 2500, dunno what it is on
your system), have it forward to the call routing announcement. That
call routing announcement will immediately forward them to the 214 mailbox.
-Sean
------------------------------
Date: Thu, 24 Mar 2005 22:46:05 -0500 (EST)
From: Dan Lanciani <ddl@danlan.com>
Subject: Re: What Happened To Channel 1
bonomi@host122.r-bonomi.com (Robert Bonomi) wrote:
> In article <telecom24.129.7@telecom-digest.org>,
> Dan Lanciani <ddl@danlan.com> wrote:
>> kd1s@nospamplease.cox.reallynospam.net (Tony P.) wrote:
>>> Sort of how the FCC has pretty much admitted that anyone with a
>>> modicum of technical knowledge will be able to defeat the broadcast
>>> flag.
>> I think you've mentioned this before, but what does it mean? The
>> system as originally conceived requires the digital representation of
>> flagged content to be protected by encryption on bus and media. I
>> have more than a modicum of technical knowledge and I don't see an
>> easy way around the proposed system in concept. Has the original
>> system been abandoned? Or are you aware of some implementation flaw?
> *Somewhere* in the TV set, the signal has to get decrypted, before it
> can be presented to the CRT, or other actual 'display'.
> Thus there *is* a "cleartext" signal running around inside the box.
> Thus, someone with a reasonable amount of skill can 'tap' the cleartext
> signal, and "voila!"
The original proposal required that the undegraded digital
representation of flagged content never appear on a bus (even the LCD
driver bus) in the clear, specifically to thwart such an attack.
(CRTs do not present the same kind of problem as LCDs because the
video can be converted to analog before it ever leaves the final
driver circuits. Of course, even if you could access the LCD driver
bus you would be getting a decompressed and possibly otherwise
manipulated version and not the original stream.)
Thus, there would be no clear text version of the signal "running
around inside the box" to tap. You would have to probe the dies of
the appropriate integrated circuits themselves. Although this is
certainly not impossible, it requires more than a modicum of technical
knowledge and also requires some specialized and rather expensive
equipment. Anyone willing to go to those lengths would be better
served by building an ATSC receiver from scratch.
This brings me back to my question: has the original approach been
abandoned? If not, I'm having a hard time understanding some of the
comments I've read that tend to minimize the impact of the broadcast
flag implementation. The only explanation I can think of is that
people have become so accustom to Macrovision, SCMS, and similar
stupidity that they don't understand that this time it's for real...
> And there's always the "idiot method" -- just point a camcorder at the TV.
The purpose of the broadcast flag (and all the associated DRM) is to
protect the undegraded digital representation of flagged content.
Your approach of creating a degraded analog rendition of the content
does not defeat that intent. In fact, as of now, we will supposedly
still be allowed to access the analog output of receivers, perhaps
even at HD resolution. If a copy to analog and back is what the FCC
(or anybody else) is considering a defeat of the broadcast flag then
I'm afraid they have really missed the point.
Dan Lanciani
ddl@danlan.*com
------------------------------
From: John Smith <user@example.net>
Subject: Re: Our Telephonic Primacy
Date: Fri, 25 Mar 2005 15:21:19 GMT
Dave Garland wrote (about infant mortality in Cuba):
> It's true, but the US has far more heroic interventions among extremely
> low birth weight and extremely premature infants than Cuba. Which, of
> course, are far more likely to die than normal births. I suspect that
> in Cuba, those get counted as miscarriages, not infants.
Is this just a guess, or do you have reason to suspect that the
medical definition of "birth" is different in Cuba? Or perhaps it's
the definition of "death"? It seems to me, considering an equal
number of premature births, that heroic intervention should produce a
benefit in the statistics. If it doesn't, then why do it? Or is
there a higher percentage of premature births in the U.S.?
I know that Cuba has more doctors per capita than (I believe) any
country in the hemisphere, and a major commitment to disease
prevention and public health. Maybe it just pays off. Wouldn't that
be a shock.
------------------------------
From: Isaiah Beard <sacredpoet@sacredpoet.com>
Subject: Re: Some Concerned About Privacy Implications of E-ZPass System
Date: Thu, 24 Mar 2005 14:09:59 -0500
Organization: Posted via Supernews, http://www.supernews.com
John Levine wrote:
> The potential for privacy problems is severe, but to their credit I
> don't think I've ever heard reports of abuses. Besides the
> possibility of tracking people by tag use, there's the violation
> tracking issue. If you drive through an E-ZPAss booth in NY with no
> tag or an invalid tag, a camera takes a picture of your car and they
> will ask the state DMV to look up the license plate number so they can
> send you a ticket.
There's also that nagging problem where the system isn't perfect, and
sometimes the RFID tags that are used don't work, or you have a
malfunctioning toll lane. I just recently got hit with one of those.
I'm an EZ Pass user, and my work ended up taking me to a remote podunk
little rural area in southern NJ. When I got ON the turnpike at a
major, heavily travelled and manned toll plaza, I passed through the
EZ Pass lane and my tag registered just fine. Getting out to the
sticks, I exited in a remote, unmanned and probably barely used toll
plaza. Bzzzt! My transponder wasn't picked up and I was flashed a
"GO: TOLL UNPAID" warning on way my off the turnpike. Lovely.
Later that day I called up the EZ Pass customer service number and
told them what happened. "No problem," came the response. "As long as
your license plate is resgistered on your EZ pass acount, we'll make
the correction and everything should be fine."
Fast forward to yesterday. Assurances notwithstanding, I received a
toll violation notice from the NJ Turnpike authority. Attached was
that oh-so-incriminating photo of my car "skipping the toll," and a
bill for $25.70 ... 70 cents for the actual toll, and $25.00 in
"administrative fees," along with one of those typical scary-language
legal threats that if I don't pay up within 10 days, I could be hit
with additional fines "in excess of" $200. Clearly, they knew where
my car got ON the turnpike in order to charge the correct toll amount,
otherwise they would have assesed the maximum toll amount (which I
believe is around $2.00). So you'd think they'd figure it out that my
tag was successfully scanned there and obtain the correct billing data
that way.
Grrr.
So now, I have to fill out a "dispute form," and indicate in writing why
I feel I SHOULDN'T be hit with the fine. I've explained that I am an ex
pass customer and had my tag in the car, and attached supporting
documentation (tag serial number, account #, etc.). We'll see what kind
of response I get.
E-mail fudged to thwart spammers.
Transpose the c's and a's in my e-mail address to reply.
------------------------------
From: Barry Margolin <barmar@alum.mit.edu>
Subject: Re: Some Concerned About Privacy Implications of E-ZPass System
Organization: Symantec
Date: Thu, 24 Mar 2005 21:33:31 -0500
In article <telecom24.130.18@telecom-digest.org>, hancock4@bbs.cpcn.com
wrote:
> John Levine wrote:
>> The potential for privacy problems is severe, but to their credit I
>> don't think I've ever heard reports of abuses. Besides the
>> possibility of tracking people by tag use, there's the violation
>> tracking issue. If you drive through an E-ZPAss booth in NY with no
>> tag or an invalid tag, a camera takes a picture of your car and they
>> will ask the state DMV to look up the license plate number so they can
>> send you a ticket.
> The original private contractor for the NJ EZP system was notoriously,
> sending out many violation notices that weren't deserved. That
> strongly discouraged motorists from adopting EZP. Of course, now the
> NJTpk intends to eliminate the EZP discount, which is a stupid move
> since it removes the incentive for motorists to use EZP, esp
> occassional drivers. Result is more overcrowding in cash lanes.
Massachusetts doesn't give a discount for FastLane, but last year they
instituted a tax deduction if you use it enough to be considered a
commuter (I think $150 or $250).
Barry Margolin, barmar@alum.mit.edu
Arlington, MA
*** PLEASE post questions in newsgroups, not directly to me ***
------------------------------
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
************************
---------------------------------------------------------------
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 #131
******************************
| |