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     Sun, 27 Mar 2005 22:42:00 EST    Volume 24 : Issue 133

Inside This Issue:                             Editor: Patrick A. Townson

    Cell Phone Songs Prompt Control Questions (Monty Solomon)
    Cyberlaw in the Supreme Court (Monty Solomon)
    Time for the Recording Industry to Face the Music (Monty Solomon)
    Lingo Referral (akubird@gmail.com)
    OT/Tangent (was Re: We Don't Need no Steenkin Line Sharing) (Henry)
    FCC: We Don't Need no Steenkin Line Sharing (Marcus Didius Falco)
    Grounding a Vonage System (Alex Batson)
    Re: What's Historic?  (Marcus Didius Falco)
    Re: Dealing with Vonage (Isaiah Beard)
    Re: Some Concerned About Privacy Implications of E-ZPass (S Barkley)
    Re: Texas Sues Vonage Over 911 Problem (Tony P.)
    Re: What Happened To Channel 1 (Tony P.)
    Re: New Long Range Cordless Phones (Tony P.)
    Re: More 'Tweens' Going Mobile; Long-Term Health Risks Unclear (Tony P)
    Re: Cell Phone Jammer For Sale MONIX MGB-1S (Tony P.)
    Re: 911, Taxes, and Fees, was: Texas Sues Vonage Over 911 Problem (Tony)
    Last Laugh! Field Guide to experts - Oxman et al. (Marcus Didius Falco)
----------------------------------------------------------------------

Date: Sun, 27 Mar 2005 20:12:21 -0500
From: Monty Solomon <monty@roscom.com>
Subject: Cell Phone Songs Prompt Control Questions


By BRUCE MEYERSON AP Business Writer

NEW YORK (AP) -- It's been the great "Whodunit?" of two big technology
shows: Who put the gag in Motorola Corp.'s mouth just as it was going
to unveil a new cell phone featuring the iTunes music download service
from Apple Computer Inc.?

Motorola initially said it acted alone, then quickly pointed to Apple,
citing the computer company's long practice of never unveiling new
products until they're actually available to buy.

Many industry players, however, suspect that a wireless service
provider intervened, essentially telling Motorola that, `I'll be
darned if I'll sell your phones to my customers if it means they can
buy songs through Apple and Motorola without giving me a piece of the
pie.'

Or, some surmise, perhaps a wireless carrier who planned to offer the
iTunes phone balked at the last minute?

This mystery, which played prominently this month at both the CeBit
show in Germany where the phone was to be unveiled and then the CTIA
Wireless show in New Orleans, drives right to the heart of an uneasy
dynamic simmering in the cellular industry.

The rush is on to deliver music and video to mobile phones, with
wireless providers and device makers jockeying for position to grab
their share of the payday, all parties mindful of the surprising
billions being spent on musical ringtones.

At the same time, the media companies who produce the entertainment,
which also includes video games, are approaching cautiously,
determined to avert any Napster-like, file-sharing bonanza among cell
phone users.

In fact, Motorola also plays a role in a second drama involving these 
choppy uncharted waters.

Earlier this year, a class-action lawsuit was filed in three states
involving a Motorola phone sold by Verizon Wireless. The v710 handset
was equipped with a short-range wireless technology called Bluetooth
and was configured to work with cordless headsets. Only one problem:
Its file-transfer capabilities had been disabled.

The suit insinuates that Verizon Wireless is obliging subscribers to
use its cell network if they wish, for example, to send a photo taken
on a camera phone to a computer or another cell phone.

      - http://finance.lycos.com/home/news/story.asp?story=47934972

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

Date: Sun, 27 Mar 2005 20:56:31 -0500
From: Monty Solomon <monty@roscom.com>
Subject: Cyberlaw in the Supreme Court


Stanford Law School
http://cyberlaw.stanford.edu/supreme/

On March 29, 2005, the U.S. Supreme Court will hear arguments in two
cases that together will greatly determine how government can and will
regulate the Internet in the future, and the impact that the public
interest will have on the development of cyberlaw over the next
decade.

In MGM v. Grokster, the Court will decide whether copyright holders
can veto consumer electronics and computing innovations that upset the
content industries' prevailing business models, even where the
technology's non-infringing uses provide substantial benefits to
consumers.  The question is whether consumer demand for new and better
products will drive technological development, or copyright owners'
demand for control will retard it.

In Brand X v. FCC, the Court will decide whether the FCC should retain
the option to regulate cable modem services to promote open access to
broadband lines, universal service and network neutrality, as it did
in the early days of the Internet when most people connected over
common-carrier telephone lines.  The question is whether tomorrow's
communications services will be defined by citizen choices or by the
business interests of a handful of cable broadband companies.

At Cyberlaw in the Supreme Court, the Stanford Law School Center for
Internet and Society will convene a discussion of these cases, their
broader implications, and what effect the pending Supreme Court
decisions could have on the public interest.  Panels of attorneys
litigating and arguing these cases, the parties affected by them, the
policy advocates whose work will begin once the Judges rule, and the
people thinking about what the legal landscape will look like for the
next ten years will discuss both cases and the impact the decisions
will have on the future.

http://cyberlaw.stanford.edu/supreme/

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

Date: Sun, 27 Mar 2005 20:57:21 -0500
From: Monty Solomon <monty@roscom.com>
Subject: Time for the Recording Industry to Face the Music


http://cyberlaw.stanford.edu/blogs/cooper/archives/BENEFITSofPEERtoPEER.pdf

TIME FOR THE RECORDING INDUSTRY TO FACE THE MUSIC: THE POLITICAL,
SOCIAL AND ECONOMIC BENEFITS OF PEER-TO-PEER COMMUNICATIONS NETWORKS

Mark Cooper
Director of Research, Consumer Federation of America
Fellow, Stanford Law School Center for Internet and Society
March 2005

ISSUE BRIEF

PIRACY PANICS V. THE PUBLIC INTEREST

A critical debate over a technological revolution is underway in the
U.S. that will have far reaching implications for economic growth and
global competitiveness, technological innovation and creativity, and
the capacity of an open, democratic society to adapt to breakthroughs
in the way we communicate. This debate is over advances in peer-to-
peer technologies and whether their growth will be driven by the
capacity of human innovation or hindered by special interests
reluctant to embrace change. This debate is unfolding in the U.S.
court system, the halls of Congress at universities and research
organizations, and among entrepreneurs everywhere from corporate
boardrooms to the lone innovators looking for next great invention.

If vested interests in the recording and movie industries have their
way, innovation and progress will be the victim of a public relations
campaign intended to paint file sharing as "piracy." Big movie studios
and recording companies are attempting to squelch peer-to-peer
networks just as their potential to deliver economic growth and
technological progress is only beginning to be exploited. However,
contrary to the copyright holder claims that peer-to-peer
communications networks are copyright infringement schemes,
decentralized peer-to-peer networks have become the dominant form of
Internet communications because they are vastly more efficient.
Peer-to-peer technologies eliminate the congestion and cost of central
servers and distribute bandwidth requirements throughout the
network. In so doing they become a powerful force to expand freedom of
expression and the flow of information, stimulate innovation, and
promote the economic interests of consumer and creative artists alike
(see Exhibit EX-1).

This report explains why public policy should embrace peer-to-peer
technologies. It examines the history of technological innovation in
communications and the "piracy panics" they cause among entrenched
incumbents. For three centuries, in battles over the printing press,
telegraphy, mechanical pianos, cinematography, radio, cable
television, photocopying, video and audio recorders, and the current
generation of digital technologies, public policy has favored
technological innovation by refusing to allow copyright to regulate
technology. The paper reminds policymakers of the historic lesson that
technological innovation promotes political, cultural, and social
development, and economic growth. The analysis demonstrates the social
and economic harms of the "tyranny of copyright" that recording
companies and movie studios seek to impose on peer-to-peer
technologies, as well as the legal and public policy grounds for
rejecting this tyranny.

http://cyberlaw.stanford.edu/blogs/cooper/archives/BENEFITSofPEERtoPEER.pdf

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

From: akubird@gmail.com
Subject: Lingo Referral
Date: 26 Mar 2005 18:27:23 -0800


I recently signed up with Lingo and am very pleased with service. I'm
saving a lot of money. I frequently make long distance calls from the
East Coast to Australia and the sound quality is very clear.

If anyone is interested in more information or a referral I can give
one.

akubird at gmail (dot) com

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

From: henry999@eircom.net (Henry)
Subject: OT/Tangent (was Re: We Don't Need no Steenkin Line Sharing)
Date: Sun, 27 Mar 2005 13:17:29 +0200
Organization: Elisa Internet customer


Greetings. With his title 'We Don't Need no Steenkin Line Sharing',
Danny Burstein is of course playing on the popular quote 'We Don't Need
no Steenkin Badges'. This line is supposedly from the classic Bogart
film _The Treasure of the Sierra Madre_ -- but it's not. Or, not quite.
:-)

When Woody Allen's _Play It Again, Sam_ came out, everybody thought
that this title was also a quote. But in _Casablanca_, Rick (Bogart's
character) never actually says these precise words. He says something
similar, but not this exact phrase.

It is similar with _Sierra Madre_. I watched this picture on video a
year or so ago, and when the steenkin badges scene came I stopped the
tape and carefully transcribed the dialogue. Here is what they really
said.

Fred C. Dobbs: If you're the police, where are your badges?

Bandito leader: Badges? We ain't got no badges. We don't need no
badges!  I don't have to show you any steenkin badges!


Cheers,

Henry

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

Date: Sat, 26 Mar 2005 18:52:01 -0500
From: Marcus Didius Falco <falco_marcus_didius@yahoo.co.uk>
Subject: FCC: We Don't Need no Steenkin Line Sharing


Well, this certainly looks like something close to the deathknell for 
competition.

* Original: FROM..... Dave Farber's list

  ------ Forwarded Message
  From: d berns
  Reply-To: Telecom Regulation & the Internet
  Date: Sat, 26 Mar 2005 13:22:57 -0500
  Subject: FCC: we don't need no steenkin line sharing

"The Commission has before it a petition for declaratory ruling filed
by BellSouth Telecommunications, Inc.  (BellSouth) regarding issues
stemming from the Triennial Review Order. As explained below, because
the Commissions national unbundling rules in the Triennial Review
Order directly address the primary issue raised by BellSouth, we grant
BellSouths petition to the extent described in this Order.

"Specifically, applying section 251(d)(3) of the Communications Act of
1934, as amended (the Act), we find that a state commission may not
require an incumbent local exchange carrier (LEC) to provide digital
subscriber line (DSL) service to an end user customer over the same
unbundled network element (UNE) loop facility that a competitive LEC
uses to provide voice services to that end user.

"For the reasons set forth below, we conclude that state decisions
that impose such an obligation are inconsistent with and substantially
prevent the implementation of the Act and the Commissions federal
unbundling rules and policies set forth in the Triennial Review Order
that implement sections 251(c) .....

rest at:

http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/FCC-05-78A1.txt [a]
http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/FCC-05-78A1.doc [b]
http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/FCC-05-78A1.pdf [c]

[a] messy ascii
[b] Word Doc
[c] PDF

(most FCC material is available in all three forms. URLs are identical
except for the trailing extension).

Further info on the main FCC page: http://www.fcc.gov

  --- End of Forwarded Message

  --- Forwarded Message

  From: Bob Frankston
  Date: Sat, 26 Mar 2005 17:26:37 -0500
  To: <dave farber.net>
  Subject: Re: [IP] FCC: we don't need no steenkin line sharing

Am I missing something or is this indeed a battle over whether a given
copper line has to support two over-specified protocols? (No pun, as
in voice-over-data, this is over as in over-the-top).

If so, then wouldn't it make more sense to focus on naked DSL with
voice telephony being provided over IP? There are plenty of faux
telephony providers, including the carriers themselves, who will give
the illusion of line sharing for those who want it.

This is an example of where an "IP-only" policy makes sense rather
than fighting legacy skirmishes. I don't want to oversimplify the
problem but it seems better than continuing to fight the old battles.

It reminds me of the two back-to-back panel discussions on the
triennial review -- the first was arguing over how it affected the
purchase of switches. The second, with most of the same participants,
was on VoIP because no one was buying those switches anymore. And I
thought lawyers were taught not to argue moot cases outside of class
and what is the Regulatorium if not moot?

  --- End of Forwarded Message

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

From: Alex Batson <batsona@comcast.net>
Subject: Grounding a Vonage System
Date: Sun, 27 Mar 2005 15:50:24 -0500


Greetings:

I've just subscribed to Vonage and just hooked everything up.  When I
press a key to clear the dial-tone, the empty line has a bit of snowy,
white-noise in the background.  This isn't anything that sounds like
electrical interference, and there's no 'hum' in the line actually.
It's not 99% silent like my Verizon land-line is, but then again, that
demarc is grounded, and my Vonage isn't.

Question: 1.)How can I tell which lead is Tip, and which is Ring, and
which one, if either, can I connect to a good earth-ground?

If I'm still off in left field, can someone give me a pointer or two,
on how to lessen the snowy white-noise on a empty line?

Alex

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

Date: Sat, 26 Mar 2005 18:53:37 -0500
From: Marcus Didius Falco <falco_marcus_didius@yahoo.co.uk>
Subject: Re: What's Historic?


It took a bit of searching, but the URL of the full story is:

http://www.nj.com/news/ledger/index.ssf?/base/news-21/1111472186300180.xml

>     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: Isaiah Beard <sacredpoet@sacredpoet.com>
Subject: Re: Dealing with Vonage
Date: Sat, 26 Mar 2005 18:28:35 -0500
Organization: Posted via Supernews, http://www.supernews.com


David B. Horvath wrote:

> I finally called again on 3/24, sat on hold for a while and finally
> was connected to the "retention department".  It took about 5 minutes
> (mostly on hold) to handle the actual cancellation. The clerk was very
> helpful.  When I mentioned my 3/18 call, she told me that they had
> over 3,000 tickets in queue waiting for calls back and that it was "a
> staffing issue" (they need more people).

Oh, you think Vonage is bad?  Have a gander at cancelling through Packet8:

http://www.scaredpoet.com/packet8sucks

In short: I cancel, but they change the TOS so conviently I owe them 
more money to cancel.  They they put me on the wringer because they 
can't process my credit card for strange reason, then won't take another 
credit card to charge the fee, yet threatened to send a collection 
agency after me.  Why?  Not for security reasons, not becuase they 
thought I was a deadbeat.  Simply because no one was in the mood to 
actually operate their credit card payment system when I called.

After that, I dusted off my old Vonage ATA from a while back,
swallowed my pride and had it reactivated, and have not look back.
All because I was a cheapskate and wanted to save an extra $5 a month
for unlimited calls.  I've got a cell phone with free LD too and it
does have plenty of extra minutes at the end of every month, but
frankly, I prefer the sound quality of a VoIP call (which at its most
minimal takes up around 15-30kpbs of bandwidth) to a cell call (which
tops out at 13kbps in rare instances, but you're typically lucky to
get around 8kbps and tyou can HEAR the difference).  I don't think
I'll ever dump my cell phone, and am glad to have it when I'm out and
about, but if a VoIP or landline phone is nearby, then I'll still use
it.

E-mail fudged to thwart spammers.
Transpose the c's and a's in my e-mail address to reply.

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

Date: Sun, 27 Mar 2005 14:12:14 -0500
From: Stuart Barkley <stuartb@4gh.net>
Subject: Re: Some Concerned About Privacy Implications of E-ZPass System


The article and discussion here both miss what I consider a more
important issue with the EZ-pass system:

There is no way to know who else is tracking the EZ-pass transponders.

The transponder should have a audio and/or visual indicator whenever
it is read.  How else can you know that Big Brother is only reading
the transponder for its intended use and instead isn't reading it in
other locations for other purposes.

There should also be an off switch on the unit although I can see that
causing more problems with people forgetting to turn it back on before
traveling through EZ-pass lanes.

I've never been lost; I was once bewildered for three days, but never
lost!  -- Daniel Boone

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

From: Tony P. <kd1s@nospamplease.cox.reallynospam.net>
Subject: Re: Texas Sues Vonage Over 911 Problem
Organization: ATCC
Date: Sun, 27 Mar 2005 17:49:47 -0500


In article <telecom24.127.5@telecom-digest.org>, jack-
yahoogroups@withheld says:

> [Comment: Since this originates in Texas, I cannot help but wonder if
> SBC had any involvement in this, even if only maybe by putting a bug
> in someone's ear at the AG's office. We will probably never know, but
> when I hear about something anti-VoIP coming out of Texas, that's just
> the way my mind wanders.]

> http://news.zdnet.com/2100-1035_22-5630118.html?tag=zdfd.newsfeed

> By Ben Charny, CNET News.com

> The attorney general of Texas is suing Internet phone provider Vonage,
> charging that the company isn't clear to its customers about
> deficiencies in its 911 service.

> Vonage 911 calls aren't routed in the traditional manner. Rather, most
> end up at the administrative offices of the 6,000 emergency calls
> centers rather than dispatchers. According to Abbott, the dangers of
> the circuitous route were exposed in early March when a 17-year-old
> Houston girl was unable to get through to police after dialing 911 on
> a Vonage phone after both her parents were shot by intruders.

> In the U.S. District Court suit, announced Tuesday, Attorney General
> Greg Abbott alleges that Vonage doesn't "clearly disclose the lack of
> traditional 911 access" nor adequately inform its customers they must
> first sign up for the free 911 service. Such an omission violates
> state law dealing with deceptive trade practices, the state attorney
> general alleges. The state is asking for civil penalties of more than
> $20,000 and an injunction requiring more conspicuous disclosure.

> A Vonage spokeswoman said the company was surprised to hear of the
> litigation and pointed out there are numerous references, both on the
> Internet and material mailed to customers, explaining the 911
> service's limitations and its proactive nature. Abbott's office
> contacted New Jersey-based Vonage about a week ago asking for
> marketing materials and other information; the company hadn't heard
> anything since it replied with the materials two days ago, the
> spokeswoman said.

> Full story at:
> http://news.zdnet.com/2100-1035_22-5630118.html?tag=zdfd.newsfeed

> http://blogs.zdnet.com/ip-telephony/index.php?p=307

> Texas sues Vonage for lack of 911 call deficiency disclosure
> -Posted by Russell Shaw @ 10:17 am 

> Earlier today, we reported that Texas Attorney General Greg Abbott
> said he's sued Vonage for not being clear about the limitations of
> its 911 service.

> [.....]

> A somewhat different circumstance prompted the lawsuit, however. Early
> this month, a 17 year-old Houston girl was unable to get through to
> the police on the family's Vonage line to inform them that her
> parents had been shot in a break-in.

> Full story at:
> http://blogs.zdnet.com/ip-telephony/index.php?p=307

This is ridiculous. Vonage makes it abundantly clear that the 911
service they provide isn't E-911 service unless:

a) You live in Rhode Island where E-911 with VoIP works. 

and

b) You provide the address information in the on-line control panel. 

I'm not certain when Vonage posted this, but it clearly states that:

Your Call Will Go To A General Access Line at the Public Safety
Answering Point (PSAP). This is different from the 911 Emergency
Response Center where traditional 911 calls go.

    * This means your call goes to a different phone number than
traditional 911 calls. Also, you will need to state the nature of your
emergency promptly and clearly, including your location and telephone
number, as Public Safety Answering Point (PSAP) personnel will NOT
have this information on hand.

Service Outages Can Prevent 911 Dialing.

    * 911 Dialing and Vonage Service DO NOT function during an 
electrical power or broadband provider outage.

http://www.vonage.com/features.php?feature=911&refer_id=visa

 From the article I found this rather amusing:

'The Bells say they want to fix the problem but that the integration
with the Internet is technically complex. They flatly deny dragging
their feet. "Safety and security have to be the primary concern," says
Verizon's vice president of regulatory affairs.'

Huh? Every switch built in the last twenty years has had upgrades to
let the CLAN cards talk to the net. And Internet routing isn't exactly
rocket science. Securing it gets a little more complex but nothing
more than an LEC can handle.

In article <telecom24.128.19@telecom-digest.org>, ihatespam@crazyhat.net 
says:

> In message <telecom24.127.5@telecom-digest.org> Jack Decker
> <jack-yahoogroups@withheld on request> wrote:

>> A Vonage spokeswoman said the company was surprised to hear of the
>> litigation and pointed out there are numerous references, both on the
>> Internet and material mailed to customers, explaining the 911
>> service's limitations and its proactive nature. Abbott's office
>> contacted New Jersey-based Vonage about a week ago asking for
>> marketing materials and other information; the company hadn't heard
>> anything since it replied with the materials two days ago, the
>> spokeswoman said.

> I've said it before, and I'll say it again: Vonage should not be
> offering 911 at all, rather, they should be highlighting the fact that
> emergency call centers do not allow Vonage to route emergency calls to
> the right place (so their only option is to dump the call to an
> administrative number.)

> Personally, I'd rather have attempts to dial 911 get the "Stop, this
> phone does not have 911 service" then get through to someone who can't
> or won't help.

Or be aware of what Vonage can connect to and what it can't.
Interestingly by setting up our E-911 system to play nicely with
alternative carriers our state PUC actually got something right. Rhode
Island is an interesting place, extremely business hostile but
extremely savvy when it comes to telecom.

How else would you explain our being the first state with an E-911 PSAP 
that could get GPS data, and the first and only state currently able to 
offer E-911 to VoIP customers. 

This whole thing reeks of anti-competive behavior on the part of the 
incumbent carriers. I would hope whatever flavor of the PUC is available 
in Texas steps up to the AG and tells him not to make an ass of himself 
because Vonage clearly states that E-911 may or may not work and that 
the technical issues are only monopoly games. 

In article <telecom24.129.4@telecom-digest.org>, tls@panix.com says:

> In article <telecom24.128.19@telecom-digest.org>, DevilsPGD
> <ihatespam@crazyhat.net> wrote:

>> In message <telecom24.127.5@telecom-digest.org> Jack Decker
>> <jack-yahoogroups@withheld on request> wrote:

> Your claim above "emergency call centers do not allow..." is false; in
> fact, it's a key element of Vonage's public-relations effort on this
> issue.

> *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.

> What is truly irresponsible is to offer a "911" service that does not
> have the same user experience that Americans have been trained to expect
> from 911 for several decades.  In a just world, Vonage would pay and pay
> indeed for their decision to make the provision of such a service part
> of their public-relations effort aimed at avoiding service quality
> regulation.  This is a choice they made, not one they had forced on
> them; there are VoIP providers out there that did the right thing.
> 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.

Interestingly the costs for E-911 staff and facilities in RI is paid for 
by the state, not Verizon. Verizons only cost is the database. 

I like that fact that our system is set up to stick it to Verizon. 

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

From: Tony P. <kd1s@nospamplease.cox.reallynospam.net>
Subject: Re: What Happened To Channel 1
Organization: ATCC
Date: Sun, 27 Mar 2005 18:04:06 -0500


In article <telecom24.130.20@telecom-digest.org>, bonomi@host122.r-
bonomi.com says:

> 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!"

> And there's always the "idiot method" -- just point a camcorder at the TV.

Thank you for that. Of course it runs clear somewhere in the set -- all 
you need to do is tap that signal. 

Funny you mention the camcorder. A coworker and I are geeks to the nth 
and considered that the only thing they can never stop. 

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

From: Tony P. <kd1s@nospamplease.cox.reallynospam.net>
Subject: Re: New Long Range Cordless Phones
Organization: ATCC
Date: Sun, 27 Mar 2005 18:06:53 -0500


In article <telecom24.127.8@telecom-digest.org>, quinnm@bah.com says:

> Dave,

> I'm pretty sure these are illegal in the US&P(ossessions).  One of the
> issues was interference with Air Traffic Control communications
> systems, as I recall.  Someone on the list may be able to cite chapter
> and verse from US Code, or FCC regs. I may have saved a Navy
> Department spectrum management brief on the subject; if so, I'll
> forward off net.

Many of these units are smack dab in the middle of the amateur 2m
band.  Interestingly I as a licensed amateur could possess and use
one, so long as I kept to Part 97 rules, which include identifying
with my call sign at regular periods. It's pretty much an auto-patch
to be precise.

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

From: Tony P. <kd1s@nospamplease.cox.reallynospam.net>
Subject: Re: More 'Tweens' Going Mobile; Long-Term Health Risks Unclear
Organization: ATCC
Date: Sun, 27 Mar 2005 18:14:09 -0500


In article <telecom24.128.1@telecom-digest.org>, monty@roscom.com 
says:

> By Associated Press  |  March 21, 2005

> CHICAGO -- There were two things 11-year-old Patty Wiegner really,
> really, really wanted for Christmas. One was a furry, playful dog
> that's now filling her parents' home with the sound of barking. The
> other gift makes a different kind of noise -- it has a ring tone that
> mimics rapper 50 Cent's hit song 'Candy Shop.'

I'm not sure what I'd be more concerned about. Should it be the RF 
exposure to tender young brain tissue, or the fact that said eleven year 
old knows what "Candy Shop" is referring to or has actually listened to 
the lyrics of the song. 

In article <telecom24.130.9@telecom-digest.org>, hancock4@bbs.cpcn.com 
says:

> Monty Solomon wrote:

>> By Associated Press  |  March 21, 2005

>> CHICAGO -- There were two things 11-year-old Patty Wiegner really,
>> really, really wanted for Christmas. One was a furry, playful dog
>> that's now filling her parents' home with the sound of barking. The
>> other gift makes a different kind of noise -- it has a ring tone that
>> mimics rapper 50 Cent's hit song 'Candy Shop.'

> My initial knee-jerk reaction would be to object to kids having cell
> phones.  But then I remember my teenage days and it seemed the phone
> was attached to my ear.  And in my parents' day, the phones in the
> corner candy stores were quite busy.

> However, this was when I was in high school, not elementary school.

> I'm not so thrilled about the idea of "tweens" or younger kids having
> cell phones.  (A friend gave his 9-year-old one last Christmas.)

> Of course, these days kids are far more isolated than we were.  We
> were in the city or more built-up suburbs where there were plenty of
> friends within walking distance.  Today kids have to be driven to
> practically any kind of activity otherwise they're isolated.  (Also
> parents want more control over their kids than ours did.)

That is what we get for fleeing the urban core cities. The costs of that 
are coming back in spades. 


[TELECOM Digest Editor's Note: There are lots of things wrong with the
urban core, inner city. I am sorry you feel that those of us who
wanted something better in life did what you call 'fleeing'. I know
you would _never_ get me back to Chicago for example.  PAT]

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

From: Tony P. <kd1s@nospamplease.cox.reallynospam.net>
Subject: Re: Cell Phone Jammer For Sale MONIX MGB-1S
Organization: ATCC
Date: Sun, 27 Mar 2005 18:28:02 -0500


In article <telecom24.128.7@telecom-digest.org>, donestuardo@yahoo.com 
says:

> I have a nearly new cell phone jammer for sale -- range is
> approximately 30 metres in radius. Model MONIX MGB-1S cellular Jammer.

> Used only one week (and then the tenant was gone! - hint great for
> getting rid of loser tenants who depend on their cell phones for
> calls).

> Includes unit, plus 2 attennas, and a power cable and transformer for
> North American Standard power.

> Asking price $395 plus shipping.

> I am located in Canada.

> Please email me at donestuardo (AT Sign) yahoo.com or call me on my
> cell at (416) 458-0012 and I will be happy to go over details with you.

> Thanks,

> Stew

> [TELECOM Digest Editor's Note: Why is a person who relies on a cell
> phone for their communications a 'loser'?  Good luck finding someone
> willing to buy this evil device.  :(    PAT]

To add to your comments, this is also a serious no-no in the eyes of
the FCC.

I'm waiting for the first emergency to take place and a cell phone 
jammer is incorporated. 

Seems that we get less confrontational as time goes on. Instead of 
posting notice that offenders will be violated, we go out and buy cell 
phone jammers. 

But cell phones are a curse to some degree. A local University that 
shall remain nameless instituted a no cell phone policy for students. 
That quickly went downhill when professors cell phones would ring during 
class time, etc. 

For those of us in continuing education, that was even more
interesting.  For example, at the time I was working for the state AG,
I HAD to keep my cell phone on. But at least I had the common sense to
put it on vibrate. One professor told me he always knew when my phone
went off because I'd jolt up a bit. Beepilepsy indeed.

What is really amusing about this is that Stew has posted a Bell 
Mobility cell number. 

Anyone know if Bell Mobility charges the subscriber for incoming calls? 
Hmmmm ... we could give this the same treatment we give to those who post 
their 800 numbers trying to sell wares that are offensive to us. 

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

From: Tony P. <kd1s@nospamplease.cox.reallynospam.net>
Subject: Re: 911, Taxes, and Fees, was: Texas Sues Vonage Over 911 Problem
Organization: ATCC
Date: Sun, 27 Mar 2005 18:40:17 -0500


In article <telecom24.131.8@telecom-digest.org>, dannyb@panix.com 
says:

> 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.

Indeed -- here in Rhode Island all receipts go into a thing called the 
General Fund. Bad, bad, bad, bad. 

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

Date: Sun, 27 Mar 2005 21:22:45 -0500
From: Marcus Didius Falco <falco_marcus_didius@yahoo.co.uk>
Subject: Last Laugh! A Field Guide to Experts - Oxman et al. 329 (7480):


If you want the whole article, which is very funny, let me know. It is long
(23K in stripped form)

Unfortunately the illustrations did not come with this copy. To get them,
see the original file, or download the PDF.

http://bmj.bmjjournals.com/cgi/content/full/bmj;329/7480/1460


BMJ  2004;329:1460-1463 (18 December), doi:10.1136/bmj.329.7480.1460
This article
PDF http://bmj.bmjjournals.com/cgi/reprint/329/7480/1460

Experts' eye view

A field guide to experts

Andrew D Oxman, researcher1, Iain Chalmers, editor2, Alessandro Liberati,
researcher3 on behalf of the World Artifexology Group

1 Informed Choice Research Department, Norwegian Health Services Research
Centre, PO Box 0130, Oslo, Norway, 2 James Lind Library, Oxford, 3
University of Modena and Reggio Emilia and Agenzia Sanitaria Regionale,
Bologna, Italy

Correspondence to: A D Oxman oxman{at}online.no

Experts are common but not well understood. This guide introduces novice
expert spotters to the essentials of artifexology the study of experts

A field guide to experts

An expert is a man who has stopped thinking he knows!

Frank Lloyd Wright

Experts are a little understood family within the phylum
Chordata. Many people mistakenly believe them to have well developed
egos, winged words, and dull plumage. In fact, they typically have
immature egos (which explains their incessant self flattery),
rudimentary wings (which is why they fly first class), and exotic
plumage (to detract from their vulnerability). Despite their
deficiencies, experts can be dangerous. Our brief field guide to
artifexology (the study of experts) should help people to protect
themselves from the insidious influence of experts.

Apologia

An expert is one who knows more and more about less and less.

Nicholas Murray Butler

Who are we to write a field guide to experts? By its very nature,
artifexology is a non-expert field of study. As soon as one becomes an
expert in artifexology one becomes the subject of one's own studies,
thus arriving at a sticky end up one's own cloaca. Unsurprisingly, we
insist that this guide has been written by amateurs for amateurs.


Deeply tanned experts top the pecking order

Credit: MARTIN ECCLES


<<<snip>>

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

End of TELECOM Digest V24 #133
******************************

Return to Archives**Older Issues