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 Tue, 19 Apr 2005 15:02:00 EDT Volume 24 : Issue 172
Inside This Issue: Editor: Patrick A. Townson
Verizon Wireless Makes 'IN' About More Than Calling (Monty Solomon)
CNID Printouts on Cell Bills, was: SprintPCS Lousy Web (Danny Burstein)
Build UHF/VHF Tuners Into Cell Phones (sm5w2@hotmail.com)
Verizon, NBC, Uni Sign Carriage Deal (Telecom DailyLead from USTA)
Re: PPC Advertising, Click Fraud; Its Effect on Search Engines (Skinner)
Re: PPC Advertising, Click Fraud; Its Effect on Search Engines (Bonomi)
Re: PPC Advertising, Click Fraud; Its Effect on Search Engines (P Vader)
Re: Getting Serious About the War on Spam (Robert Bonomi)
Re: Getting Serious About the War on Spam (Lisa Hancock)
Re: DSL 3 mbps (Tim@Backhome.org)
Re: Verizon Wireless International Long Distance Value Plan (Joseph)
Re: SprintPCS Lousy Web Interface (Joseph)
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: Tue, 19 Apr 2005 09:46:52 -0400
From: Monty Solomon <monty@roscom.com>
Subject: Verizon Wireless Makes 'IN' About More Than Calling
IN Messaging Lets Verizon Wireless Customers Send and Receive
Unlimited Mobile to Mobile TXT, PIX and FLIX Messages
BEDMINSTER, N.J., April 19 /PRNewswire/ -- Starting today, wireless
customers have another reason to Join IN -- Verizon Wireless, the
nation's leading wireless service provider, is expanding its popular
IN Calling plans to include IN Messaging, the company's newest
offering that gives Verizon Wireless customers free unlimited
mobile-to-mobile TXT, PIX and FLIX Messages with more than 43 million
Verizon Wireless customers. Customers with Verizon Wireless IN
Calling plans receive unlimited free mobile-to-mobile voice calls to
other customers on the Verizon Wireless national network.
For only $5 additional a month, customers with TXT, PIX or FLIX
Messaging-capable phones can sign up for IN Messaging and immediately
begin sending and receiving unlimited mobile-to-mobile messaging to
other Verizon Wireless customers. IN Messaging from Verizon Wireless
gives customers the choice of how to keep in touch with other Verizon
Wireless customers by offering the flexibility to select either
calling or messaging. IN Messaging customers who want to add
additional services to their phones can get unlimited browsing with
Verizon Wireless' Mobile Web 2.0(SM) news and information service for
just $4.99 monthly access or add the V CAST VPak for $15.00 monthly
access, plus applicable airtime.
- http://finance.lycos.com/home/news/story.asp?story=48463592
------------------------------
From: Danny Burstein <dannyb@panix.com>
Subject: CNID Printouts on Cell Bills, was: SprintPCS Lousy Web Interface
Date: Tue, 19 Apr 2005 05:10:55 UTC
Organization: PANIX Public Access Internet and UNIX, NYC
In <telecom24.171.15@telecom-digest.org> Steve Sobol
<sjsobol@JustThe.net> writes:
[ snip ]
> Sprint doesn't *print* incoming phone numbers on the bill. For a
> Sprint CSR not to know that is unacceptable.
> No one prints incoming phone numbers on customer bills except
> Cingular.
Cough, cough. T-mobile has them for most incoming calls (see below) ...
> My argument is: I get call details on calls to 888-480-4638 because I
> pay per minute for people to call my at that number. Why don't I get
> the same courtesy from my cell carrier(s)? Come on. I don't even get
> the phone number on my bill when my wife calls, and I know damned well
> she doesn't block caller ID on her cell phone, so there *is* no
> privacy issue for her ... the number shows up on my caller ID but not
> on my bill!
T-Mobile displays incoming CNID on the phones and, as of two or so
years ago, prints the numbers on the bill. The exceptions are those
that are "blocked" by the sender.
Which gets me to my question: Can anyone point to the actual court
case or FCC decision, or anything ... that made the point that the
"owner" of a 1-800 (or similar) number has the right to get all the
listings? If the rationale is that the recipient pays, than that
should carry over to the cellular phones as well.
I'd love to push that case forward ...
Thanks.
_____________________________________________________
Knowledge may be power, but communications is the key
dannyb@panix.com
[to foil spammers, my address has been double rot-13 encoded]
------------------------------
From: sm5w2@hotmail.com
Subject: Build UHF/VHF Tuners Into Cell Phones
Date: 19 Apr 2005 06:03:34 -0700
More and more stories in the media about TV being distributed to cell
phones via some sort of internet or data connection.
Why don't they just build VHF/UHF tuners into these phones so that you
can watch local TV off-air FOR FREE! AS MUCH AS YOU WANT! WITH NO
MOTION OR COMPRESSION ARTEFACTS!
Radio Shack sells a palm-sized color LCD TV for about $100. Why can't
they build that functionality into a cell phone?
Heck, are there any cell phones that also have Am/FM radios built into
them?
------------------------------
Date: Tue, 19 Apr 2005 12:55:10 EDT
From: Telecom dailyLead from USTA <usta@dailylead.com>
Subject: Verizon, NBC Uni Sign Carriage Deal
Telecom dailyLead from USTA
April 19, 2005
http://www.dailylead.com/latestIssue.jsp?i=20922&l=2017006
TODAY'S HEADLINES
NEWS OF THE DAY
* Verizon, NBC Uni sign carriage deal
BUSINESS & INDUSTRY WATCH
* Microsoft strikes deal with RIM
* Lucent helps Mexican carrier deploy 3G services
* Verizon allows stand-alone DSL
* Juniper again knocking on cable's door
* Phoenix schools praise VoIP as money saver
* Lucent reports earnings, combines wireless and wireline units
USTA SPOTLIGHT
* VoIP 101 Webinar: How to Integrate Wi-Fi and VoIP, April 21, 1 p.m. EST
EMERGING TECHNOLOGIES
* New Wi-Fi devices promise faster speeds
* Motorola develops phones as music centers
* Yellow Arrow turns NYC into SMS artscape
REGULATORY & LEGISLATIVE
* Ebbers' lawyers urge new trial; say judge erred
Follow the link below to read quick summaries of these stories and others.
http://www.dailylead.com/latestIssue.jsp?i=20922&l=2017006
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/more-news.html . Hundreds of new
articles daily. Then, talk with your friends about the items in the
Digest today and the extra items in our conference area:
http://telecom-digest.org/td-extra/chatpage.html .
------------------------------
Date: 19 Apr 2005 17:21:09 -0000
From: Greg Skinner <gds@best.com>
Subject: Re: PPC Advertising, Click Fraud, and Its Effect on Search Engines
> [TELECOM Digest Editor's Note: As for myself, I cannot really picture
> 'five hundred thousand zombie computers scattered across three
> continents'. If so, under whose coordination? A gang of crackers all
> working in concert to cheat some advertiser's competitor, by running
> up his advertising bill? Seems sort of improbable to me. PAT]
It's not so hard to imagine if you consider the way viruses are spread
to launch spam, DDoS attacks, etc. The virus authors or cracker-gangs
aren't necessarily working to cheat competitors; they're just being
disruptive.
--gregbo
------------------------------
From: bonomi@host122.r-bonomi.com (Robert Bonomi)
Subject: Re: PPC Advertising, Click Fraud, and Its Effect on Search Engines
Date: Tue, 19 Apr 2005 10:09:24 -0000
Organization: Widgets, Inc.
In article <telecom24.171.17@telecom-digest.org>, <gds@best.com> wrote:
>Robert Bonomi (bonomi@host122.r-bonomi.com) wrote:
>> With web-pages, there is *no*way* to estimate how many people see any
>> particular ad. *OTHER* than to count how many times it was displayed.
>> And that is not a "reliable, accurate" number, by any means. What it
>> is, however, is the "best available" data for estimating.
> I realize this, actually. However, this "best available" method of
> estimation is what is in dispute.
So? What else is new? It's a *stupid* lawsuit. "caveat emptor"
applies to the buyer of advertising, just as it does to buyer of the
advertised product.
If the buyers "didn't understand" the _inherent_ limitations and
inaccuracies of (a) the marketplace, and (b) the particular pricing
scheme, they really shouldn't be playing in that market.
_Smart_ web-advertising buyers, have, for *years*, being writing their
pay-per-click contracts in a manner which makes it difficult for someone
to fraudulently inflate the page click-count.
>> Consider a "fleet" of 500,000 "zombie" PCs, scattered across three
>> continents.
>> Each machine, _once_a_day_, at a random time, connects to a given
>> web-page, without anybody in front of the machine.
>> Now, just _what_ are you going to detect?
> I have described many scenarios such as this where there is no
> reliable way to differentiate them from clickstreams where the users
> do not find what they are looking for at the advertiser's site, or
> decide (non-fraudulently) not to buy, or are just window shopping.
Yup that's the point. It's *impossible* to do so. Which answers your
question about "why aren't people working on better fraud-detection?"
Those who have seriously looked at the problem recognize that
detecting such actions 'in progress' chews up exorbitant amounts of
resources, and costs more than the fraud does. The 'simple' stuff --
e.g. paying only for 'unique' clicks over time -- kills off all but
the sophisticated fraudster. The sophisticated fraudster, on the
other hand, is effectively _impossible_ to so much as slow down.
> I guess I don't understand the general tone of your response. It
> seems you are agreeing with me that PPC is a poor business model.
It is what the *advertising buyers* have *demanded*. This wasn't some
bright idea dreamed up by the folks selling ad space. Fixed pricing
is much simpler for _them_ to deal with.
"Poor model" is a term without a referent. _First_ you have to define
the goals; only after you have done that, can you attempt to evaluate
the 'quality' of the method. With advertisers demanding "$/M" figures
or equivalents, to base their buying decisions on, PPC *is* the 'best
available' fit to their demands. That the best available technology
doesn't live up to their expectations is *their* problem.
> you feel that it is superior to, say, paying fixed fees for a certain
> period of time, I'd like to know why.
Fixed pricing ends up in *exactly* the same position, unless you're
paying for your ad to appear *every*time* somebody calls up a web-page
at that site.
If you're on a limited budget, and cant afford a "shown on every page"
ad, but want 'general' exposure, you can only get that by having you
ad appear on 'some' pages And, thus the question becomes "how many
times do you want that ad to appear?" whether it's expressed as "so
many thousand times", or "such-and-such percentage of the time",
> The advertisers can use information that comes from companies such
> as Nielsen NetRatings to estimate how many people use a search
> engine, and what queries they submit to it, to determine a fair bid
> for an ad buy.
*snicker*
Nielsen NetRatings lacks -- by several orders of magnitude -- having
enough reporting sources to produce estimates that are within a factor
of _ten_ to _fifty_ for all the various 'keywords' that the
search-engines selectively sell ad-space for.
> Such information is no worse than what is used to determine rates
> for TV or radio ads.
It is *far* worse, in point of actual fact.
The number of samples you have to have, to have a 'meaningful'
representation of the population, depends on a number of factors. Of
which the size of the population is only one. The number of different
categories enters into the picture, as does the relative frequency
which the population as a whole touches that category.
For a Presidential election, where roughly 120 million of 220 million
voting- age adults did vote, you can get +/- 3% accuracy with a sample
size of circa 1,500. For a population of a million, you can get the
same accuracy with a circa 500 sample size.
However, to get a similarly meaningful estimate of something where
only 1:10,000 of the population uses it, you've got to have a sample
that includes enough people that _might_ use it, before you can have
any confidence in the numbers. Say that 1:4 of the people who -might-
use this thing, use a search engine to find out about it. That means
that roughly 1:40,000 people will hit on that keyword. and the
underlying population is about 100 thousand, if you assume that 1:5 of
those who might use the thing itself, do use it.
To get a meaningful sample on a population of 100K, you need a sample
size of a couple of hundred _of_that_population_. to get *that*
couple of hundred in a sample of the 'general population' of 220
million, you need about _THIRTY_THOUSAND_ people in the sample.
Unless it is a 'scientifically selected' sample, with balanced
demographics matching the population as a whole, you at least triple
that sample size -- to 'hope' to minimize the effect of distortions in
the sample.
TV/Radio numbers are *much* easier to do relatively accurately,
because the spectrum of possible choices is much smaller.
> --gregbo>
> [TELECOM Digest Editor's Note: As for myself, I cannot really picture
> 'five hundred thousand zombie computers scattered across three
> continents'.
Your "inability to picture" is not relevant to the real world. <wry grin>
Spammers, *today*, are routinely _advertising_ access to pools of
50-100 *thousand* zombie machines. "small" pools are only 10,000
machines or so.
A large portion of PC viruses currently being spread are for the
purpose of turning machines into zombies, for spamming, DDOS attacks,
and other kinds of outright criminal activity.
> If so, under whose coordination? A gang of crackers all
> working in concert to cheat some advertiser's competitor, by running
> up his advertising bill? Seems sort of improbable to me. PAT]
Your "disbelief" is not relevant to the state of affairs in the real world.
Those zombie armies *are* out there, and *are* being used for many
kinds of nefarious activities. I don't have any direct knowledge of
their being used for click-fraud, But there is absolutely no question
that they _could_ so be used.
If the criminal gangs can put together several hundred thousand
machines to execute a DDOS attack against a web-site, as _has_ been
done more than once. *ALL* they have to do to make it click-fraud is
change the URL to point to an ad.
The _typical_ "click-fraud" scheme is to _make_money_ doing it, not to
run up the expenses of a competitor.
The way it works:
Somebody puts up a web-site with 'pass through' ads from somebody
like Yahoo. Yahoo supplies the ad content -- for people who have
bought ad space through their 'syndication' service. When a viewer
clicks on the link on that web-site, "somebody" gets some money for
it.
The scam comes in when that self-same "somebody" contrives to have
_lots_ of clicks happen to that Yahoo-supplied (or whomever) link.
They don't care _who_ the advertiser is, or what they're selling,
The idea is to run up the revenues for that "affiliate" site owner.
At the expense of the syndication seller, and the actual
advertiser, of course.
------------------------------
From: pv+usenet@pobox.com (Paul Vader)
Subject: Re: PPC Advertising, Click Fraud, and Its Effect on Search Engines
Date: Tue, 19 Apr 2005 15:23:54 -0000
Organization: Inline Software Creations
gds@best.com writes:
>> Consider a "fleet" of 500,000 "zombie" PCs, scattered across three
>> continents.
> [TELECOM Digest Editor's Note: As for myself, I cannot really picture
> 'five hundred thousand zombie computers scattered across three
> continents'. If so, under whose coordination? A gang of crackers all
Have you been paying ANY attention to what's been happening on the
internet in the last several years? Zombies and botnets are created,
among other reasons, precisely to make money off sites that pay per
click, by directing compromised PCs to go there. Anyone who's ever had
the misfortune of witnessing a spyware infestation has seen this for
themselves. *
* PV something like badgers--something like lizards--and something
like corkscrews.
------------------------------
From: bonomi@host122.r-bonomi.com (Robert Bonomi)
Subject: Re: Getting Serious About the War on Spam
Date: Tue, 19 Apr 2005 10:54:50 -0000
Organization: Widgets, Inc.
In article <telecom24.171.12@telecom-digest.org>, Dan Lanciani
<ddl@danlan.com> wrote:
> bonomi@host122.r-bonomi.com (Robert Bonomi) wrote:
>> There are various ways of "coping" effectively:
>> You can use _different_ e-mail addresses for different functions
>> (e.g., one for the newsgroup moderator 'submission' address,
>> a different one for submission "acks", another one for
>> outgoing Telecom-Digest mailings, and yet another one for
>> "personal" communications.)
>> You can then apply _different_ rules for each address. e.g.:
>> You can whitelist everybody that is subscribed to Digest mailing-list.
>> You can auto-accept any message that is a "reply" to a
>> newsgroup posting.
>> You can whitelist other "known" correspondents.
>> You can auto-accept any message that has a certain "magic word" at the
>> beginning of the subject line.
>> You can then, fairly safely, _reject_ messages that lack the
>> 'magic word'
>> in the subject line, *with* a notice telling the sender that the
>> magic word (and what it is) is required for message acceptance.
>> Doing these things 'right' requires some fairly close integration
>> with the mail-server itself.
>> BUT, when done right, can be _very_ effective.
>> I've been running a custom-developed system (along the above lines)
>> for roughly the last year.
> Some months ago I described a similar system that I've been using for
> considerably longer than one year. (My system is actually even more
> similar to what you describe than one might infer from my original
> description in that the magic word approach is exactly what I use for
> the challenge/response component, though I'm prepared to extend this
> if spammers ever bother to include the magic word.)
> You pointed out (correctly) that spam often includes a forged but valid
> from address whose owner might then receive my bounce notice explaining
> how to bypass the filter. You went on to accuse me of spamming and
> mail-bombing such innocent parties.
> Since you also now advocate rejecting possible spam with a notice, can
> you please explain exactly how you avoid the misdirected bounce
> behavior that you find objectionable?
Simple! _I_ don't send any "bounce messages" *AT*ALL*.
It's all done by mail *rejection* _during_ the SMTP transaction with
the remote server that is trying to deliver the mail to me. This
isn't 'procmail', nor is it some form of "post-processing" of material
that has arrived in the server inbox -- it is "real time" processing
of the message *during* the transmission from the remote system.
Thus, there are three possible scenarios:.
1) The mail came to my _server_ from a legitimate, full-blown,
mail-server that knows the 'true identity' of the sender,
regardless of what the "from" line says.
2) The mail cam to my
server from dedicated spam-sending software that *doesn't* do
_anything_ with rejection notices.
3) The message came to my server from a legitimate, full-blown,
mail-server that does *not* know the identity of the sender.
In scenario #1 the rejection notice -- generated by *that* mailserver
-- goes back to the _actual_sender_.
In scenario #2, the rejection date is bit-bucketed, and nobody gets
anything.
In scenario #3, what happens depends on "just how stupid" that 'open
relay' mail-server configuration is. We already *know* it's
_really_ stupid, or it wouldn't be an open relay in the first place.
*IT* may be stupid enough to be generating 'backscatter' spam in
those situations where the 'from' address is a valid email address
-- and the recipient thereof *should* bitch at that that system for
spamming them Or if the from address is _not_ valid, then the
message ends up in the 'postmaster' mailbox *there*. on the
open-relay machine. Along with all the other 'undeliverable'
notices. Hopefully this alerts the operator of that mailserver to
the problem and they secure their system against open relay.
Wanna see how it works? Fire up your e-mail program (do *not* try a reply
from inside your newsreader, since you want the mail to *fail*), and send
an e-mail to the "From" address listed on this message. See where the
"delivery failure" message you get is sent _from_. Hint: it does _not_
come from my servers. If *your* mail server lets you lie to it about who
is sending the message... well you need to speak to your mail administrator
about _that_ (scenario 3, above). <grin>
You have a problem trying to do this kind of thing, because your
mail-server software is _four_ major releases, and 4 additional minor
updates, out of date, and it doesn't have the required capabilities to
implement this type of scheme _properly_.
> Dan Lanciani
> ddl@danlan.*com
> [TELECOM Digest Editor's Note: Thank you very much! You said it
> very well. PAT]
------------------------------
From: hancock4@bbs.cpcn.com
Subject: Re: Getting Serious About the War on Spam
Date: 19 Apr 2005 08:36:28 -0700
Organization: http://groups.google.com
Robert Bonomi wrote:
> Nope. it's because it is, quite simply, *NOT* ICANN's job to do so.
> Of the various organizations (ICANN, IAB, IETF, etc.) that are the
> 'authority' for specific functionalities of the greater Internet,
> _none_ of them have any authority with regard to the 'content' of
> packets.
Well then, who IS responsible to do the job? If no such job
exists, why isn't one created?
> And *nobody* on the 'net wants it any other way. (Well, except for
> folks like the government of mainland China, that is.)
I don't know about that.
I see the net as a great POTENTIAL tool, but one that is fraught
with risk and problems. Even supposedly "reputable" outfits
flood your email with spam and won't stop. (The people who
run whatever they call PC-Expo as an example).
Between hackers, spammers, perverts, and thieves, I are extremely
hesitant to do much of anything on the Internet. The newspapers
have articles constantly about how people have been fleeced from
Internet troubles -- either stolen identity, "phishing sites",
or fraudulent sites. Don't count of the authorities to go
after anyone unless it's a very major deal. (Let me know
IF any of the principals in the Norvergence collapse are
called to task -- under oath -- to account in detail for that.
I am not holding my breath.) At present, there is no
deterrent.
I am savvy enough that I don't open email from any source
I don't know, and I never click on attachments. That has
protected me, but in doing so I have deleted many legitimate
emails that I merely didn't recognize. Many other users have
been badly burned -- whole companies shut down -- because of
malicious sabotage sent through email.
Are you telling me this is a good system -- where people have
to go sorts of trouble to protect themselves and delete
legitimate items?
When Pat T. brought up these problems, I noticed that almost all
responses were for things _Pat_ should do. In other words, he has to
make considerable effort to protect himself from malicious efforts
from others.
Why isn't more being done to stop the malicious work at the source?
Why is it that most people just wring their hands and say "nothing can
be done".
If we can put a man on the moon using 1950 based computer technology,
we can make the Internet safe.
> Not to mention that there is _nothing_ that ICANN can actually _do_
> that would affect matters. They can't revoke the IP addresses MCI
> uses, those addresses were issued by ICANN to ARIN.
So de-issue them.
> They can't revoke the domain-name(s) MCI uses, those names are part
> of properly-executed _contracts_ between MCI and the domain registry
> operator.
Why do the contracts allow malicious behavior? Why can't
these contracts explicitly prohibit -- with penalties -- malicious
behavior? Who writes these contracts?
> And the operator's contract (with ICANN, or the appropriate
> 'national' authorizing authority) requires _them_ (the registry
> operator) to publish *all* properly contracted domains.
Again -- change the contracts!
> Those are the *only* aspects of the Internet that fall under ICANN's
> 'area of responsibility'.
Sounds like there's a lot that could be done.
> Because: (a) there is *NO*ONE* 'in authority'. The net runs by
anarchy.
Did it ever occur to anyone that this 'anarchy' is a very costly and
inefficient policy? How much does malicious efforts and protections
against that cost companies? How much traffic is flooding the system,
requiring increased servers and lines to accomodate malicious traffic?
> (c) last I knew, MCI had something like a _40%_ share of
> the U.S. Internet market. It simply isn't practical for
> any 'significant' player to write off that big a chunk of
> the potential customer base.
MCI, being part of a bankrupt empire (resulting from IIRC corrupt
accounting practices) has little sympathy from me. Perhaps it'd
better for everyone to dump MCI altogether.
[TELECOM Digest Editor's Note: Now Lisa, do you understand the
politics of spam, and why it is such a problem? It amazes me that
this net could be (like at present) 85-90 percent spam garbage, most
of which comes via one source -- MCI -- and yet people say "oh, we
don't dare cut them off, they are too important." That's the old Vint
Cerf/ICANN propoganda line; we are not to impose on MCI in any way.
You are correct about their bankrupt status: it was due to corrupt
accounting practices and thievery at the top. ICANN had one of their
vacation/conventions last week at an elegant resort in Argentina with
all their 'committee heads' and 'experts' present. They were able to
do that partially because of the fees they extort from netters for
permission to use this damn thing with an identifiable address at
their sites. One of the attendees told me it was not enough to just
go to Buenos Aires; he flew that far then had to take a _six hour_
bus ride the rest of the way. ICANN does not publish notes of their
meetings in any timely fashion. MCI is a big supporter of ICANN; and
Vint Cerf (I assume, unless in the bankruptcy procedings he got
canned) is a powerful employee of MCI and also an important person in
ICANN. When people talk about Vint Cerf being their idol, I have to
laugh at their naievity. He did many good things for the net back in
the 1960-70's era, but for several years now he has been a traitor,
no more, no less. I still remember the major conference held for
netters back in the early 90's when Cerf was present, and telling
everyone what a wonderful thing the 'new net' would be. I asked him
point blank on the telephone (there was a conference call arrangement
as part of that meeting in the 90's) "so what happens to little
independent netters like myself and TELECOM Digest? " Vint Cerf's only
answer was a typical John Levine sort of comment: "oh, that's a good
question". Cerf knew back then he was selling the rest of the net
down the river, and he still has some supporters -- even from here on
this newsgroup I am sad to say -- who worship him and go ga-ga over
him and support all his ideas to turn _our_ net into a totally
commercial enterprise; running off all the small guys totally,
although I doubt they exactly put it together just like that.
I would have loved to continue the 'public radio model' around here,
where a few deep pocket sponsors and the rest of the readers had
helped to keep me afloat. The 'rest of the readers' by and large came
through okay, but there were no deep pockets, simply because I come
off to offensively to many of them, by speaking the truth as I under-
stand it.
The reason I suggested cutting MCI instead of cutting China/Korea was
twofold: (1) we very seldom 'see' any spam from China/Korea until the
big guys (i.e. MCI) see it first; if _they_ cut China/Korea then we
would see little spam at all; and (2) there are legitimate users in
the domains .kr and .cn; it would be much harder for _them_ to
relocate out of those domains than it would be for the legitmate users
of MCI to help put the heat on MCI during an 'outage' period. And I
don't delude myself that by requesting John Levine to refuse MCI
traffic out of hand where telecom-digest.org is concerned would matter
even a whit to MCI and that it would hurt me more than them, but, if the
entire net (or large parts of it) simply cut MCI -- called their
bluff, kept them out of things -- for a few days until MCI had a
chance to review their own attiude and make some changes, then there
would be some vast improvement in a few days. That's my thought, and
'putting my money where my mouth is' that's why I am trying to set
that example and ask all of you to do the same: reject _all_ MCI
traffic until/unless things change. A net that is already so spam-
ridden as ours surely can't get any worse while we wait for Vint Cerf,
Esther Dyson and their cronies to have hissy fits before they listen
to reason.
The contracts you suggest changing (I agree!) only got into place as
they are when netters rolled over when ICANN demanded it. A tragic
mistake is that no one seized root long ago and forced the issue. 'They'
say that would have been a mistake; but any more of a mistake than the
slow (but increasing expotentially) rot which has taken us over in the
past few years? PAT]
------------------------------
From: Tim@Backhome.org
Subject: Re: DSL 3 mbps
Date: Mon, 18 Apr 2005 23:30:09 -0700
Organization: Cox Communications
cervantes77@hotmail.com wrote:
> Is anybody getting 3 mbps on Verizon dsl in N.Y.? They're promoting
> this speed for new customers on their web site. I'm a subscriber to
> Verizon dsl but I'm only getting getting 1.5 mbps and am wondering if
> they upgraded their system. Any info greatly appreciated.
If you read the fine print the max speed is reached only if you're
within the distance from the central office (circuit feet, not direct
distance) that makes that speed possible.
------------------------------
From: Joseph <JoeOfSeattle@yahoo.com>
Subject: Re: Verizon Wireless International Long Distance Value Plan
Date: Tue, 19 Apr 2005 05:51:34 -0700
Reply-To: JoeOfSeattle@yahoo.com
On Mon, 18 Apr 2005 17:45:42 -0400, Monty Solomon <monty@roscom.com>
wrote:
> Eligible Verizon Wireless customers with America's Choice(SM) or North
> America's Choice calling plans can add the International Long Distance
> Value Plan for $3.99 per month and receive lower-than-ever
> international calling rates that start at $.09 per minute plus airtime
> on calls from anywhere on the America's Choice network.* Calling
> internationally from a Verizon Wireless phone has never been more
> affordable.
I don't understand why anyone would pay Verizon Wireless or any phone
company $4 a month as a privilege to get rates that are hardly a
bargain.
Using OneSuite <http://onesuite.com> you can get rates as low as
1.9¢/minute to call Canada or 2¢/minute to call the UK.
Using GorillaMobile <http://gorillamobile.com> it's 5¢/minute to call
Canada or 5¢/minute to call the UK. There's a $5.95 fee per year.
Both of these services are "PINless" so don't require a lot of extra
input except for the initial connection to the access number.
------------------------------
From: Joseph <JoeOfSeattle@yahoo.com>
Subject: Re: SprintPCS Lousy Web Interface
Date: Tue, 19 Apr 2005 05:54:48 -0700
Reply-To: JoeOfSeattle@yahoo.com
On Mon, 18 Apr 2005 16:10:58 -0700, Steve Sobol <sjsobol@JustThe.net>
wrote:
> No one prints incoming phone numbers on customer bills except
> Cingular.
Steve, before you say "no one" you'd better check with someone who has
T-Mobile service. Their customers have *always* gotten incoming
numbers noted on their statements (if CLIP isn't blocked.)
------------------------------
TELECOM Digest is an electronic journal devoted mostly but not
exclusively to telecommunications topics. It is circulated anywhere
there is email, in addition to various telecom forums on a variety of
networks such as Compuserve and America On Line, Yahoo Groups, and
other forums. It is also gatewayed to Usenet where it appears as the
moderated newsgroup 'comp.dcom.telecom'.
TELECOM Digest is a not-for-profit, mostly non-commercial educational
service offered to the Internet by Patrick Townson. All the contents
of the Digest are compilation-copyrighted. You may reprint articles in
some other media on an occasional basis, but please attribute my work
and that of the original author.
Contact information: Patrick Townson/TELECOM Digest
Post Office Box 50
Independence, KS 67301
Phone: 620-402-0134
Fax 1: 775-255-9970
Fax 2: 530-309-7234
Fax 3: 208-692-5145
Email: editor@telecom-digest.org
Subscribe: telecom-subscribe@telecom-digest.org
Unsubscribe:telecom-unsubscribe@telecom-digest.org
This Digest is the oldest continuing e-journal about telecomm-
unications on the Internet, having been founded in August, 1981 and
published continuously since then. Our archives are available for
your review/research. We believe we are the oldest e-zine/mailing list
on the internet in any category!
URL information: http://telecom-digest.org
Anonymous FTP: mirror.lcs.mit.edu/telecom-archives/archives/
(or use our mirror site: ftp.epix.net/pub/telecom-archives)
Email <==> FTP: telecom-archives@telecom-digest.org
Send a simple, one line note to that automated address for
a help file on how to use the automatic retrieval system
for archives files. You can get desired files in email.
*************************************************************************
* TELECOM Digest is partially funded by a grant from *
* Judith Oppenheimer, President of ICB Inc. and purveyor of accurate *
* 800 & Dot Com News, Intelligence, Analysis, and Consulting. *
* http://ICBTollFree.com, http://1800TheExpert.com *
* Views expressed herein should not be construed as representing *
* views of Judith Oppenheimer or ICB Inc. *
*************************************************************************
ICB Toll Free News. Contact information is not sold, rented or leased.
One click a day feeds a person a meal. Go to http://www.thehungersite.com
Copyright 2004 ICB, Inc. and TELECOM Digest. All rights reserved.
Our attorney is Bill Levant, of Blue Bell, PA.
************************
DIRECTORY ASSISTANCE JUST 65 CENTS ONE OR TWO INQUIRIES CHARGED TO
YOUR CREDIT CARD! REAL TIME, UP TO DATE! SPONSORED BY TELECOM DIGEST
AND EASY411.COM SIGN UP AT http://www.easy411.com/telecomdigest !
************************
Visit http://www.mstm.okstate.edu and take the next step in your
career with a Master of Science in Telecommunications Management
(MSTM) degree from Oklahoma State University (OSU). This 35
credit-hour interdisciplinary program is designed to give you the
skills necessary to manage telecommunications networks, including
data, video, and voice networks.
The MSTM degree draws on the expertise of the OSU's College
of Business Administration; the College of Arts and Sciences; and the
College of Engineering, Architecture and Technology. The program has
state-of-the-art lab facilities on the Stillwater and Tulsa campus
offering hands-on learning to enhance the program curriculum. Classes
are available in Stillwater, Tulsa, or through distance learning.
Please contact Jay Boyington for additional information at
405-744-9000, mstm-osu@okstate.edu, or visit the MSTM web site at
http://www.mstm.okstate.edu
************************
In addition, gifts from Mike Sandman, Chicago's Telecom Expert
have enabled me to replace some obsolete computer equipment and
enter the 21st century sort of on schedule. His mail order
telephone parts/supplies service based in the Chicago area has
been widely recognized by Digest readers as a reliable and very
inexpensive source of telecom-related equipment. Please request
a free catalog today at http://www.sandman.com
---------------------------------------------------------------
Finally, the Digest is funded by gifts from generous readers such as
yourself who provide funding in amounts deemed appropriate. Your help
is important and appreciated. A suggested donation of fifty dollars
per year per reader is considered appropriate. See our address above.
Please make at least a single donation to cover the cost of processing
your name to the mailing list.
All opinions expressed herein are deemed to be those of the
author. Any organizations listed are for identification purposes only
and messages should not be considered any official expression by the
organization.
End of TELECOM Digest V24 #172
******************************
| |