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     Wed, 20 Apr 2005 18:43:00 EDT    Volume 24 : Issue 174

Inside This Issue:                             Editor: Patrick A. Townson

    AOL to Block Identity Theft Sites (Lisa Minter)
    Fox News Going Mobile with Sprint (Lisa Minter)
    ID Thief Wins Constantly! TRUE Story (Cheryl Rudow Pope)
    VCs Target Mobile Phone Tech Companies (Telecom dailyLead from USTA)
    Re: PPC Advertising, Click Fraud; Effect on Search Engines (jmeissen)
    Re: PPC Advertising, Click Fraud; Effect on Search Engines (Robt Bonomi)
    Re: SprintPCS Lousy Web Interface (Steve Sobol)
    Re: The Other Telecom Bidding War (Robert Bonomi)
    Re: Getting Serious About the War on Spam (Dan Lanciani)
    Re: Getting Serious About the War on Spam (Robert Bonomi)
    Re: Getting Serious About the War on Spam (Scott Dorsey)
    Re: Getting Serious About the War on Spam (news01@jmatt.net)
    Re: Getting Serious About the War on Spam (Paul Vader)
    Re: New Technology Poses 911 Peril VOIP and Emergency System (hancock)

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: 20 Apr 2005 08:09:43 -0700
From: <ptownson@cableone.net>
Reply-To: Lisa Minter <lisa_minter2001@yahoo.com>
Subject: AOL to Block Identity Theft Sites


NEW YORK (Reuters) - America Online on Wednesday is expected to unveil
plans to block identity theft sites and monitor suspected Web sites
around the clock.

The online unit of Time Warner Inc.  partnership with Cyota, a New
York-based online security company, to help identify and block sites
imitating legitimate companies, such as banks that are suspected of
soliciting personal information, or "phishing."
 
"Phishing and identity theft are the fastest-growing security threats
online," said Tatiana Platt, an AOL senior vice president said in a
statement. "By limiting our members' access to suspected phishing
sites, we're trying to cut the lines before a phisher can reel them
in."

Platt said AOL also plans to release other products aimed at curbing
junk mail and other online scams.

AOL has implemented a number of subscriber security measures in recent
months, including a keychain-sized passcode generator needed to log
into an account that provides password security on par with corporate
computer users.

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.

*** FAIR USE NOTICE. This message contains copyrighted material the
use of which has not been specifically authorized by the copyright
owner. This Internet discussion group is making it available without
profit to group members who have expressed a prior interest in
receiving the included information in their efforts to advance the
understanding of literary, educational, political, and economic
issues, for non-profit research and educational purposes only. I
believe that this constitutes a 'fair use' of the copyrighted material
as provided for in section 107 of the U.S.  Copyright Law. If you wish
to use this copyrighted material for purposes of your own that go
beyond 'fair use,' you must obtain permission from the copyright
owner, in this instance, Reuters Limited.

For more information go to:
http://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/17/107.shtml

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

Date: 19 Apr 2005 22:29:54 -0700
From: Lisa Minter <lisa_minter2001@yahoo.com>
Subject: Fox News Going Mobile with Sprint


By Chris Marlowe

Fox News Channel announced a deal with Sprint on Tuesday that will let
audiences view the network live on mobile phones from anywhere in the
U.S.

This is is the first time FNC has made its content available in the
wireless medium. It also is a first for Sprint, because the new Fox
News Channel Live is the first live news programing on the Sprint
network.

"These are great firsts for us," FNC director of digital media Jeremy
Steinberg said. "This deal positions Fox News Channel to become a
significant player in the wireless industry and is a great opportunity
to expand the brand and reach our loyal audience outside their homes."

The three top-rated shows in cable news -- "The O'Reilly Factor," "On
the Record With Greta Van Susteren" and "Hannity and Colmes" -- can be
viewed via mobile at the same time they're shown on television
screens, as can all other FNC programing, complete with interstitials
and advertising.

The quality of FNC Live is equivalent to 15 frames per second, about
half as good as the in-home version of FNC.

All Sprint TV subscribers can watch FNC Live at no additional
cost. Sprint TV is available to those using Sprint PCS Vision
Multimedia Phones on the Sprint Nationwide PCS Network for $9.99
per month in addition to their existing Sprint PCS Vision plan.

Sprint, working with Idetic, pioneered live television to the
U.S. mobile consumer sector in 2003. Sprint TV, which launched in
August, offers 17 channels of video content on demand.

Owned by News Corp., FNC is available in more than 85 million homes.

Reuters/Hollywood Reporter
Copyright 2005 Reuters Limited.

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. Discuss this report and other telecom news items in
our conference area: http://telecom-digest.org/td-extra/chatpage.html

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

From: Cheryl Rudow Pope <cgjrpope@msn.com>
Subject: ID Thief Wins Constantly! TRUE Story
Date: Wed, 20 Apr 2005 08:50:55 -0500


Why The Courts Work For The Criminal and NOT The Victims! Illinois
Now they send her on Vacation?? I am a victim of Identity Theft 
committed by a convicted felon who has done this to me several times. 

She was let off because of claims of medical conditions?? Like she
can't be treated in prison? What is wrong here? So she can rob and
steal from people and all she has to do when the Court system catches
up with her is to just claim she has cancer, MS or some other staged
up claim and she is FREE? That is what she used in both counties below
to get off! Just think how much money these thieves can get away with!
Like Probation is going to do a darn thing? ONLY IN AMERICA! She is no
different from someone that robs a bank! I am OUTRAGED AT THE JUSTICE
SYSTEM PERIOD! What exactly will stop her from doing this to me again?

In 95 she stole my Identity and there were NO laws to prosecute
her. NOW here we are in 2005 and have laws and alls they do is give
her probation? PLUS she is a prior convicted FELON with a Criminal
Background that does NOT stop!

The felon now has 8 Current Identity Theft Charges/Check Deception
Charges in 2 Counties, Will and Dupage. Six charges in Will and 2
charges in Dupage. She also did prison time in 95 For Embezzelling and
Employee Theft in Dupage County.

I cannot believe the Judge gave her probation??? In DUPAGE COUNTY
Dupage County Case Numbers: 04 CF 2875 04 CF 1193 February 2, 2005 she
faced sentencing of the above cases. 1 Identity Theft and 1 Check
Deception. I was the Identity Theft Victim.

The Judge AGAIN gave her probation because Will County did and also 
she is claiming to have a Medical Condition? I don't care she can be 
treated in PRISON! ALSO why is she given the ROYAL treatment of being
on Probation ?? SHE has a very LONG criminal background with drug
conviction charges, Identity Theft charges and many more. How can a
person on Probation for 3 years in 2 Different Counties with 8 Current
Convictions get to travel and go on vacation when SHE got Probation
because she claimed a so called medical condition that kept her from
going to Jail and now a month later she takes a ski trip vacation?

Here is the reply I got from Will County State's Attorney: On March
18, 2005, the defendant appeared with her attorney. The defendant
requested the court's permission to travel to the State of Colorado
 from March 23, 2005 to April 3, 2005. Over the State's objection, the
court granted it, provided she have her court costs paid in full. They
are, so she did. How did she get away with this? She is Cured, FREE 
and Taking Vacations on Stolen Money! The Courts sure work for the 
criminal here!


[TELECOM Digest Editor's Note: Will County and Dupage County are both
in the metropolitan Chicago area; Will being south/southwest and
Dupage being west of Cook County/Chicago respectively. But, Ms. Pope,
you seem to infer she was due back in court or probation on April 3,
about two weeks ago. What has happened since then? Your story does not
surprise me, knowing how the courts in that area operate. Can you
bring us up to date?   PAT]

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

Date: Wed, 20 Apr 2005 13:31:15 EDT
From: Telecom dailyLead from USTA <usta@dailylead.com>
Subject: VCs Target Mobile Phone Tech Companies


Telecom dailyLead from USTA
April 20, 2005
http://www.dailylead.com/latestIssue.jsp?i=20973&l=2017006


		TODAY'S HEADLINES
	
NEWS OF THE DAY
* VCs target mobile phone tech companies
BUSINESS & INDUSTRY WATCH
* Verizon rolls out iobi for big business
* Fox News Channel goes wireless with Sprint
* Tropic, Scientific Atlanta team up
* Judge may give Adelphia breakup fee to Time Warner, Comcast
* MCI buys IP media firm
* Sprint, Cingular report Q1 earnings
USTA SPOTLIGHT 
* VoIP 101 Webinar Tomorrow!  How to Integrate Wi-Fi and VoIP, 1 p.m. EST
EMERGING TECHNOLOGIES
* Verizon gears up to enter TV market
* Analysis: Wi-Fi, VoIP combo may be inevitable
* Ethernet users need to be educated

Follow the link below to read quick summaries of these stories and others.
http://www.dailylead.com/latestIssue.jsp?i=20973&l=2017006

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

From: jmeissen@aracnet.com
Subject: Re: PPC Advertising, Click Fraud, and Its Effect on Search Engines
Date: 20 Apr 2005 07:51:57 GMT
Organization: http://extra.newsguy.com


In article <telecom24.173.9@telecom-digest.org>, Pat wrote:

> [TELECOM Digest Editor's Note: I guess not everyone takes the trouble,
> as I do, to automatically run Grisoft AVG in the early morning hours
> on my machines, and Ad Aware and Spybot Smash and Destroy once per
> week or so.  PAT]

The reality is actually quite depressing. What I've experienced
personally is that the majority of users don't care. As long as they
can surf the 'net and do email/IM they're happy. It used to be the
case that the load from viruses and spyware was enough to drag a
system to its knees, but with 3+ Ghz systems they often hardly notice
it. I've actually had people criticize me for "messing with their
system" when I offered to help clean up and patch up their Windows
boxes (which had never received any security updates, were running
expired antivirus software, and were directly connected to cable
modems).


John Meissen                                    jmeissen@aracnet.com


[TELECOM Digest Editor's Note: Yeah, but you see, perhaps I am an
atypical user in that way. I have to work from here at home, and
spend a few hours each day on my web sites, most often as not the
Digest. I prefer to leave the cable connection up 24/7 since things
like my weather station relies on it. My computers are all old,
shabby, cranky things which work at very slow CPU speed, and I just
cannot afford the time required to constantly clean out viruses and
erase spam. I've got to have those automated virus checking/smashing/
destroying programs on hand and running daily.  PAT]

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

From: bonomi@host122.r-bonomi.com (Robert Bonomi)
Subject: Re: PPC Advertising, Click Fraud, and Its Effect on Search Engines
Date: Wed, 20 Apr 2005 10:27:41 -0000
Organization: Widgets, Inc.


In article <telecom24.173.9@telecom-digest.org>, TELECOM Digest Editor
noted in response to T. Sean Weintz <strap@hanh-ct.org>:

>> [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]

> There are easily that many zombies available out there.  Doesn't need
> any real coordination at all to use them -- there are automated
> scripts available to find and use them.

> I figure probably 1 in 50 home users' PC is "zombified" without them
> knowing it.

For the U.S. that might be only a little low.

For some other locales, like South America and parts of the Pacific
Rim, you're *under-estimating* the problem by an order of magnitude.
I've seen numbers like 1 in *8* for some areas.  *groan*

> Anyway, my point is one bright 13 yr old could do the whole operation
> alone.

> [TELECOM Digest Editor's Note: I guess not everyone takes the trouble,
> as I do, to automatically run Grisoft AVG in the early morning hours
> on my machines, and 'Ad Aware' and 'Spybot Smash and Destroy' once per
> week or so.  PAT]

That should be "obvious" -- given that there are fairly reliable estimates 
of 200,000+ 'zombie' machines on *one* large North American cable ISP.



[TELECOM Digest Editor's Note: One thing I really love about Cable One
for internet is how they go to the trouble to sort email for their
customers. I've quoted some stats here, and those stats are _only as
they apply to massis and Telecom Digest_ . My personal email comes via
Cable One, TerraWorld, and University of California at Berkeley, but
Cable One picks it all up via POP for me and sorts it nicely, putting
all the known viruses and the suspected spam into a separate folder
called 'my spam'. Then it sends me email telling me to please check
out 'my spam' when something arrives there (which is sort of an
overkill; viri and spam arrive there constantly also.) When I go to
look there, its all laid out nicely, 24 lines at a time with the
subject, who it is from, the date, etc, and nice little convenient
check boxes to one side and a box at the bottom saying 'check all'.
As fast as I can scan those 24 lines and hit the 'check all' box, it
all goes away. In the event there _is_ something there I want to keep
rarely, I 'check all' then go back and uncheck the one I want to keep.
Anything I uncheck to keep then is shown on the training page: do you
want to have this sender/subject automatically approved henceforth?

I just wish that SBC's DSL had been that courteous. Under some very
misguided belief that "we do not get involved in our customer's email"
they just dumped it, spam, viri and all into a common bin and left it
for me to sort out. Of course, SBC does _not_ allow customers to run
cgi-bin or any shells of their own, or any scripts, so I had to go
through it all manually. Out of desparation once, I asked the SBC
help desk (when I used to have DSL instead of cable) to please give me
a shell. "Oh no," said the tech, "SBC does not let customers have
shells to use. You are only authorized to use what software we give
you." That's back when I was debating whether or not to stay with SBC
for DSL only, if they had allowed such a thing. Cable One is such an
improvement by comparison, and I have never seen any downtime. In 
addition to their own virus and spam detectors -- frequently updated --
they encourage people to run their own as desired also.  PAT]

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

From: Steve Sobol <sjsobol@JustThe.net>
Subject: Re: SprintPCS Lousy Web Interface
Date: Tue, 19 Apr 2005 21:13:53 -0700
Organization: Glorb Internet Services, http://www.glorb.com


Joseph wrote:

> 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.)

No one that I was aware of besides Cingular ...

If you say T-Mobile does too, that's good enough for me ...

Still not even close to all of the US carriers, though. :(


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

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

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

From: bonomi@host122.r-bonomi.com (Robert Bonomi)
Subject: Re: The Other Telecom Bidding War
Date: Wed, 20 Apr 2005 10:47:01 -0000
Organization: Widgets, Inc.


In article <telecom24.173.3@telecom-digest.org>,

> [TELECOM Digest Editor's Note: If I am not mistaken, there is that one
> stockholder, Slim (somebody) in Mexico who owns 13 percent of the
> company, and the purchasers of MCI tried to (or were successful at)
> cutting a different deal with him than with the other stockholders.

Verizon _did_ purchase those shares.  Interestingly, MCI subsequently 
refused to dismantle a 'poison pill' provision against any single 
shareholder owning more than 15% of the shares.

> I thought that was illegal ... whatever was offered to one stockholder
> had to be the same for _all_ stockholders; and the other stockholders
> have been complaining mightily about Slim getting better terms. Does
> anyone know more about this?    PAT]

You thought wrong.  <grin>

In certain situations, and *only* in those situations, is it required
that all shareholdeers receive 'equal' treatment.  See Carl Ichann's
backgrounds for a *long* history of buying up 'significant' numbers of
shares in a company, and then "greenmailing" them into buying those
shares back at a substantial premium over the market value.  A deal
_not_ offered to the other shareholders of the company at that time.

Fact: if you make a "tender" offer for shares in a publicly traded
company, assuming that enough shares are proffered to satisfy the
minimum quantity in the ender offer, you must either (depending on the
terms of the tender offer) buy all the shares offered at the 'tender'
price, or buy the maximum number of shares, as specified in the tender
offer, pro-rated among the profferers, according to the relative
proportion of the number of shares each profferer offered out of the
total number of proffered shares.

Fact: in the _execution_ of a merger or buy-out of a publicly traded
company, you must pay the same price for all shares of a given
class/type.

Fact: there is *nothing* that prevents one from: (a) purchasing shares
on the "open market", at _any_ price (higher or lower than a tender or
merger price, or (b) making similar 'private' purchases.  "Even if"
you have a tender offer outstanding.  "Even if" you have reached an
'agreement in principle' with the management of the company you're
buying out -- until the purchase agreement has been approved by _both_
sets of shareholders it is not binding.


[TELECOM Digest Editor's Note: I guess I thought wrong once again,
didn't I, Robert?  I do know that the other 87 percent of the
shareholders were quite annoyed that Slim got special service not
available to them.   PAT]

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

Date: Wed, 20 Apr 2005 00:11:07 EDT
From: Dan Lanciani <ddl@danlan.com>
Subject: Re: Getting Serious About the War on Spam


bonomi@host122.r-bonomi.com (Robert Bonomi) wrote:

> In article <telecom24.171.12@telecom-digest.org>, Dan Lanciani
> <ddl@danlan.com> wrote:

>> 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*.  

Neither do I, but that isn't an answer to the question I posed.

> It's all done by mail *rejection* _during_ the SMTP transaction with
> the remote server that is trying to deliver the mail to me.

That is how my system works as well.

> This isn't 'procmail',

I've never used procmail; that was somebody else's suggestion.

> 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.

Real time processing is an obvious and worthwhile optimization;
however, while it does reduce the incidence of misdirected bounces it
by no means eliminates them.  It only pushes the problem back one hop.
I'm not hypocritical enough to criticize non-real-time
challenge/response systems just because I do a little better by
rejecting in real time.  You are criticizing my system without even
doing a little better ...

> 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 came 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

"may be"?  Returning an error log to the envelope from is exactly what
a relay is supposed to do.

> -- and the recipient thereof *should* bitch at that that system for
> spamming them

The system "spamming" them may not be the open relay (if in fact there
is an open relay involved).  This of course leads to the notion of
trying to force relays to blacklist relays that fail to blacklist open
relays.  I'm sure such nonsense has been proposed.

> Or if the from address is _not_ valid, then the
> message ends up in the 'postmaster' mailbox *there*.  on the
> open-relay machine.

It ends up on the last hop relay before your machine.  That may or may
not be the open relay (if in fact there was an open relay involved).

> 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.

Your analysis is incomplete, but it doesn't matter: your system works
in exactly the same way that mine does.  It will provoke misdirected
bounces in exactly the same circumstances that mine will.

You do not have a solution to the misdirected bounce behavior; you are
merely trying to downplay the problem and/or shift the blame to other
relays.  That would be fine if you refrained from criticizing those of
us who have been using the same techniques that you have now
discovered but who do not try to downplay the consequences.

> Wanna see how it works?

I'm willing to take your word for how your system works; however, I
strongly suggest that you send my mail system some spam to see how it
responds before you make any additional bogus assumptions.

> 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_.

Let me see if I can translate your comment.  Your system depends on
some hooks included in recent versions of sendmail.  You assume that
any similar system must depend on such hooks.  You looked at the
version of sendmail on my mail server and noticed that it was too old
to have such hooks.  You therefore conclude that I can't possibly be
doing anything close to what you consider acceptable.

News flash.  I was hacking sendmail code long before the program was
even called "sendmail."  My spam filter interface is integrated into
the SMTP server code directly.  It does not depend on any user or cf
file hooks.  Some of us are still capable of writing our own C code
for such functionality rather than waiting for the latest version of
sendmail (with the latest set of security holes) to offer an easy
solution.


Dan Lanciani
ddl@danlan.*com

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

From: bonomi@host122.r-bonomi.com (Robert Bonomi)
Subject: Re: Getting Serious About the War on Spam
Date: Wed, 20 Apr 2005 10:15:10 -0000
Organization: Widgets, Inc.


In article <telecom24.172.9@telecom-digest.org>,
 <hancock4@bbs.cpcn.com> wrote:

> 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?

When you figure out what the Internet is, you'll understand the answer
to that question.

The Internet is a _voluntary_ co-operative effort of *private* network
operators.  *nobody* 'owns' it.  *nobody* 'controls' it.  Everybody
makes _their_own_rules_ for *THEIR*OWN* network.  Unfortunately,
"their" rules do not apply to someone who is _not_ on their network.
When someone chooses to allow people "_not_ on their network" to
access resources "on their network", they are 'extending trust' to
those people to voluntarily obey their _unenforceable_ rules.  The
*only* 'enforcement' option available is to deny those 'scofflaws'
access to the resources on their network.

If you "don't like" the way YOUR NETWORK OPERATOR is extending trust
(or not revoking it) to those who abuse that trust, either (a) find a
different network operator, (b) bitch at your existing operator to get
them to change _their_ operation, or (c) disconnect yourself.

>> 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.

Try to find anybody who wants restrictions on what _they_ can
do/say/etc. On the Internet.  Even among those who favor restrictions
on what "other people" can do/say/etc. on the Internet.

If 'officialdom' can proscribe sending one kind of message, they can
proscribe sending _any_other_ kind of message.

> I see the net as a great POTENTIAL tool, but one that is fraught
> with risk and problems.

Yeah.  So?  If you're not prepared to deal with the risks, "don't play
in the street." applies.

If the benefits for you don't outweigh the risks then
*UNPLUG*THE*COMPUTER*.  Problem _solved_.

> 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?

If you use "good quality" software, for reading mail -- as opposed to
the cr*p that Microsoft as foisted off on the world, most of those
"problems" simply disappear.

As for the 'getting fleeced' issue, there is *NOTHING*NEW* about that.

"Ponzi schemes" have been around (by _that_ name) since the 1920s.
The 'Spanish prisoner' con goes back even further.

> 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?

HOW?  The -bad guy- *owns* the "source".  He has -zero- interest in 
"stopping" his own activities.

Shall we impose 'licensing' on every computer that gets connected to
the internet?  Including a requirement that the operating system and
all applications be secure and un-exploitable?

(Maybe that's not a bad idea -- it would get rid of *all* those d*mn
virus-infected  (and potentially infected) MS-Windows boxes.  But, how 
many readers of Telecom Digest or the newsgroup would be left _that_ 
was done? )

> Why is it that most people just wring their hands and say "nothing can
> be done".

Because it is, quite simply, a _fact_.  There will *always* be 'bad
guys' out there.  And, as long as they can control the 'sending'
system, there is, bluntly, no way to force them to play by the rules.
Want to require certain kinds of headers in e-mail?  The bad guy
sender can _forge_ those headers, just as easily as the good guy can
put the right info in them.

When _everybody_ is their own publisher/source, 

> If we can put a man on the moon using 1950 based computer technology,
> we can make the Internet safe.

Bullshit.  Sorry, but its a fact, nonetheless.. We can't even make the
_streets_ safe, and we've been trying to do that for what, 80+ year.
something like 50,000+ people/year are killed in auto accidents in the
U.S. alone.

>> 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.

"So sorry.  *You* have been kicked off the Internet.  Your addresses
are in an address-block assigned to ARIN that has been reclaimed by
ICANN, because some other user in that block misbehaved."

Why do I think that that concept is doomed to failure in the real
world.

Not to mention that, _by_charter_, ICANN and the RIRs, e.g. ARIN, are
_voluntary-participation_ *technical* coordination agencies only.
Nobody *has* to go to a RIR to get IP addresses.  As long as
'whomever' you buy connectivity from will "route" packets to those
addresses to you, it doesn't matter _what_ the RIRs, etc. say.  The
only "good news" is that the "rest of the internet' _does_, in
general, limit how _they_ will route traffic to the address-spaces
that ICANN and the RIRs _have_ "authorized".

>> 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?

Because, for starters, there is no 'universal agreement' on what
constitutes "malicious behavior".

There are multiple layers of contracts involved.

ICANN, or some other TLD "issuing authority", enters into contracts
with "approved registrars".  Those registrars, subsequently, enter
into contracts with "registrants" of a domain name.

The 'issuer-registrar' contract specifies certain "minimum
requirements" that the registrar-registrant contract must contain.
The 'issuer' is *not* a party to the registrar-registrant contract,
and, thus, _cannot_ act directly against the registrant -- they have
'licensed' the registrar to do certain things, and as a result of that
licensing the 'issuer' *is* _legally_bound_ to certain performance, by
the actions of the (licensed) registrar.

Registrars *are* free to impose 'more restrictive' terms than those
'minimum requirements' in *their* contract with the registrant.  There
_are_ at least two 'significant' registrars who *do* include terms in
their registrar-registrant contract that forbids using the registered
domain-name for certain kinds of "abusive" actions -- notably sending
junk e-mail.  *AND*, they actually enforce those added terms, although
the quality of the enforcement is somewhat spotty at times.

There's a "real world" difficulty with this, however.  When there is
"more than one" registrar (as _is_ the case, today) then anybody who
_does_ write more restrictive terms into their contract is at a
"competitive disadvantage" to those who have only the 'required
minimums' in _their_ contract.

<rhetorical>

If you're a "bad guy", _which_ kind of a registrar are you going to 
choose?

</rhetorical>

AND, obviously, the "quality" of the totality is only as high as the
standards of the _lowest_quality_ operator.

As to "who writes these contracts?", well, the registrar-registrant
contracts are written by the registrars.  The 'issuing authority'
generally provides a "sample" registrar-registrant contract -- one
that satisfies the "minimum requirements' of the issuer-registrar
contract.

*MANY* registrars adopt that sample boilerplate *without* making any
changes/additions.

>> 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!

The word for that is "impossible".  The existing contracts are
*self-renewing* _at_the_same_terms_ (although in the case of one TLD,
with an escalating fee schedule), as long as both parties fulfil their
required acts.  This is _expressly_ stated in the contracts.

Changing such a contract requires either: a material breach of the
*existing* contract by one party, allowing the other to exit it, *or*
the _agreement_ of both parties to the changes.

Are you really so naive as to think that the bad guys *will* "agree"
to a contract change -- which provides *no* benefit to _them_ -- and
that would allow the opposite party to harm them (the bad guy) at
will.

I take that back, 'naive' is inappropriate here.  "What color is the
sky on _your_ planet?" is more accurate.

>> 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.

If you ignore the realities of contract law, the difficulties of
cross-border enforcement, and some other basic facts of life,

>> 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?

Hell yes, it's occurred to people.

_Life_ is dangerous.   "Mortality rate: 100%"

Nobody _requires_ you to use the Internet.

Yeah, it'd be "nice" if the various defenses were not necessary.  But,
in the 'real world' they _are_.  Just like locks on your doors.

Using the Internet is a _voluntary_ thing, but you do have to "take it
as it is".  If it's "too much trouble", then the decision is simple --
*don't* use it.  There _are_ people/businesses who have made that
decision.

>>          (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.

A fair number of those who can _afford_ to do so, *have* done so.
For many, it is simply =not= a viable option.

Like it or not, commercial business operations pay for most of the
cost of of operating the Internet.  A commercial business does not
have the "luxury" of a blanket write-off of 40% of their potential
customers.  If they attempt it, they *will* lose that business to
their competition who does not do it.

> [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 -- 

Better check your facts.  Comparatively little spam actually
_comes_from_ MCI address-space.  MCI is actually fairly good about
stomping actual spam origination.  What they _are_ excoriated for --
and *DESERVEDLY*SO* -- is continuing to provide *other* services -- be
it web-server, _incoming_ mail, etc. -- to parties which are
well-known for spamming.  It's "the abuse didn't come _through_ *our*
network, so we don't care" mind-set.

For what it's worth: I just ran some statistics from my logs -- of the
last 2137 unsuccessful delivery attempts,  a whopping _41_ were from
anywhere in MCI address-space.  (BTW, more than 2/3 of look to be from
"zombie" PCs; also more than half had forged AOL/YAHOO/HOTMAIL "from"
addresses, making detection/rejection, 'trivial').

I get 80% of that number of messages from *ONE* ISP in Germany.
I get almost 85% of that number of message that come directly from Nigeria.
I get more messages than that from zombie PC's in Brazil.
I get more messages than that from mainland china -- mostly in English, so
   I presume they're "U.S. based" spammers with off-shore servers.
I get more than that number of messages from "above.net" address-space.
I get nearly twice that number were from Verizon address-space.
I get about twice that MCI number from 'LEVEL3" address-space.
I get more than twice that many from Verio address-space
I get more than five times that number were from AT&T address-space.
I get more than _twelve_times_ that number were from a _single_ spammer 
  getting connectivity from xo.com  (He sends from his own server, always
  the the same machine, registered in his own name, so it 's *really* easy
  to block the "property.com" domain.  One of these days, I am, however, 
  going to file a lawsuit against him, for repeated attempted theft of
  services.)

This isn't to say that blocking all of MCI is a bad idea if it fits
your political agenda, just _don't_ expect it to make any significant
near-term difference in the amount of spam in your inbox.

[[.. munch ..]]

> 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.

Some people have tried such things.  There have been attempts at
setting up "alternative" root nameservers. with other (non-ICANN
recognized) top-level domains.  Of course, for anybody to be able to
_reach_ one of those alternate domains, they have to use a nameserver
"resolver" that kicks the query 'upstairs' to that 'alternative root'
_instead_ of the standard one.  This means that -- for the
'alternative domains' to be universally accessible, *everybody* has to
reconfigure their nameserver away from the default configuration.

For some strange reason, *every* such attempt over the last 10+ years
has fizzled into oblivion.  One could say that "the masses" _have_
made their wishes known on the subject.



[TELECOM Digest Editor's Note: So Lisa, note how Robert is going to
continue to fight against so many folks on the net who are detirmined
to get rid of spam. No matter how far afield, how far off of first
base he is, he is going to continue to respond as you (and I, and all
the other readers) saw today. He talks about the contracts all of us
who hold domain names had to sign, as though they were 'voluntary'
(what a sad laugh) and as though it is impossible for ICANN (which is
in fact the overall controller around here) to write new contracts 
since Robert does not understand what the term 'malicious' means in
everyday language that everyone else with a lick of sense understands.
And he insists that it is impossible for ICANN to build into new
contracts such simple, humble concepts as 'no phishing, no spamming,
no falsification of network addresses' because the contracts out there
now are renewable in perpetuity, or until the savior comes again,
whichever happens first. So, Robert would have us believe that ICANN
(I use them in a generic sense) can't do anything because the existing
contracts are written in stone, renewable forever, and anyway, Robert
knows that there is no reasonable definition of 'malicious' in the 
context of our net. And although as I understand the law, it is
generally there to provide for the weakest members of our society,
Robert says if our brains are not as smart as his (I mean, can't any
_real_ man configure his mail server to eliminate viri and spam?) then
our alternative is to shut the computer down. I imagine he would love
it if we did. 

So Lisa Hancock, I guess Robert has really explained quite well where
we stand. Don't look for any laws or contracts to protect regular
users, or anything like that, since Robert has explained that is all
quite impossible. And above all, do not pick on poor little MCI, since
Robert (who encourages me to check the facts) has explained that MCI
does quite well in stopping spam which originates in their house, but
as Robert explains it they don't do very well on spam throughput from
other sources, as if there was some real difference between the two,
other than the fact that Robert says there is. And before Robert
starts muddying the water once again patiently explaining to us the
differences in job responsibilities between the various technical
agencies administering things here on the net, bear in mind he will
quite likely explain to us once again that it is all one big anarchy,
which by definition has no 'agencies' -- technical or otherwise -- in
charge of anything. 

All I know is, I should receive hazardous duty pay for dealing with
all this shit day after day. PAT]

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

From: kludge@panix.com (Scott Dorsey)
Subject: Re: Getting Serious About the War on Spam
Date: 20 Apr 2005 09:33:25 -0400
Organization: Former users of Netcom shell (1989-2000)


In article <telecom24.172.9@telecom-digest.org>,

> 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?

Individual ISPs are responsible.

The notion here is that we're all supposed to be a community.  If an
ISP is doing something you don't like, you don't have to peer with
them or accept their traffic.  If they are doing something nobody
likes, nobody has to peer with them or accept their traffic.

For years this worked very well.  But now large amounts of the main
backbone are run by a small number of companies who don't really care
about the net or about anything other than short-term profits.

--scott

"C'est un Nagra.  C'est suisse, et tres, tres precis."


[TELECOM Digest Editor's Note: Thank you very much, Scott. Your last
paragraph said it well. That's why I have requested before and will 
request again of John Levine do not peer me with MCI or anyone else
on the Spamhaus list. Send them away. And 'main backbone, small number
of companies who do not care about anything other than short term
profits'. That is the reason I refer to Vint Cerf as a traitor. He
knew damn good and well what he was doing when he sold the rest of us
down the river.   PAT] 

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

From: news01@jmatt.net
Subject: Re: Getting Serious About the War on Spam
Date: 20 Apr 2005 06:33:48 -0700
Organization: http://groups.google.com


Robert Bonomi wrote:

> 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.

Robert ... thanks for that explanation!

I'm a big fan of RBL blacklisting at the server, instead of filtering
after delivery, for a number of reasons.  This is one more reason I
hadn't thought about: a better opportunity for a reasonable decision
about whether to notify the (alleged) "sender" of the spam.

I used to rant against "silent" blocking.  I thought ALL email should
be either delivered or returned to the sender, or at least an attempt
should be made to return it.  I thought it was very bad that
legitimate email could be silently tossed with neither the sender or
the recipient being notified. If it was really spam, the bounce would
probably go nowhere, but if it was good email, at least the sender
would know he needed to find another way to contact the recipient.

Of course, as others have pointed out, this is a real problem now that
spammers are forging valid return addresses.  If the mail is filtered
after delivery, the filter process can either throw it away or return
it to an address which may be a real person who is not the source of
the spam and doesn't need to be swamped with bounces from spam that he
didn't send.

As Robert points out, if the delivery attempt is immediately rejected
by the receiving server, it's up to the sending server to decide what
to do about notification.  In the case of legitimate mail, the sending
server should be able to deliver a legitimate notification to the real
sender.  If it's spam, the sending server is probably not going to
deliver a rejection notice to anybody, unless it's an open relay, and
I think those are getting scarce.  It seems that most spam these days
is being blasted out by special-purpose spamming software, often
running on hijacked broadband customers' machines, and those machines
aren't likely to generate rejection notices.



[TELECOM Digest Editor's Note: I still suggest returning undelivered
email 'to the sender'. If some innocent person gets a jillion pieces
of mail because *someone else forged his email address* then maybe 
that person will get angry enough to join the effort to try and clean
up the net. Read my autoack sometime, it says if you sent the email,
then thank you for writing; _if you did not send the email_ then
welcome to the club the rest of us belong to.  (or words to that
effect.) PAT]

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

From: pv+usenet@pobox.com (Paul Vader)
Subject: Re: Getting Serious About the War on Spam
Date: Wed, 20 Apr 2005 15:02:41 -0000
Organization: Inline Software Creations


hancock4@bbs.cpcn.com writes:

>> '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?

A) Why would anyone living in a free country want controls on what people
   can say?
B) Do you really misunderstand the internet so badly that you think that
   there's any place you COULD create controls?
C) Who says what's allowable or not? I vote for NOBODY.

The internet doesn't exist - it's just a bunch of public ways
connecting private networks. No website runs 'on the internet' - it's
a peephole into private property that you get to look into. If you
don't like what's going on inside, don't peek. *

* PV   something like badgers--something like lizards--and something
       like corkscrews.


[TELECOM Digest Editor's Note: Oh, sure as hell, Paul!  And every
public highway in the world has lots of private driveways attached to
it, but there are still rules to follow in order to be on the
highway. All, that is, except the internet, where Robert will tell you
it is an 'anarchy' (when he is not patiently explaining to Lisa and
whoever else will listen to his rot) the jobs that do not belong to
the various agencies involved). Why didn't you instead claim that
Interstate 70 does not exist; its just a bunch of little towns and
small highways running through Kansas, and how we can turn our
head aside if we do not want to look? 

Let me ask you this: In 1905, when automobiles were first beginning to
show up in mass numbers (on the non-highways which connected the
little towns and roads of America) were you also opposed to speed
limits, license plates -- indeed driver's licenses -- and rules which
pertain to hit and run, etc. A lot of people were, you know, seriously.
More than one person in those early days of the automobile said the
very idea of requiring license plates (so others could identify your
machine) and driver's licenses (so that society assumed you were
qualified to operate your machine) and rules about 'malicious'
behavior (when operating your machine); were you as opposed to those
as you seem to be now where attempts to deal with spam are concerned?  
PAT]

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

From: hancock4@bbs.cpcn.com
Subject: Re: New Technology Poses 911 Peril VOIP Not Part of Emergency
Date: 20 Apr 2005 08:51:14 -0700
Organization: http://groups.google.com


Jack Decker wrote:

> My commentary follows the excerpts ...
> http://www.mlive.com/news/aanews/index.ssf?/base/news-12/1113646231312020.xml

> "If it wasn't the silliest thing, but the hang-up was I couldn't give
> them an exact address, and he was in trouble," said Lawrence, who
> ultimately had to run across Michigan Avenue to the Ypsilanti Fire
> Department before help arrived.

Note that the problem appears to be not knowing one's location rather
than not being able to reach the 911 center.  The caller did get
through -- there was a connection.  What didn't follow was an address
-- but is that even offered in that area?  The capability to transmit
the caller's location to a 911 center and 911 service altogether is
relatively new.  It wasn't that long ago you had to provide your
address, and not long ago you had to know a specific 7 digit number
for your local police/fire/ambulance service.

> I will just point out that if a life is ever lost because someone
> cannot reach 911 ...

One of the reasons enhanced 911 was developed was that people in the
suburbs didn't know where there were.  Historically, one dialed
0-operator and asked for help.  But local operator service centers
have been consolidated and may be many miles away and the operator
won't know the area.  Telephone exchanges overlap municipal
boundaries.  Also, 911 centers had their own problems.

> Please understand what I am saying here -- if an ILEC is making access
> to the 911 system difficult for VoIP providers because they think it
> gives them a competitive edge, they are creating a condition where
> someone might die, solely to enhance their bottom line.

Actually, the ILEC isn't "creating" anything.  It's the VOIP that is
offering something new and different -- marketing as low cost -- and
thus their responsibility to get properly connected.

My county charges a $1/month 911 tax as part of the phone bill.  Will
a VOIP provider serving me also charge that fee?  I doubt it because
they're exempt from regulation.  Seems to me VOIP wants a free ride --
no fee but full service.  That's wrong.

The issue of such fees "being wrong" is not relevant here.  The fees
exist and everyone has an obligation to pay them.

> ... and are hoping for some type of FCC
> action that will establish a nationwide standard ...

That sounds like [gasp!] telephone regulation to me.  We don't
want regulation, do we?

> I again remind you that the foundation for 911 was built while
> the ILEC's were MONOPOLY providers that enjoyed government-protected
> profit margins

I don't believe that is historically accurate.  At the time of
divesture and allowance of competition, much of the country did NOT
have any 911 service.  What service there was did not have the
sophisticated address transmission feature.

By the time E-911 came along, it was a competitive marketplace with
the appropriate foundations.

Further, I understand that competing wireline local phone companies
don't have any problem with 911 service.  It's only VOIP because it
doesn't use the telephone network.  I suspect if VOIP had to establish
a physical presence in each central office, like the competing
wireline companies did, it would have full 911 service without any
hassles.  But that would be a tremendous expense and raise the
price -- and ruin the whole low-cost attractiveness of VOIP.  Again we
see wanting full service but not wanting to pay for it.

As to "govt protected profit margins", that's not true.  If it was,
whenever there was a telephone worker strike the company would merely
give in to union's demands, but they didn't.  Secondly, other
regulated monopolies like railroads or telegraph companies lost big
money year after year without sympathy from their regulators.  If a
phone company had a bad year, it had no guarantee it'd be able to make
that up the following year, as the telegraph carriers found out.  The
telephone companies were and are forced to provide many unprofitable
services where they lose big money -- obligations other carriers are
free from.  The old Bell System disappeared 20 years ago and can't be
used an excuse anymore.  Remember too the old Bell System was strictly
limited in what services and products it could offer-- Bell wasn't
allowed to offer cable TV, for instance.  Your statement should have
read "government _limited_ profit margins".

> So now the 911 centers are stuck with technology that only works
> really well with the existing wireline network, and yet nobody in the
> press seems to want to blame the real culprits, which are the ILEC's
> that set up such technologically-mediocre systems, and their
> co-conspirators in local governments who saw an opportunity to bypass
> the voters in the decision making process.

Who says the E911 are "technologically mediocre"?  You came along with
something new and you want other people to pick up the cost of using
your product so your product will be cheap.

> No, it's much easier to lay all the blame on the VoIP companies,
> which have only been in business for less than a couple of years (in
> most cases) and who had no say at all into how the existing 911
> system was designed.

You're contradicting yourself.  You admit VOIP is something new, yet
you expect the centers to redesign themselves--at their expense--to
accomodate you when you're late.

> [TELECOM Digest Editor's Note: Here in Independence, where we are a
> little more backward in our telecom, it seems, the city has a phone
> in the telecom area which is specifically designated for the job of
> 'emergency, but not 911 equipped calls'. It is not some 'private line
> in a back office somewhere' as seems to be the case in Ypsilanti or
> Brooklyn, NY. The phone terminates in a place where experienced
> professionals can deal with the calls, even though said calls do not
> come through the equipment looking like 'regular' 911 calls. VOIP
> carriers _have to take the word of the various agencies_ that a call
> is being terminated where it can be best handled. Should the VOIP
> carriers have to personally audit each community to assure this?

Yes, the VOIP carriers should personally audit the service everywhere.

That's part of the basic obligation of providing telephone service.
Mr. Decker made a big point of the life-criticial aspect of 911.  VOIP
is the service provider to the customer, as such, they have the
obligation to make sure they can connect to someone else as one would
expect.  Why should the subscriber have to do it?  Almost all
subscribers would have no idea how and where to check.

If I buy a washing machine from a major dept store, they will deliver
it, hook it up, and take it back with a full refund or replace it if
there's any problem.  If I buy it from a discount house I'll have to
get it home and hook it up myself, if there's a problem I'm "SOL", but
I've saved $100.  Each person makes their own decision as to what's
best for them to buy.

It seems here that VOIP is the discount store, but wants to use --
free of charge -- the dept store's delivery and installation crews
because "the dept store was always there and built up a trade".

You can't have it both ways.  When you go to the discount store you
get discount service, pure and simple.  VOIP's big selling point is
low price--partly from freedom from regulated prices, partly from not
having the overhead other companies have.  That overhead appears to
include the proper connectivity to E911 services (among other
problems.)


Please don't tell me my 911 tax on my phone bill shouldn't be there.
It IS there and until it goes away, you have no argument.  I don't
think it's fair that people like me have to pay this tax while VOIP
comes in, without paying such taxes, and demands a free ride.

As far as VOIP goes, be honest with your customers and tell them
you're running a discount store.  You gotta schlep home the washer
yourself, hook it up yourself, and get it serviced yourself.  For some
people, that's a great deal.  Years ago discount stores made no
pretense of being anything else.  Please don't pretend you're a mature
full service company because you're not.

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


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 #174
******************************

Return to Archives**Older Issues