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 Thu, 28 Apr 2005 20:12:00 EDT Volume 24 : Issue 186
Inside This Issue: Editor: Patrick A. Townson
NYS AG Spitzer Again; This Time vrs Spyware/Malware (Danny Burstein)
VOIP: 911 - Vonage vs Time-Warner Roadrunner (rodneyg@carolina.rr.com)
RBOCs Change Tone on VOIP E911 (Jack Decker)
FCC To Require 911 for VoIP (Jack Decker)
Jeff Pulver Responds to FCC Chairman Martin's Comments on VoIP (Decker)
Kings of Spin (Jack Decker)
Spam Canned? Not Yet, Say Americans (Lisa Minter)
Servers Compromised All Over the Globe (Lisa Minter)
Report: FTTP Connections to Quintuple by 2009 (Telecom dailyLead USTA)
Spam Mentioning "242 W. 36th St" (NOTvalid@surplus4actors.INFO)
A Question From Italy (Wildelynx Vox Versus)
Re: The End of Analog TV (Tim@Backhome.org)
Re: The End of Analog TV (Lisa Hancock)
Re: Politics in Telecom (Steve Sobol)
Re: Politics in Telecom (Henry)
Re: VoIP (Scott Dorsey)
Re: VoIP (Robert Bonomi)
Re: Main Web Site Hackers Are Schoolboys, Watchdog Says (mc)
Re: 10base-T & POTS in same Cat-5 cable? (David Clayton)
Re: Access Gateway (sfx96-groups@yahoo.com)
Re: Some Fear Law Would Create National ID Card (Lisa Hancock)
Guess Who is on Microsoft's Payroll at $20k/mo.? (Patrick Townson)
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.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
From: Danny Burstein <dannyb@panix.com>
Subject: NYS AG Spitzer Again; This Time vrs Spyware/Malware
Date: Thu, 28 Apr 2005 11:01:23 -0400
Organization: PANIX Public Access Internet and UNIX, NYC
"Attorney General Eliot Spitzer today sued one of the nation's leading
internet marketing companies, alleging that the firm was the source of
'spyware' and 'adware' that has been secretly installed on millions of
home computers.
"The suit against Los Angeles-based Intermix Media, Inc. is the most
sweeping case to date involving programs that redirect web addresses,
add toolbars and deliver pop-up ads ... "The lawsuit arises under
the State's General Business Law, which prohibits false advertising
and deceptive business practices, and New York's common law
prohibitions against trespass ...
http://www.oag.state.ny.us/press/2005/apr/apr28a_05.html
_____________________________________________________
Knowledge may be power, but communications is the key
dannyb@panix.com
[to foil spammers, my address has been double rot-13 encoded]
[TELECOM Digest Editor's Note: Danny, is it true what I heard that
back in January sometime, someone managed to rip off the 'panix.com'
name? How long did it take for you guys to recover the name? Did
you have to pay blackmail to the person who stole it, as was implied
I could do if I wished to have internet-history.org back? PAT]
------------------------------
From: rodneyg@carolina.rr.com
Subject: VOIP: 911 - Vonage vs Time-Warner Roadrunner
Date: 28 Apr 2005 09:13:24 -0700
Organization: http://groups.google.com
In Charlotte, Time-Warner offers Digital Phone as an additional
service for their broadband customers. They claim that calling 911 on
their service goes to the true E911 center, including display of your
name and number. Unfortunately, their plan is $40 + $4 more for
voicemail. There are no low-minute plans.
I have Vonage, have activated my 911, but have not tested it (yet).
Of course, according to all Vonage literature I can find, my 911 call
from Vonage will not go to true E911, and will not include my name,
address, and phone.
Is it true/possible that Time-Warner can provide true E911 service,
while Vonage can not? Who are the players (governments, phone
carriers, etc.) that are at work in this situation?
Thank you for any info you have.
[TELECOM Digest Editor's Note: Apparently, the only players in the
game who can get 'true E-911' are the telcos themselves or any of
their friends. Others have to pay for the service, and the cost was
pretty steep until recently when under pressure SBC agreed to begin
working with Vonage and other VOIP carriers. The reason this is so
is because when 'true E-911' was being developed, telco had it built
to _their_ specifications. PAT]
------------------------------
From: Jack Decker <jack-yahoogroups@withheld_on_request>
Date: Thu, 28 Apr 2005 13:10:15 -0400
Subject: RBOCs Change Tone on VOIP E911
http://www.lightreading.com/document.asp?site=lightreading&doc_id=72967
RBOCs Change Tone on VOIP E911
The RBOCs now appear to be playing ball with VOIP providers on E911,
but for a price (see VOIP 911 Still Trails Wireline).
SBC Communications Inc. has been in negotiations with Vonage Holdings
Corp. over the past two weeks, Light Reading has learned, while
Verizon Communications Inc. Tuesday announced an E911 trial with VOIP
providers, including Vonage, for this summer.
Verizon says it has been working with various VOIP providers and
vendors on a generic interface between a VOIP network and the public
E911 system. The interface will allow 911 calls originating on VOIP
networks to be automatically routed to one of the two Public Safety
Access Points (PSAPs) in New York City.
As the incumbent LEC, Verizon owns the pipe to the public E911 system
and can sell access to other service providers in New York.
"Once it is up and running, we'll be taking discreet steps to make it
available elsewhere," says Verizon spokesperson Mark Marchand. Verizon
operates in 29 states and the District of Columbia.
SBC will likely offer Vonage an E911 interface similar to
Verizon's, once the two work out their differences.
The fact that the two are talking at all is progress, considering
their rocky start. "Let's be real about where they started
from," says Vonage spokesperson Brooke Shulz. "The first answer
they gave us was 'No, we're not going to sell it to you.' "
Full story at:
http://www.lightreading.com/document.asp?site=lightreading&doc_id=72967
How to Distribute VoIP Throughout a Home:
http://michigantelephone.mi.org/distribute.html
If you live in Michigan, subscribe to the MI-Telecom group:
http://groups.yahoo.com/group/MI-Telecom/
------------------------------
From: Jack Decker <jack-yahoogroups@withheld_on_request>
Date: Thu, 28 Apr 2005 13:12:51 -0400
Subject: FCC To Require 911 for VoIP
http://www.newsfactor.com/story.xhtml?story_id=13000002LZPM
By Elizabeth Millard
The FCC has expressed concern after hearing about lawsuits against
Vonage, in which users sued the company for inadequately warning them
about the potential inability to dial 911 through its services in an
emergency.
The Federal Communication Commission said it will move ahead with
developing a plan to require emergency 911 calling capability on VoIP
phones.
The FCC's announcement to have 911 in place for all phones comes after
Verizon and SBC already have stated that they will speed the process
of providing VoIP access to 911.
Despite such movement within the industry, FCC chairman Kevin Martin
said he still will propose requirements for providers to ensure that
the actions are going forward.
Full story at:
http://www.newsfactor.com/story.xhtml?story_id=13000002LZPM
------------------------------
From: Jack Decker <jack-yahoogroups@withheld_on_request>
Date: Thu, 28 Apr 2005 13:46:06 -0400
Subject: Jeff Pulver responds to FCC Chairman Martin's comments on VoIP
Commentary from The Jeff Pulver Blog:
http://192.246.69.231/jeff/personal/index.html
April 27, 2005
'Help! I Need Somebody!'... But do we really need Somebody to
Micromanage Emergency Response Solutions for IP-Based Communications?
Last night I read with some concern several news accounts of a comment
FCC Chairman Martin made yesterday regarding application of emergency
response obligations on VoIP service providers.
Now, to be clear, I have no problem with the adoption of
appropriately-tailored rules establishing guidelines for
implementation of an emergency response system for IP-based
communications providers. Who could argue with the promotion of such a
public good? As I've said repeatedly, IP technology will allow for the
establishment of next-generation emergency response capabilities that
will dwarf anything we currently see on traditional telecom networks.
In fact, the Global IP Alliance, which I helped to found, is now
taking the lead to develop a global IP-based Emergency Response
System. It is my hope that this global effort will allow users to hit
a single button and immediately activate appropriate language
translations, notify appropriate points of contact and emergency
responders, transmit individualized medical histories and special
circumstances, etc.
New rules designed in such a way so as not to disrupt new technology
and services but ensure the public good should be acceptable to both
industry and government. Cookie-cutter application of old rules to
IP-based communications, however, could tend to stifle new technology
and innovation and interfere with the ability of IP-based
communications providers to develop superior emergency response
systems.
My preference of course is that industry take the lead to develop
non-proprietary emergency response systems that are most suitable to
promotion of IP technology while promoting the broadest public
good. Short of that, I would hope that regulators, as they inject
their authority over IP-based communications, look at IP technology
with a fresh eye and an understanding of the differences between
IP-based communications and traditional telecom networks.
One area where I think it is appropriate for government intervention
would be to ensure that unaffiliated IP-based communications providers
have access to the "selective routers" and other infrastructure
currently controlled largely by incumbent carriers. I would hate to
think that those that control necessary infrastructure could stand in
the way of establishment of a workable emergency response capability
by IP-based communications providers. Certainly, lives should not be
lost so that certain providers might be able to maintain a competitive
advantage or point to the inadequate capabilities of unaffiliated
IP-based communications providers.
Another area for government oversight would be to ensure that PSAPs do
not block the use of administrative access lines for nomadic emergency
response services. These administrative access lines provide a
critical interim solution while the IP-based communications industry
moves forward rapidly to develop the technological means for the
provision of emergency services to nomadic end users.
I'm curious to see the fruits of Chairman Martin's statement and I
trust that he will not simply "react" to current fears as he and his
colleagues weigh in on emergency response solutions that might
implicate IP-based communications. Any regulator involvement must
continue to promote innovation and advance the promise of IP-based
communications while simultaneously promoting the public good and
allowing IP technology to improve emergency response solutions.
------------------------------
From: Jack Decker <jack-yahoogroups@withheld_on_request>
Date: Wed, 27 Apr 2005 17:34:29 -0400
Subject: Kings of Spin
I think all newly-elected legislators ought to be required to take a
seminar on "What are astroturf groups, what do they do, and how are
they funded?" before they are allowed to vote on legislation. You
would think legislators would start to recognize these phony (no pun
intended) efforts for what they are after a while, just as many of us
can figure out which of our incoming e-mail messages are likely to be
spam the minute we see the subject lines.
And I still say the USF is nothing but corporate welfare that ought to
be abolished post haste!
http://www.broadbandreports.com/shownews/62890
Kings of Spin
VoIP taxes and landline fee hikes good for Hispanics, really ...
A few weeks ago, a group dubbed the "Keep Universal Service Fund (USF)
Fair" Coalition congratulated FCC Commissioner Martin on his new post,
suggested the USF fees you pay be increased 40%, and that VoIP service
should be taxed. The group insists such a move would be a boon to
seniors, hispanics, families with disabilities, and
consumers. Unfortunately, as Techdirt
<http://www.techdirt.com/articles/20050425/086202_F.shtml> and the IP list
<http://www.interesting-people.org/archives/interesting-people/200504/msg00235.html> note, the group is just another PR front outfit funded by the bell
telephone companies, orchestrated by the controversial Bell PR agency
Issue Dynamics.
Bruce Kushnick consistently tracks
<http://www.newnetworks.com/skunkworks101.html> such Bell efforts to
convince consumers to support initiatives that often are against their
best interests (higher fees, higher taxes, less competition). Usually
by operating through groups with very pro-consumer sounding
names.
Take a peek at the website
<http://keepusffair.org/KeepUSFFair/homepage.html>, which proclaims
"more than 70,000 consumers have visited the coalition's website
and filed comments with the FCC."
Article + reader comments at:
http://www.broadbandreports.com/shownews/62890
------------------------------
From: Lisa Minter <lisa_minter2001@yahoo.com>
Subject: Spam Canned? Not Yet, Say Americans
Date: Wed, 27 Apr 2005 21:04:26 -0500
So, did the CAN SPAM act passed by the feds awhile back help to
reduce the amount of spam flowing to inboxes all around the
world? Not a bit, say its biggest critics, who note that among
other things, lethargy and quarreling among many netters has only
made the problem get much worse.
http://www.viruslist.com/en/news?id=1222512
------------------------------
From: Lisa Minter <lisa_minter2001@yahoo.com>
Subject: Servers Compromised All Over the Globe
Date: Wed, 27 Apr 2005 21:06:08 -0500
It used to be in the old days (like six months or a year ago?) that
we were told to not respond to phish inqiries and that by staying
out of 'bad neighorhoods' on the net (that is, refusing to go to
certain sites) we would be okay. But the phishers got tired of waiting
for us suckers to come to them, so now they come to us, by tricking us
and moving the road signs around in the commons.
http://www.viruslist.com/en/news?id=155636876
------------------------------
Date: Thu, 28 Apr 2005 12:46:06 EDT
From: Telecom dailyLead from USTA <usta@dailylead.com>
Subject: Report: FTTP Connections to Quintuple by 2009
Telecom dailyLead from USTA
April 28, 2005
http://www.dailylead.com/latestIssue.jsp?i=21181&l=2017006
TODAY'S HEADLINES
NEWS OF THE DAY
* Report: FTTP connections to quintuple by 2009
BUSINESS & INDUSTRY WATCH
* BT picks suppliers for next-generation network
* SBC sings new tune with music Web site
* Panelists: Today's telecom customers want more than just voice service
* Comcast to trade Dallas cable to Time Warner
* AOL tests dial-up price cut
* Nextel, Alcatel, Comcast report earnings
USTA SPOTLIGHT
* Now Available: VOIP Packet and Network Security Guide
EMERGING TECHNOLOGIES
* Microsoft's TV strategy faces piracy hurdle
REGULATORY & LEGISLATIVE
* Texas House opens market for TV competition
* Bush signs law calling for prison terms for illegal file-swappers
Follow the link below to read quick summaries of these stories and others.
http://www.dailylead.com/latestIssue.jsp?i=21181&l=2017006
------------------------------
From: NOTvalid@surplus4actors.INFO
Subject: Spam Mentioning "242 W. 36th St"
Date: 28 Apr 2005 09:54:46 -0700
You may wish to search the BODY of your incoming spam for
"242 W. 36th St"
My wife has been getting spam every day saying: "To stop all future
mailings, follow the link below or send your email address to:
Member Services 242 W. 36th St,12th floor
New York, NY 10018 (866) 872-6022"
She sent me with her Email address to 242 W. 36th St,12th floor New
York, NY. I went last week. It is an unrelated business there. They
know nothing about spam. Business there is in TV production
company. I called (866) 872-6022 and only an answering machine
answers. I asked that they give correct address in their out-going
message.
This week my wife and I were in the area. I am legally blind and have
trouble reading the building directory. Therefore I asked my wife to
examine directory, she says there is NO "Member Services" listed!!!
Again I called (866) 872-6022. There was NO correct address in their
out-going message.
I have been calling from payphones on street as I have a lot of
business to do in the West 30s and 40s in NYC. I tell them to put
correct address in their out-going message.
When it their area I have been calling maybe every 30 minutes, hoping
to get the correct address but it is never given. I realize that there
is a surcharge to them of perhaps as much as fifty cents on every call
to their toll-free number from a payphone. But all I want is the
correct address.
Could I perhaps be mis-dialing? Could others please call and ask that
correct address be put in their out-going message? To avoid your
private phone number being harvested, I recommend that you too call
from a payphone.
Comments?
[TELECOM Digest Editor's Note: Thank you, as a good citizen who is
merely trying to be helpful. I am sure other readers will be inspired
by your tireless efforts to get the correct address on their recorded
message for other folks to use. And it is good that you are using pay
phones whenever you can. Okay folks, _you know the routine by now_.
Let the user of 866-872-6022 know about the error of his ways. PAT]
------------------------------
From: wildelynx@inwind.it (Wildelynx Vox Versus)
Subject: A Question From Italy
Date: 28 Apr 2005 08:47:55 -0700
Good morning,
My name is Luigi, I'm a junior voice engineer in a TLC company.
I'm seeking some .pdf books, or good documentation, for to study the
switch Nortel DMS 100 ... it'is my first experience with this product.
You could help me?
Molte grazie.
Luigi
------------------------------
From: Tim@Backhome.org
Subject: Re: The End of Analog TV
Date: Thu, 28 Apr 2005 03:09:36 -0700
Organization: Cox Communications
Anyone have any idea what the converter boxes for NTSC sets will cost?
And, how many folks will it affect? Seems like if an NTSC set is on
cable, the cable provider will have to provide the solution and may
very well already be ready to do just that.
I recently switched our living room set out to HDTV (and we are
*really* glad we did) but our bedroom set is NTSC. I suppose our
situation is not unusual.
Also, I thought there was some 85% "rule" that had to occur in a given
market to switch off NTSC.
The downside of all this is that no broadcaster will be forced to
provide HTDV even after going digital. That will be up to the
marketplace, or so it seems.
And, my local cable company does not even carry all the local (Los
Angeles) broadcast stations that presently have over-the-air HDTV.
That I find to be really, really odd.
Monty Solomon wrote:
> The end of analog TV
> Will America's favorite technology really go dark next year?
> By Michael Rogers
> Columnist
> Special to MSNBC
> Depending on the outcome of discussions in Congress, television as we
> know it may end at exactly midnight Dec. 31, 2006.
> That's the date Congress targeted, a decade ago, for the end of analog
> television broadcasting and a full cutover to a digital format. If
> enforced, that means that overnight, somewhere around 70 million
> television sets now connected to rabbit ears or roof-top antennas will
> suddenly and forever go blank, unless their owners purchase a special
> converter box. Back when the legislation was written, New Year's Eve
> 2006 probably looked as safely distant as the dark side of the
> moon. But now that date is right around the corner and Congress and
> the FCC are struggling mightily to figure out what to do.
> Congress, however, left itself a loophole in the 1996 legislation, and
> could actually let the cut-off date slide by. But powerful lobbyists
> now are pressing legislators to set a "date certain" for the analog
> lights-out. The debate over when to throw the switch is a strange brew
> of big money, high technology, homeland security and a single,
> unanswerable question: just how angry are the couch potatoes going to
> be? It's also a textbook example of why the future almost never
> happens as fast as technologists promise.
> It all started back in the Eighties, when the Japanese shocked
> American consumer electronics companies with trade-show displays of
> high definition television sets that delivered razor-sharp images and
> stunning audio. Everyone from Congress to the Wall Street Journal
> raised outcries: America's favorite technology was being taken over by
> the then-fearsome Japan Inc. As a result, a group of American
> companies formed the "Grand Alliance" that leapfrogged the Japanese
> technology by inventing digital HDTV. Thus, early on, HDTV invoked not
> just pretty pictures, but national pride and economic
> development. (Ironically, Zenith, the most all-American commercial
> participant in the Grand Alliance, is now South Korean-owned.)
> One drawback to the U.S. version of HDTV was that to make it work, all
> broadcast television (not just high-definition) would have to convert
> to digital, meaning that every American television set manufactured
> since 1946 would be rendered obsolete. To ease the transition,
> Congress generously gave all television broadcasters additional
> channel space so that they could keep broadcasting their analog
> signals while they installed and launched their digital channels. The
> deal was that they would give up their old channels when the
> transition was done. That part worked: Over 1400 broadcasters now
> transmit in digital as well as analog, reaching 99 percent of the
> U.S. television market.
> During the same period consumers were supposed to buy digital
> television receivers. That part didn't work.
> http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/7593620/
------------------------------
From: hancock4@bbs.cpcn.com
Subject: Re: The End of Analog TV
Date: 28 Apr 2005 06:46:43 -0700
Organization: http://groups.google.com
Monty Solomon wrote:
> During the same period consumers were supposed to buy digital
> television receivers. That part didn't work.
The life of a TV set could be anywhere between five and thirty-five
years. There's a heck of a lot of old TV sets out there still in
service, some surprisingly old. Many people use old B&W portables as
spare room or attic TVs.
Why the heck should consumers be forced to upgrade to get the same old
broadcast garbage?
There are also a lot of TV viewers out there who don't watch a lot of
TV. Their TV sets last a long time. They don't have cable. What
will become of them?
Ironically, back in the 1950s, the choice of what color TV
transmission protocol was determined on compatibility with existing
B&W sets, even though there were far fewer sets out there.
I guess the selfish technocrats and greedy businesses just can't wait
to get their mitts on the radio frequencies to play with.
It amazes me that the more cable channels they offer to me the less TV
I watch. They just throw out utter junk, and get rid of the little
good stuff they once had. It duplicates each other -- "Cheers" is
broadcast and cablecast on numerous channels. And for something I
pay and pay dearly for they throw in tons of commercials -- more than
commercial TV does.
But they make a heck of a lot of money doing this.
------------------------------
From: Steve Sobol <sjsobol@JustThe.net>
Subject: Re: Politics in Telecom
Date: Wed, 27 Apr 2005 20:21:33 -0700
Organization: Glorb Internet Services, http://www.glorb.com
hancock4@bbs.cpcn.com wrote:
> Steve Sobol wrote:
>> This particular perk happened to be different. It was supposed to be
>> available to anyone.
> The New Deal social programs were supposed to be available to anyone.
> But in many places throughout the country it sure helped to be a loyal
> Democrat, especially if you wanted a job helping to administer such
> programs.
Yeah, I know. But people *had* been getting into this particular
conference without regards to politics, AIUI, up until now.
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: henry999@eircom.net (Henry)
Subject: Re: Politics in Telecom
Date: Thu, 28 Apr 2005 06:48:55 +0300
Organization: Elisa Internet customer
<hancock4@bbs.cpcn.com> wrote:
> it sure helped to be a loyal Democrat, especially if you wanted a
> job helping to administer such programs.
'To the victor belong the spoils', a time-honoured tradition in American
politics. And by the way: how many loyal Democrats do you think are
administering federal programs today?
Cheers,
Henry
[TELECOM Digest Editor's Note: Only those whose job is protected by
Civil Service, and even so, they know to keep their mouths shut before
some bogus reason comes up to get them fired also. PAT]
------------------------------
From: kludge@panix.com (Scott Dorsey)
Subject: Re: VoIP
Date: 28 Apr 2005 09:47:24 -0400
Organization: Former users of Netcom shell (1989-2000)
Choreboy <choreboyREMOVE@localnet.com> wrote:
> For several months I've been getting calls with spoofed Caller IDs. I
> understand spoofing requires either VoIP or a PBX system with DSL.
No, you could do it with ISDN too. There are dozens of ways to do it.
Caller ID information is not reliable.
> Can anybody with cable internet access and suitable software make VoIP
> calls?
Yes.
> The other day I received a wrong-number call from an exchange belonging
> to Level 3 Communications. Among other services, they offer residential
> VoIP services through wholesalers such as ISPs and cable operators. I'm
> confused. Does a consumer need these services to use VoIP?
To use VoIP, you need an account with a VoIP provider, you need a VoIP
box in your home, and you need fairly wideband internet access. It is
very profitable for the ISP to bundle the VOiP services along with the
rest of their services, and outsource them to a provider like Level3,
just like they outsource mail and news services in most cases today.
--scott
"C'est un Nagra. C'est suisse, et tres, tres precis."
------------------------------
From: bonomi@host122.r-bonomi.com (Robert Bonomi)
Subject: Re: VoIP
Date: Thu, 28 Apr 2005 02:58:08 -0000
Organization: Widgets, Inc.
In article <telecom24.185.17@telecom-digest.org>, Choreboy
<choreboyREMOVE@localnet.com> wrote:
> For several months I've been getting calls with spoofed Caller IDs. I
> understand spoofing requires either VoIP or a PBX system with DSL.
> Can anybody with cable internet access and suitable software make VoIP
> calls?
> The other day I received a wrong-number call from an exchange belonging
> to Level 3 Communications. Among other services, they offer residential
> VoIP services through wholesalers such as ISPs and cable operators. I'm
> confused. Does a consumer need these services to use VoIP?
> [TELECOM Digest Editor's Note: I don't think either 'VOIP' or 'PBX system'
> have anything to do with it. If I understand correctly what I have
> read here in the Digest, it requires a 'PRI' type thing; that is, a
> multi-channel set of lines going to DID, or Direct Inward Dialing,
Would you believe "DOD" -- direct *OUTWARD* dial?
"DID" trunks handle incoming calls only.
"DOD" trunks handle outgoing calls only.
"DID/DOD" trunks handle both.
Caller-id data _origination_ occurs only for outgoing calls.
> which would, I guess, be similar to a PBX arrangement.
Some sort of a 'switch', usually a PBX-equivalent, is required to
handle DID / DOD trunks.
Then there are the "big boys" -- who have SS7-compatible switches,
which are a C.O.-equivalent, rather than PBX-equivalent, device.
> Companies who have those lines _can_ set the caller ID to be
> whatever is appropriate in their instance.
Sometimes the telco 'filters' what CID data the company can send,
sometimes not. When "not", an unscrupulous company can set the ID
info to _anything_.
Unfortunately, the "lowest-priced" PRI providers are the ones least
likely to do filtering, *and* are the ones that said unscrupulous
companies are most likely to use.
> I suspect the fact that the ID shown was that
> company may have been just coincidental. You do need either cable
> internet or DSL to use VOIP; regular 'dialup' lines are just not wide
> enough or fast enough to do VOIP. But other than having DSL or cable,
> VOIP takes nothing especially fancy; just an adapter box from the
> place where you get the VOIP service and any regular telephone
> instrument will do the job. And if you planned on totally getting
> rid of your landline phone taking VOIP instead, that is generally
> not possible with DSL, since most telcos will not give stand-alone
> DSL.
Unless you buy SDSL service, which is _always_ delivered on it's own
pair.
Unless you get your DSL from MCI, Covad, or New Edge Networks -- or a
'reseller' of any of those carriers -- all of whom offer
dedicated-pair ADSL.
Unless Qwest is your ILEC.
[TELECOM Digest Editor's Note: But I _defy you_ to pick up your phone
right now and talk to the first service rep who answers and order SDSL
service. They will not know what you are talking about; probably no
one in the vicinity will know. And if you _do_ order it satisfactorily
from MCI, Covad, New Edge or others, then God bless you; it will be
extraordinarily expensive and if your intent was to save money by
going with VOIP instead of landline, you've completely killed that
plan. In essence -- in real life practice and experience -- you cannot
get stand alone DSL (and pay your VOIP bill each month on top of that)
in any reasonable cost-effective way. After arguing with the service
reps for some period of time on the matter, you will decide cable is a
better and less expensive way to go. PAT]
------------------------------
From: mc <mc_no_spam@uga.edu>
Subject: Re: Main Web Site Hackers Are Schoolboys, Watchdog Says
Date: Wed, 27 Apr 2005 20:25:19 -0400
Organization: Speed Factory (http://www.speedfactory.net)
> The question is what is to be done about it.
What needs to be done is that computer law and ethics need to be
taught, or at least mentioned, in middle school. Schoolboys are
constantly being misinformed by other schoolboys. They're told that
they can't incur any serious punishment, and that a glamorous career
awaits them if they become "3l33t hAX0Rs".
------------------------------
From: David Clayton <dcstar@myrealbox.com>
Subject: Re: 10base-T & POTS in same Cat-5 cable?
Date: Thu, 28 Apr 2005 13:25:21 +1000
Organization: X-Privat NNTP Server - http://www.x-privat.org
On Wed, 27 Apr 2005 12:35:45 -0500, GlowingBlueMist wrote:
> DaveC <me@privacy.net> wrote in message
> news:0001HW.BE9508D6000D9A6AF04075B0@news.sonic.net:
>> Is it acceptable to use 1 pair in a Cat-5 cable for POTS when 2 pair are
>> being used for 10base-T? Wondering about cross-talk, etc., introducing
>> noise between these two.
> No problem if you use 10base-T , usually none on 100base-T, but not
> compatible if you plan to use or upgrade to 1000base-T which some
> computers switches and routers are now supporting.
1000base-T uses all 4 pairs in a CAT-5 cable, so that's out -- and also
"beware" of certain switches that use the (previously) unused pairs
for externally powering Ethernet equipment.
I have only experienced problems with some digital PBX phones when
using a pair in a CAT-5 data cable running 10/100 Ethernet, analog
seemed to be ok even on long runs (50M+).
Regards,
David Clayton, e-mail: dcstar@XYZ.myrealbox.com
Melbourne, Victoria, Australia.
(Remove the "XYZ." to reply)
Knowledge is a measure of how many answers you have, intelligence is a
measure of how many questions you have.
------------------------------
From: sfx96-groups@yahoo.com
Subject: Re: Access Gateway
Date: 28 Apr 2005 01:37:23 -0700
Organization: http://groups.google.com
Well, it can mean a number of things, but generally speaking you can
think of it as an interface (hardware and software) that allows one
network to connect to another network for the purpose of transmitting
information. This is referred to as "internetworking." Computer
networks use gateway servers, bridges, and routers to provide this
function. Within telecomm the devices are technically different and
are generically referred to as Network-to-Network Interfaces (NNI).
Physically, they are adapter cards sitting in a rack in a telecom
cabinet.
An example that comes to mind is the Internet access gateway many
mobile phone service providers employ in their networks to allow
subscribers to use text messaging (SMS and MMS) to send messages to
email addresses on the Internet. You include a gateway code in your
message header, and that tells the SMS/MMS server that instead of
sending the message to another cell phone, route it through the access
gateway to the Internet.
I'm sure their are many other examples (Wi-Fi networks interfacing to
the Internet, etc.), but that is one I have recently investigated.
Hope this helps.
------------------------------
From: hancock4@bbs.cpcn.com
Subject: Re: Some Fear Law Would Create National ID Card
Date: 28 Apr 2005 07:03:18 -0700
Organization: http://groups.google.com
Monty Solomon wrote:
> By Charlie Savage, Globe Staff
> WASHINGTON -- Congress is poised to pass a law that would make
> sweeping changes to the nation's system for issuing driver's licenses
> by imposing stringent requirements on states to verify the
> authenticity of birth certificates, Social Security cards, legal
> residency visas, and bank and utility records used to obtain a
> license.
Many states do this now. It's virtually impossible to live in this
day and age without an official state issued ID card -- either a
driver's license or state ID card. (Some states issue an official ID
card for those who don't have a license). Other IDs like credit cards
or employer work-IDs are no longer accepted.
This includes even when you are paying cash up front for something --
they still want ID to see that you are who you claim you are.
I'm a little troubled by this. Why can't someone have some anonymity
in their life? If I go to a doctor and pay the $75 in cash up front,
why do they need to see ID? Even when you rent a storage locker and
pay in advance they want ID.
> Touted as an antiterrorism measure, the "Real ID Act" would also
> overturn laws in nine states that allow illegal immigrants to obtain
> driver's licenses.
This country has to come to terms with its CONTRADICTORY policies of
illegal immigrants. On the one hand, they expend a great deal of
effort keeping illegals out. But once they're here, they're afforded
lots of benefits and rarely get kicked out, and that's not fair to
those waiting through proper channels for a quota slot.
Illegal aliens cost some places big money since they have to provide
services but the illegals tend to be "underground" and not pay any
taxes nor are counted for reimbursement. On the other hand, illegals
fill employment needs for jobs more established Americans refuse to
take.
A lot of business interests very much illegals to be left alone.
> The law, some say, would effectively turn the new driver's license
> into a national identification card. Its chief champion, House
> Judiciary Chairman James Sensenbrenner, Republican of Wisconsin, says
> the measure would help prevent terrorists from fraudulently gaining
> official documents that would allow them to enter the country and move
> freely.
The driver's license is pretty much already a national ID. However, I
don't agree with the above. Terrorists are not isolated and are
bankrolled; as such, they can spend the money needed to beat the
system. Further, the existing system has and will continue to have
more holes than a screen door -- making these ID cards won't help. As
to "moving about freely", will the govt establish official checkpoints
at various places? "Your papers? No papers? You will have to come
with us?"
> Terrorists have "used almost every conceivable means of entering the
> country," Sensenbrenner said in a statement provided by an aide.
> "They have come as students, tourists, and business visitors. They
> have also been [legal permanent residents] and naturalized US
> citizens. They have snuck across the border illegally, arrived as
> stowaways on ships, used false passports, and have been granted
> amnesty. Terrorists have even used America's humanitarian tradition
> of welcoming those seeking asylum. We must plug these gaps."
How many terrorists have entered this country? Counting all those
methods described above, it appears to be a very great many.
------------------------------
From: Patrick Townson <ptownson@massis.csail.mit.edu>
Subject: Guess Who Works for Microsoft With a Salary of $20k/mo. ?
Date: Thu, 28 Apr 2005 00:04:57 -0500
This is not a telecom-related topic; it is more of a 'continue to
kick Microsoft around' matter.
Microsoft is a very influencial employer in the Redmond, Washington
area. You may have read in the news recently where Microsoft had
decided to 'go soft' on civil unions and 'gay marriage' as they are
currently under discussion in the State of Washington. Ballmer and
Gates say they 'just recently' decided on that course of action. But
the GLEAM organization at Microsoft and AmericaBlog say that is not
quite the case. 'Just recently', I mean ... it turns out that
Ralph Reed, a very conservative Christian evangelical has been in
the employ of Microsoft as an 'advisor' to Bill Gates for more than a
year now, at a salary of $20 K _per month_ , with documentation in the
form of his pay stubs, etc. Shame, shame, shame!
Read the story on Americablog here:
http://americablog.blogspot.com/2005/04/microsoft-paying-religious-right.html
------------------------------
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 #186
******************************
| |