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, 5 May 2005 17:41:00 EDT Volume 24 : Issue 199 Inside This Issue: Editor: Patrick A. Townson The Front Lines - May 5, 2005 (Jonathan Marashlian) Vonage Partners with Verizon to Boost 911 Services (Jack Decker) FCC Boss Proposes 911 for Internet Phones - Sources (Jack Decker) May 6th - 50th Anniversary of Disk Storage (Lisa Hancock) Re: Forward Fax to Email (Marise A Klapka) Re: Forward Fax to Email (DevilsPGD) Re: Who Gets to See the E-mail of the Deceased? (Lisa Hancock) Re: U.S. Cities Set up Their Own Wireless Networks (Henry) Spam? Scam? What is This? "Make Extra Cash!!!" (netbuxfan@yahoo.com) 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: Jonathan Marashlian <jsm@thlglaw.com> Subject: The Front Lines - May 5, 2005 Date: Thu, 5 May 2005 13:08:49 -0400 Organization: The Helein Law Group http://www.thefrontlines-hlg.com/ The FRONT LINES http://www.thlglaw.com/ Advancing The Cause of Competition in the Telecommunications Industry AT&T FILES EMERGENCY FCC PETITION; SEEKS LEVEL PLAYING FIELD IN REGULATION OF PREPAID CALLING CARD PROVIDERS On May 3, 2005, AT&T filed an emergency petition for "immediate interim relief" with the Federal Communications Commission ("FCC"), asking it to "level the playing field" in prepaid services no later than May 17, 2005. In its petition, AT&T stated that the FCC's February 23, 2005, decision ordering AT&T to pay $160 million in Universal Service Fund ("USF") charges and subjecting the company to intrastate access fees for its "enhanced" calling card services and the FCC's concurrent issuance of a Notice of Proposed Rulemaking ("NPRM") on other enhanced prepaid services, skewed the regulatory environment and "created uncertainty and asymmetries." In order to create regulatory neutrality now, AT&T said that the FCC should immediately adopt interim rules that all prepaid service providers pay USF (Universal Service Fund) and interstate access charges on all their services. This interim measure would apply to "any form of prepaid calling services that allow users to pay in advance for a specified amount of billing, whether by card, virtual card, or PIN-based, serial number-based, or some other account identification mechanism." AT&T wants this to apply regardless of the technology that is used to provide service. According to AT&T's petition, the FCC has authority to remove the Enhanced Services Provider ("ESP") exemption for prepaid service providers and direct that USF be paid on all prepaid card services, regardless of whether they are ultimately determined to be information services or telecommunications services. To make sure that all prepaid service providers are subject to the same access charges, the FCC could just simply remove the intrastate exemption and treat all access charges as interstate, according to AT&T. AT&T says if the FCC does not want to preempt state regulations, it could instead rule that prepaid service providers will be subject to interstate or intrastate access charges. AT&T said that, as an alternative, the FCC could require that all prepaid calling service providers pay intrastate access charges on all calls within a state, and interstate access charges and USF on other calls. If this alternative is adopted, AT&T said the interim rules should include "stringent reporting and certification mechanisms." According to AT&T's petition, there is the risk that if the FCC does not institute AT&T's proposed measures immediately, in addition to creating an unfair competitive environment, the Commission is risking the collection of USF from prepaid service providers. At this time, the FCC has not taken any action on AT&T's Petition. FCC CIRCULATING ORDER TO REQUIRE VoIP PROVIDERS TO OFFER 911 SERVICES Recent reports indicate that FCC Chairman Kevin Martin has proposed requiring Internet-based telephone service provider ("VoIP") to offer 911 emergency services to customers by as early as the end of September. After a few incidents where customers failed to reach emergency officials when they dialed 911, federal regulators are increasing pressure on companies to ensure those calls get routed and answered properly with location information. The proposal would require VoIP providers to route 911 calls directly to primary emergency lines within four months of the order being issued. Martin has circulated the proposal to his fellow Commissioners which means it could be voted on as early as the FCC's May 19th open meeting. FCC UPHOLDS COMPETITIVE ACCESS TO ILEC DIRECTORY ASSISTANCE On April 29, 2005, the FCC released an Order upholding and clarifying its rules governing the duty of local exchange carriers to grant competing carriers access to directory assistance information. The FCC denied a petition filed by BellSouth and SBC seeking reconsideration of rules that bar them from imposing restrictions on the use by competitors of directory assistance information competitors obtain from the LECs under the Communications Act. Section 251(b)(3) of the Act requires that LECs provide nondiscriminatory access to directory assistance, and the FCC has determined that this permits competitors to have the same access to directory assistance information that the LECs provide to themselves. The order clarifies however, that a LEC must not provide access to numbers that are unlisted at the customer's request. And while competing directory assistance providers may be entitled to nondiscriminatory access to directory assistance information, they still must adhere to the privacy requests made by LEC customers. Finally, the FCC rejected SBC and BellSouth's argument that LECs should not be required to provide access to local listings that were obtained from third parties. Even though the FCC has declined to require LECs to provide nondiscriminatory access to nonlocal directory assistance data, it has consistently required nondiscriminatory access to all of their local directory assistance database listings. _____ The Front Lines is a free publication of The Helein Law Group, LLP, providing clients and interested parties with valuable information, news, and updates regarding regulatory and legal developments primarily impacting companies engaged in the competitive telecommunications industry. The Front Lines does not purport to offer legal advice nor does it establish a lawyer-client relationship with the reader. If you have questions about a particular article, general concerns, or wish to seek legal counsel regarding a specific regulatory or legal matter affecting your company, please contact our firm at 703-714-1313 or visit our website: <http://www.thlglaw.com/> www.THLGlaw.com The Helein Law Group, LLP 8180 Greensboro Drive, Suite 700 McLean, Virginia 22102 _____ THLG Affiliations: http://www.voicelog.com/ http://www.voicelog.com/ ------------------------------ From: Jack Decker <jack-yahoogroups@withheld on request> Date: Thu, 05 May 2005 11:51:10 -0400 Subject: Vonage Partners with Verizon to Boost 911 Services http://www.pcmag.com/article2/0,1759,1812846,00.asp By Libe Goad Some voice over IP customers in select parts of the country could, within 6 months, have improved access to 911 emergency services, thanks to a new alliance forged between broadband phone service provider Vonage Holdings Corp. and Verizon. "Verizon is a responsible steward of the E911 [Enhanced 911] public trust," Vonage CEO Jeffrey Citron said, "through their foresight, Vonage is able to implement an E911 solution that will serve all customers." After the rollout takes place, customers will be relieved from having to tell emergency operators their whereabouts because, for the first time, the service will let operators know the caller's location and callback number. Since the broadband service allows customers to use area codes from other parts of the country, routing these calls to a localized emergency service has taken some serious maneuvering. "We've historically offered the wireline service, a select kind of solution that's restrictive because it can only use local telephone numbers," Vonage spokesperson Brooke Schulz said. "We need to architect a solution that works for all of our customers, especially since 40 percent or more use non-local phone numbers." Full story at: http://www.pcmag.com/article2/0,1759,1812846,00.asp 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, 05 May 2005 11:48:49 -0400 Subject: FCC Boss Proposes 911 for Internet Phones - Sources http://www.reuters.com/newsArticle.jhtml;jsessionid=MUOJOYJHQOOL4CRBAELCFFA?type=technologyNews&storyID=8397206 WASHINGTON (Reuters) - U.S. Federal Communications Commission Chairman Kevin Martin has proposed requiring Internet-based telephone services to offer 911 emergency services to customers by as early as the end of September, people familiar with the plan said on Wednesday. After a few incidents where customers failed to reach emergency officials when they dialed 911, federal regulators are increasing pressure on companies to ensure those calls get routed and answered properly with location information. The proposal would require companies like Vonage Holdings Corp. to route 911 calls directly to primary emergency lines within four months of the order being issued, the sources said, declining to be identified because the proposal is not a public record. Martin has circulated the proposal so it could be voted at the agency's open meeting on May 19, the sources said. He would have to win the votes of two of the other three FCC commissioners for approval or work out a compromise with them. An FCC spokesman had no immediate comment. Full story at: http://www.reuters.com/newsArticle.jhtml;jsessionid=MUOJOYJHQOOL4CRBAELCFFA?type=technologyNews&storyID=8397206 ------------------------------ From: hancock4@bbs.cpcn.com Subject: May 6th -- 50th Anniversary of Disk Storage Date: 5 May 2005 10:56:56 -0700 On May 6, 1955, IBM publicly demonstrated its new invention, disk storage. The disk drive would hold far more data at lower cost than the existing magnetic drum. The disk drive allowed for information to accessed immediately since the disk arm went directly to the location of the data. With magnetic tape, the tape file must be sequentially read record by record to find the desired data. The initial disk drive was huge and contained 5 million characters. Improvements got that up to 50 million. The drive was formally announced as a product in September, 1956. The disk was 350 and was part of the 305 system. The 350 disk was later enabled to attached to existing and upcoming IBM computers. [I don't know what IBM considers the "official" anniversary date.] For the first 30 years, disk drives remained expensive and limited to critical information. But soon the price dropped and capacity climbed making them very cheap even for home use. The Internet could not exist today without the disk drive which stores everything we want to see. ------------------------------ Subject: Re: Forwad Fax to Email From: Withheld on Request Date: Thu, 5 May 2005 11:41:00 -0500 * PAT - PLEASE REMOVE MY NAME AND E-MAIL ADDRESS. THANKS. Jeremy wrote: > I currently have a fax number that is widely used by my clients. > Problem is that I get a ton of fax "spam" if you will. I am looking > for the BEST solution to have these faxes forwarded to e-mail, while > keeping my existing fax number since that is the one everyone knows > and uses. You may want to look into a fax modem and check out Symantec's WinFax Pro software. I haven't tried it myself, but the description seems to have what you're looking for. -Marise ------------------------------ From: DevilsPGD <spamsucks@crazyhat.net> Subject: Re: Forward Fax to Email Date: Thu, 05 May 2005 12:23:03 -0600 Organization: Disorganized In message <telecom24.197.12@telecom-digest.org> LB@notmine.com wrote: > Jeremy wrote: >> I currently have a fax number that is widely used by my clients. >> Problem is that I get a ton of fax "spam" if you will. I am looking >> for the BEST solution to have these faxes forwarded to e-mail, while >> keeping my existing fax number since that is the one everyone knows >> and uses. > Snipped OP for brevity. > Uh Pat ... > "[TELECOM Digest Editor's Note: Why don't you consider forwarding all > of it, _everything_, to email, " > It would seem Jeremy is asking how to do just that. > How does one forward everything from a fax number to an email address? http://www.relayfax.com/ is an example of one product that will do the trick. ------------------------------ From: hancock4@bbs.cpcn.com (Lisa Hancock) Subject: Re: Who Gets to See the E-mail of the Deceased? Date: 5 May 2005 12:48:49 -0700 Lisa Minter wrote: > by Susan Llewelyn Leach Staff writer of The Christian Science Monitor > It's an old story with a heart breaking twist. A young marine is > killed in the line of duty in Iraq and his parents, in their sorrow, > request all his belongings, including his correspondence -- in this > case, his e-mail. The e-mail should be treated no differently than any other personal belongings and they revert to the next of kin or recipients specified in a will. This really should be a no-brainer, and the parents should not have had to go court to get what was rightfully theirs. There is nothing special about e-mail that make them any different than any other very personal belongings, such as a diary or account statements. All of these pass on to an estate via the executor or next of kim. Some critics complained that email might contain embarassing information. That is not an excuse because (1) legal protection against "embarassment" ceases when one dies and (2) diaries, bank account statements, etc., might also contain just as much embarassing information. Just because e-mail is intangible is irrelevent. Money is bank accounts is intangible too--just bits on a computer--until the bank releases it and converts it into cash. In the event there is any legally confidential material in an email account, the estate executor would be responsible to care for it just as he would any confidential documents found within an estate. Senders of sensitive information by email have often been told that email is not private and to be cautious. > The Internet company refuses to give out the marine's password, saying > that would violate its privacy rules. To do that the Internet company would have to have explicitly had a contract clause stating it would destroy all stored email upon the death of a subscriber in all cases. However, I'm not sure such a clause would be legal since it might interfere with estate law. Someone's will may have to contain a directive "in the event of my death destroy the following..." (as many wills do contain). Quoting Christian Science Monitor report again: > And how much access should relatives have to a record of the > thoughts of a loved one who has passed away, especially ones that can > be as extensive, intimate, -- and even embarrassing -- as in e-mail? That is utterly irrelevent. It's the same risk as paper. Unfortunately, during wartime many loved ones did find out painfully things that their family was doing that were very hurtful through the discovery of letters. > "We thought we had absolute privacy and now we have learned that > after our death, a family member could possibly wrangle access to > [our] personal space," one blogger lamented on drudge.com. "Absolute privacy" doesn't exist in the on-line world unless someone makes special arrangements for it to be there. > "If the soldier had wanted his family to read his e-mail, then he > would have CC'd or BCC'd them," another wrote. It doesn't work that well. Your personal effects automatically revert to your family or estate unless you explicitly give instructions otherwise. This is the way it always worked. The executor of an estate is duty bound to ascertain all assets and personal property of a deceased and distribute per the will. Accordingly, the executor needs access to anything and everything belonging to the deceased. If no executor was appointed, that would to next of kin with the same rights of access. > The legal solution, Professor Perritt says, is to write a will and > bequeath the e-mail to a trustee who is instructed to destroy > it. "That would leave no doubt in the service provider's mind about > what's supposed to happen," he says, "and it would keep it away from > your family." That is correct and the only way to do it. And that not only applies to email but other personal effects as well. If you have letters from an old (or current) lover you want kept secret, or a collection of certain magazines you're embarassed about, you must make advance arrangements for their prompt destruction in the case of your death or severe disability. The lesson here is (1) have a will which covers your personal papers and (2) never put anything in an email you don't want the entire world to know about. There's far too much risk of release. ------------------------------ From: henry999@eircom.net (Henry) Subject: Re: U.S. Cities Set up Their Own Wireless Networks Date: Thu, 5 May 2005 22:51:54 +0300 Organization: Elisa Internet customer Lisa Minter <lisa_minter2001@yahoo.com> wrote (discussing the wireless network set up in various towns): > What about where you live? Lahti is a city of 100,000 people in south-central Finland. http://www.yle.fi/news/id11139.html cheers, Henry ------------------------------ From: netbuxfan@yahoo.com Subject: Spam? Scam? What is This? "Make Extra Cash!!!" Date: 5 May 2005 12:18:09 -0700 Looking to earn extra cash for an absolute minimal amount of work? Well, this is it! NETBUX is the answer. Go to this link: http://netbux.org/?r=127820 Register yourself with Netbux and earn money for just browsing your favourite subjects on the web! Get paid $0.02 for each search, which is then deposited to your Paypal account. And better yet you receive an an additional $0.02 for every search made by your friends, family and virtually anyone you tell about Netbux. And of course they make money when they tell other people. Don't be sceptical. This does work! I've made lots in the last few days as a registered member. Just for turning people on to this opportunity and searching a few subjects. YOU'VE GOT NOTHING TO LOSE AND EVERYTHING TO GAIN!!! [TELECOM Digest Editor's Note: So, first of all, that ?r=127820 at the top as part of the URL tells us _you_ will get your two cents worth. I went over to netbux and looked at their FAQ, their 'policies' and their registration form. The company went into business just a month ago it appears. For one thing, you have to do all your searhes from _their_ search box, and you are limited to 40 searches per day, or 80 cents. But, like any good pyramid scheme, you also get paid for the guys you can lure into joining you there. A question on their FAQ was 'how do you (meaning the netbux people, I assume) get the money you pay to us?' They say they make their money by the advertisements that people view (and I presume click on) when on the netbux page. On their search box, although there are many search engines to pick through, the default search engine appears to be Google, and I would suppose not many of the inquirers bother to change the default, but you can if you wish. If this is just a pyramid scheme then all I can say is I am glad I am a Google publisher and not an advertiser. But, the netbux people say it is all on the up-and-up and if they 'catch you cheating' you will not only be suspended from their program, but probably all your downline will come under much suspicion also. Netbux says they will pay you for your searches done once per month via PayPal at the rate of .02 per search X up to 40 per day [80 cents] X 30 days in a month X .02 per each person you bring into the 'program' _and their searches_ with payout on the 15th of each month when you have at least fifty dollars accrued. Both the FAQ and the 'program policies' pages are quite lengthy and detailed. If anyone wants to investigate this and write a summary on exactly what the deal is then look at http://netbux.org but don't use the ?r=127820 part on the end unless _you_ decide it is a worthwhile thing; in which case login again and use it so the dude will get his two cents for your body and two cents for each of your searches. In any event, do write and tell me what I am missing. I am curious. PAT] ------------------------------ 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 #199 ****************************** | |