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 Fri, 20 May 2005 22:53:00 EDT Volume 24 : Issue 225
Inside This Issue: Editor: Patrick A. Townson
More Norvergence Settlements (Lisa Minter)
Morgan Stanley Learns About Email the Hard Way (Lisa Minter)
Homemade News Hits the Road With Moblogs (Lisa Minter)
Link to FAQ: How Does The SR Work With Call Id? (Rob Higgins)
First Coffee - FCC VoIP E911 Ruling - Cheryl Waller (Jack Decker)
Re: Foreign Exchange (FX) Lines Still in Use? (Al Gillis)
Re: FCC's 911 Move a Trojan Horse? Critics Charge Engineering (HorneTD)
Re: FCC's 911 Move a Trojan Horse? Critics Charge Engineering (T. Simon)
Last Laugh! Ebay Workers Needed Call 866-622-9985 x2067 (Steven Lichter)
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: Lisa Minter <lisa_minter2001@yahoo.com>
Subject: More Norvergence Settlements
Date: Fri, 20 May 2005 17:45:18 -0500
GE Capital Agrees to NorVergence Settlement
Eight attorneys general have crafted a settlement agreement that could
provide millions of dollars in debt forgiveness to small businesses in
several states now on the hook for payments to third-party leasing
companies after an allegedly fraudulent telecommunications company
went bankrupt.
The Attorneys General of Connecticut, Georgia, Illinois, Maryland,
North Carolina, Pennsylvania, South Dakota, and Washington, D.C., have
reached an agreement with General Electric Capital Corporation (GE
Capital) in connection with its collection agreements on behalf of
NorVergence, Inc.
Under the terms of the agreement, affected consumers may choose to
participate or decline to participate. If all affected consumers in
the six states and D.C. accept the deal, GE Capital will be writing
off more than $2.89 million in debt for 216 small businesses.
"Deceptive sales pitches lured hundreds of Illinois small business
customers into signing telecommunication service agreements with
NorVergence. But when the service suddenly ceased, the collection
agency hassles began," Illinois Attorney General Lisa Madigan said.
"With this agreement, GE Capital is agreeing to end a nightmare that
has haunted many small businesses as they try to regain telecommuni-
cations service and overcome the financial hurdles caused by
NorVergence."
Under the settlement agreement, GE Capital -- which entered into
direct contracts with NorVergence customers or, through other
third-party companies, bought out lease agreements between NorVergence
and its customers -- has agreed to write off or forgive $2,891,699
million it claimed to be owed by 216 NorVergence customers from the
states represented in the agreement, many of whom had in the past
year 'stalled', or refused to make any payments at all, daring GE
Capital to 'sue them', which it did not do.
This amount constitutes 85% of the debt owed to GE Capital from the
period beginning on July 15, 2004, the approximate date that
NorVergence ceased providing any services. Consumers who have made
payments to GE Capital since July 15, 2004, will receive credit for
those payments toward their remaining balance.
While GE Capital denies any wrongdoing, it has agreed to forgive the
$2.89 million of the debt it claims consumers owe on rental agreements
and provide up to two years for customers to pay any remaining
balances.
In November 2004, Madigan filed a lawsuit against NorVergence, and
Peter Salzano, its president. NorVergence is a telecommunications
company based in Newark, New Jersey, that set up a sales office in
Oakbrook Terrace. Madigan's lawsuit alleged the company's sales pitch
offered small businesses discounted telecommunications services
through the use of a "Matrix" box.
NorVergence claimed the device was necessary to allow a small business
to reap a 30 percent discount on its current telecommunications costs,
including long distance, DSL service, and wireless phone service. The
total cost of agreements to lease the matrix boxes ranged from
approximately $12,000 to $175,000.
Under NorVergence's alleged scheme, the company would sell its
five-year contracts to leasing companies and walk away with the
profit. When NorVergence was forced into bankruptcy in June 2004, its
customers were left without service but still responsible for the
five-year lease agreement payments to leasing companies.
Copyright 2003-2005 ConsumerAffairs.Com Inc.
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, ConsumerAffairs.com .
For more information go to:
http://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/17/107.shtml
------------------------------
From: Lisa Minter <lisa_minter2001@yahoo.com>
Subject: Morgan Stanley Learns the Hard Way About Email
Date: Fri, 20 May 2005 19:53:36 -0500
Morgan Stanley case highlights e-mail perils
By Michael Christie
The $1.45 billion judgment against Morgan Stanley for deceiving
billionaire Ronald Perelman over a business deal has a lesson all
companies should learn -- keeping e-mails is now a must, experts say.
Banks and broker-dealers are obliged to retain e-mail and instant
messaging documents for three years under U.S. Securities and Exchange
Commission rules. But similar requirements will apply to all public
companies from July 2006 under the Sarbanes-Oxley corporate reform
measures.
At the same time, U.S. courts are imposing increasingly harsh
punishments on corporations that fail to comply with orders to produce
e-mail documents, the experts said.
Where judges once were more likely to accept that incompetence or
computer problems might be to blame, they are now apt to rule that
noncompliance is an indication a company has something to hide.
"Morgan Stanley is going to be a harbinger," said Bill Lyons, chief
executive officer of AXS-One Inc. (AMEX:AXO - news), a provider of
records retention software systems.
"I think general counsels around the world are going to look at this
as a legal Chernobyl."
Wednesday's $1.45 billion verdict against Morgan Stanley in West Palm
Beach, Florida, was the product of just such a negative ruling on
e-mail retention, which is also expected to form the backbone of the
Wall Street firm's appeal.
Circuit Court Judge Elizabeth Maass, frustrated at Morgan Stanley's
repeated failure to provide Perelman's attorneys with e-mails, handed
down a pretrial ruling that effectively found the bank had conspired
to defraud Perelman when he sold Coleman Co. to appliance maker
Sunbeam Corp. in 1998.
Morgan Stanley was working for Sunbeam, which entered bankruptcy in
2001, rendering worthless the shares Perelman had received in part
payment for Coleman.
In a rare step, Maass switched the burden of proof to Morgan Stanley,
and instructed the jury solely to decide whether Perelman had relied
on Morgan Stanley.
Morgan Stanley says that ruling denied it a fair trial.
But Eric Rosenberg, a former litigator with Merrill Lynch and now
president of e-mail policy consultants LitigationProofing, said Maass
was within her rights to rule as she did and could have even taken a
more drastic step of issuing a default judgment on the entire case.
Bernie Goulet, regulatory affairs manager for FrontBridge Technologies
Inc., agreed while noting judges rarely take such severe measures.
Ordering defendants to pay all costs is a more common punishment.
Nevertheless, the days when companies could plead incompetence with
regard to e-mail retention are gone.
"Almost every single recent case of substantial size has been ruled in
favor of the plaintiff. The attitude that flew in 1995 does not fly in
2005," Goulet said.
DOUBLE-EDGED SWORD
Experts said e-mail retention could be a double-edged sword if not
accompanied by corresponding training for employees on the legal
implications of e-mails they send.
When New York Attorney General Eliot Spitzer investigated the research
divisions of Wall Street firms five years ago, he fined Morgan Stanley
a little under $10 million for not having a proper e-mail retention
policy in place.
Merrill Lynch, however, which did have good backup systems and was
able to produce relevant e-mails, had to pay over $100 million because
some e-mails contained compromising material.
"I guess I would put it as 'no good deed went unpunished'," said
former Merrill Lynch counsel Rosenberg.
Jay Ritter, a professor of finance at the University of Florida, said
a danger was that among millions of legitimate e-mails, investigators
might find one flippant comment from a low-level manager and take it
as reflecting company policy.
"There's a reason why certain people, why lawyers like to talk on the
phone rather than have any written record of conversations," Ritter
said.
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.
*** 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
------------------------------
Subject: Homemade News Hits the Road With Moblogs
From: Lisa Minter <lisa_minter2001@yahoo.com>
Date: Fri, 20 May 2005 19:55:09 -0500
By Paul Thomasch
Cranking out a column after a presidential debate or publishing a
prize-worthy photo of the next catastrophe just got a whole lot easier
-- no matter where or who you are.
Google, Yahoo, Microsoft, and others have started to offer
simple-to-use tools that let anybody with a digital camera or personal
computer create blogs and produce homemade news.
When twinned with new technology like camera phones and handheld
computers, it's now possible to publish pictures or jot notes from
anywhere: the street, a beach, a restaurant. Seconds later the
information is posted to a Website for the world to read -- and
suddenly you've got a mobile web blog, or moblog.
"Text messaging and camera phone have put two powerful storytelling
tools in the hands of millions of vpotential correspondents around the
world," Robert Niles, editor of the Online Journalism Review at
University of Southern California's journalism school, said in an
e-mail exchange.
"So it is now inevitable that when something newsworthy happens in
public, someone will be there to document that event online
instantly."
The recent tsunami in South Asia gave evidence of moblogs' power and
widespread use. Shortly after it struck, dispatches began appearing on
blogs, often beating mainstream media to the unfolding story. One such
blog was Waveofdestruction.org, created by Australian Geoffrey Huntley
and made up of video and photos taken at the scene.
Adam Greenfield, who helped organize the First International
Moblogging Conference, is credited with coining the term in 2002. But
moblogging -- defined as using a mobile device to publish on the
Internet -- dates back to the 1990s.
Most believe Steve Mann was the first to put photos on the Web from a
mobile device, a bulky computer he carried with him.
His first entry is hardly dramatic: "Feb. 22, 1995: most of my day was
quite boring, walking to lab, pizza at food trucks etc." But when he
later comes across a building on fire, he records the scene in about
45 Internet photos -- in what would now be thought of as moblogging.
ADVERTISING DOLLARS
Yet it took a decade for moblogging itself to catch fire. Today its
popularity largely revolves around photography, thanks to the rise of
cheaper and better camera phones.
The Internet, of course, had an earlier fling with online photos back
before the dot-com bubble burst. That business centered on photo
storage and hard copy reprints, which were then stuffed into the
family's picture book.
These days online picture sharing is all the rage. Kodak's EasyShare
Gallery and sites like it are awash with albums of The Smiths at
Niagara Falls, Madison's First Birthday or Me at Graduation.
But those virtual albums are exclusive; only those invited by the
photographer can take a peek. Google (blogger.com), Yahoo (flickr.com)
and MSN (spaces.msn.com), among others, are taking it a step further.
Take Yahoo's Flickr, a blog site it bought from a husband-and-wife
team in Vancouver. A Flickr account can be created so that only
friends and family can browse your pictures, but it can also be opened
up to a broader audience as a blog, or in many cases, a moblog.
The pictures can also be tagged with labels -- making it easy to
search for snapshots of everything from the tsunami to Tiger
Woods. Though slightly different, Google's blogger.com and MSN's
Spaces are based on the same idea: creating a global network of people
sharing photos, news and commentary.
"Families, friends, and co-workers will form there own social spheres
through mobile blogging and so too will citizen journalists," Biz
Stone, Blogger Senior Specialist at Google, predicted in an e-mail
exchange.
"There is more hype around the idea of real-time breaking-news
bloggers than there is around a family that shares on-the-scene
wedding and baby photos, but they are all the same from our
perspective of enabling self-expression and sharing."
Like most business battlegrounds, Yahoo, MSN and Google are squaring
off over blogging and moblogging because huge money could be at
stake. Already, MSN's Spaces is running ads.
"The online advertising market is massive and growing faster than any
one type of media," OJR's Niles said.
"By controlling the publishing tools with which grass-roots reporters
and other Web users communicate with each other, these companies
control billions of page views through which they can serve the ads
they sell."
Of course, the popularity of moblogs -- both as a commercial venture
and a publishing tool -- is itself a subject for bloggers. One recent
posting on www.moblogging.org even touts an upcoming competition for
the best cellphone photos -- with a C$500 prize.
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.
*** 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
------------------------------
From: Rob Higgins <info@faxswitch.com>
Subject: Link to FAQ - How Does The SR Work With Call Id?
Date: Fri, 20 May 2005 18:27:17 -0500
With the SR Series, you can use phone company voice mail and even call
forwarding.
It works great will all phone company features except it works a
little differently with the caller id.
Here is what it says in the frequently asked questions section of the
online manual:
http://faxswitch.com/help/sr/sr_manual/WebHelp/r_manual.htm About call id
http://faxswitch.com/help/sr/sr_manual/WebHelp/Commonly_Asked_Questions.html
How does the SR pass the call-id signal?
The call-id signal passes through very fast since the SR never answers
your phone. The SR needs a ringing pattern of at least 1.8 seconds for
the call-id information to have enough time to get through to your
phones.
So what happens is ... the last phone number in the sequence always
gets the call id signal but sometimes the other numbers won't get the
caller id information depending on the ringing voltage as I just
mentioned. There are several ways to get around this:
1.) Be really persistent with the local phone company technicians and
convince them to make sure all of your numbers ring longer than 1.8
seconds. Sometimes you can talk the phone company into doing this. We
have reports from customers that say they have been successful in
getting the phone company to configure the ringer so it passes the
cal-id. We have had others who said that the phone company wouldn't do
it. Some customers have told us that they even got a choice of six
ringing patterns so they just chose the longest ones. We don't want to
get you hopes up here though because some phone company installers
simply will not make these changes for you. If they will not, please
use one of the other solutions which follow (#2-4).
2.) Run a call-id box in front of the SR. Simply plug in you call-id
box between your incoming line and the SR. Call-id will always work in
front of the SR. Unless you use wireless phones with call id display,
this will be your best solution.
3.) Run a wireless phone (with call-id display) in parallel to the
first number and turn off the ringer. You hear your other business
phone(s) ring, then answer the cordless. This is what I personally
do. The only disadvantage is you won't get the barge-in protection on
the wireless, which is no big deal as you would never answer the phone
unless your phones ring for voice anyway. Incoming faxes automatically
go to the fax on the fax number I also personally run a call-id box
(#2) in front of the SR to record all call-id information on both
numbers.
4.) Have the phone company change around your phone numbers (make you
original number you distinctive ring number and your new number your
primary number). This way the second number in the series (which
always gets the cal-d signal) is your original number (for voice) and
the first number is the new number (for fax or something else).
This is the way most people get around this problem. The phone company
will always do this for you with no extra urging. For most people this
works great.
The only problem is if you use call forwarding for your voice calls
(primary number). # 4 will not work for you with call forwarding since
the phone company has only two settings for to set up your call
forwarding either (1.) forward all numbers (primary + distinctive
ring) or (2.) forward primary number only (not the distinctive ring
numbers). If you want to transfer you voice calls only, your primary
number must be your voice number and the setting must be set to (2)
forward primary number only.
Most likely, with one of these work arounds, you will be able to get
your call-id information on your voice number(s).
To review: the call-id signal always passes through to the last number
in the series (either the second number if you have 2 numbers or the
third number if you have three numbers on one line). Unless you use
call forwarding, this would most likely be the easiest solution.
If you use the SR with call forwarding to forward your voice calls to
your cell or another phone when you are out and still get your faxes
on your fax machine, tell the phone company to set it up to only
forward the main number. I do this personally and love it. I can go
anywhere in the US and still get my business calls while my fax calls
always go to my fax machine. Total freedom!
You can also forward your voice number to a cell or other phone when
you are on the Internet (the line is busy) thus get your voice calls
while your line is tied up with the computer (or another call). With
this application (call forwarding) you need to use one of the
solutions #1-3 as # 4 will not work as mentioned above.
------------------------------
From: Jack Decker <jack-yahoogroups@withheld_on_request>
Date: Fri, 20 May 2005 11:05:49 -0400
Subject: First Coffee - FCC VoIP E911 Ruling - Cheryl Waller
I can't really do a proper excerpt of this one but when you have a few
moments check it out:
First Coffee - FCC VoIP E911 Ruling - Cheryl Waller - Vonage's 911
http://www.tmcnet.com/usubmit/2005/May/1146627.htm
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: Al Gillis <alg@aracnet.com>
Subject: Re: Foreign Exchange (FX) Lines Still in Use?
Date: Fri, 20 May 2005 14:51:42 -0700
Organization: http://extra.newsguy.com
<hancock4@bbs.cpcn.com> wrote in message
news:telecom24.223.9@telecom-digest.org:
> Isaiah Beard wrote:
(much snippage...)
> Some tie-lines were relayed from PBX to PBX, you kept dialing the
> access code and tied together a bunch of systems. I don't think that
> was the preferred way, however.
Back in the days when I was just a pup I was working in a department
store chain that had numerous stores in Oregon and California. One
evening (when the boss was away, most likely) I happened into the
telephone equipment room and found a store telephone dialing guide.
One section contained inter-location dialing codes! After I thought
about this listing for a while I guessed I could call from one store
to another, to another and to yet another. Finally I was able to make
a chain of tie line calls a dozen or so stores away and then loop the
chain back on itself and cause another phone in my same room ring!
Knowing nothing of how telephones worked I was astounded by this feat
of black magic! I also recall that one could hardly hear across this
lengthly chain of tie lines -- that is, a radio playing onto the first
telephone almost couldn't be heard in the final phone!
Al
[TELECOM Digest Editor's Note: Some of those tie-lines were absolutely
rotten, accoustic-wise. Some of them sounded like you were talking
into a barrel; others would snap at you off and on. PAT]
------------------------------
From: HorneTD <hornetd@mindspring.com>
Subject: Re: FCC's 911 Move a Trojan Horse? Critics Charge Engineering
Date: Fri, 20 May 2005 22:08:05 GMT
Organization: EarthLink Inc. -- http://www.EarthLink.net
Barry Margolin wrote:
> In article <telecom24.221.1@telecom-digest.org>, Jack Decker
> <jack-yahoogroups@workbench.net> wrote:
>> http://www.broadbandreports.com/shownews/63675
>> FCC's 911 Move a Trojan Horse?
>> Critics Charge They're Engineering Death of Indie VoIP
>> Written by Karl Bode
>> Tomorrow the FCC will release an order that forces all independent
>> VOIP providers to offer 911 service within 120 days. On the surface
>> the move seems like a simple way of ensuring public safety, but
>> critics believe it's really an incumbent engineered attempt to crush
>> upstart VoIP competitors.
>> There's been a scattered number of deaths blamed on VoIP -- whether or
>> not the VoIP provider was actually culpable
>> http://www.broadbandreports.com/shownews/63372 hasn't mattered to
>> some news outlets. Vonage has also been sued for "failing to inform
>> users they need to activate their 911 service" before it will work;
>> apparently this welcome screen
>> http://www.broadbandreports.com/r0/download/800075~433b0c31ec1520970b77229393b7d713/vonage.png every customer sees was simply too mystical.
> I believe the issue is that even once you activate it, you wouldn't
> get connected to real E911 services. The LECs didn't provide them
> with the proper access to the E911 infrastructure, so Vonage was
> forwarding 911 to administrative offices rather than 911 operators.
> Barry Margolin, barmar@alum.mit.edu
> Arlington, MA
> *** PLEASE post questions in newsgroups, not directly to me ***
The LECs didn't provide them with access to the E911 infrastructure at
the price they were willing to pay would be a more accurate way of
stating the problem. They thought it should be free and the LECs wanted
full cost pricing plus return on investment. That's called capitalism.
Tom Horne
Well we aren't no thin blue heroes and yet we aren't no blackguards to.
We're just working men and woman most remarkable like you.
------------------------------
From: tls@panix.com (Thor Lancelot Simon)
Subject: Re: FCC's 911 Move a Trojan Horse? Critics Charge Engineering
Date: Fri, 20 May 2005 21:27:19 UTC
Organization: Public Access Networks Corp.
Reply-To: tls@rek.tjls.com
In article <telecom24.224.16@telecom-digest.org>, Barry Margolin
<barmar@alum.mit.edu> wrote:
> I believe the issue is that even once you activate it, you wouldn't
> get connected to real E911 services. The LECs didn't provide them
> with the proper access to the E911 infrastructure, so Vonage was
> forwarding 911 to administrative offices rather than 911 operators.
If you read "The LECs didn't provide them with" as "Vonage wasn't
willing to pay for, and thus didn't receive", you'd be about right.
As has been repeatedly noted here and elsewhere, there are other, more
responsible, VoIP carriers -- e.g. the cable companies' in-house
telcos, or Packet8 -- who chose the more responsible, if perhaps less
satisfying to shareholders, tack of paying their share of the costs of
maintaining the E911 infrastructure rather than playing public-
relations and political games as Vonage did instead.
Thor Lancelot Simon tls@rek.tjls.com
"The inconsistency is startling, though admittedly, if consistency is
to be abandoned or transcended, there is no problem." - Noam Chomsky
------------------------------
From: Steven Lichter <shlichter@diespammers.com>
Reply-To: Die@spammers.com
Organization: I Kill Spammers, Inc. (c) 2005 A Rot in Hell Co.
Subject: Last Laugh! Ebay Workers Needed, Call 1-866-622-9985 x2067
Date: Fri, 20 May 2005 22:22:19 GMT
Ebay workers needed call 1-866-622-9985 x2067
----------------
I got the above number as part of the usual junk that comes in each
day and dumped into my junk mail box. Might be interesting to give
them a call from a payphone and find out about their jobs, bet they
want your bank account and SS numbers!!
The only good spammer is a dead one!! Have you hunted one down today?
(c) 2005 I Kill Spammers, Inc. A Rot in Hell Co.
[TELECOM Digest Editor's Note: I found out just the other day how one
of these 'ebay' scams works: I don't know about this one you mention
above, but others of them go like this: You find where rummage sales
and garage sales are located in your town. If you have trouble finding
them, the scammer will gladly supply you a list of a few of them. You
go to the garage/rummage sale and pay _your money_ to get a few pieces
of the junk they put out on the sidewalk. You then take these items
and clean/polish them to make them 'antiques'. Once you have your new
collection of 'antiques', you list them on E-Bay and attempt to sell
them. Sounds to me to be a red-hot way to make a lot of money quick.
Another interesting way to 'make money fast' is by working part time,
or full time, as you wish, for the Cash Retrieval Company. This man
spams all the time telling you that you can make a 'fortune' by
working for the Cash Retrieval Company. All outside work, just
'walking around all day'.
The idea is that as you walk around all day, you are to look at the
ground or the sidewalk. Whenever you see some money that someone
dropped by accident or otherwise lost, you of course pick it up. Then
you forward 75 percent of it (money orders preferred) to the Cash
Retrieval Company and keep the other 25 percent as your generous
commission. A 25 percent commission is a great opportunity for
you. By the way, the scammer tells you about the 'Cash Retrieval
Company' and its address (his post office box, I imagine) only after
you have already paid him a five dollar non-refundable deposit via Pay
Pal. There are lots of ways to get rich using the internet. 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.
************************
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 #225
******************************
| |
