TELECOM Digest     Tue, 21 Jun 2005 15:05:00 EDT    Volume 24 : Issue 282

Inside This Issue:                             Editor: Patrick A. Townson

    Companies Want _US_ to Pay For Their Mistakes (Lisa Hancock)
    Which Video Plug-in For Skype? Video4Skype.com/vSkype.com? (totojepast)
    EFFector 18.17: Congress Considers PATRIOT Expansion Behind (M Solomon)
    EFFector 18.18: Action Alert - Urge Congress to Reform PATRIOT (Solomon)
    CFP: IEEE in Co-operated International Conf on Comp Intell (Secretary)
    Re: Power Strips for Home Networks (AES)
    Re: Power Strips for Home Networks (Robert Bonomi)
    Re: Power Strips for Home Networks (ellis@no.spam)
    Re: Is it Possible to Buy a Cell Phone With no Plan? (Paul)
    Re: Monitor/Recorder for Residential Power Line Outages? (Scott Dorsey)
    Re: DSL Speed (Lisa Hancock)
    Re: '80' Country Code (Robert Bonomi)
    Re: '80' Country Code (Colum Mylod)
    Re: '80' Country Code (Gerard Bok)
    Re: Ping Between PC Through PABX (Barry Margolin)
    Re: Pod Slurping Dangerous to Your Company (ellis@no.spam)
    Re: Bell Divestiture (Robert Bonomi)

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: hancock4@bbs.cpcn.com
Subject: Companies Want _US_ to Pay For Their Mistakes
Date: 21 Jun 2005 09:23:30 -0700


I called my credit card carrier to check my balance.  Instead of
getting the automated answer, I was connected right through to a real
person.

He tried hard to pitch me with credit card insurance costing $100.

ABC News, when reporting on the recent multiple credit card
information thefts, also mentioned the availability of consumer
insurance to protect against ID theft.  They said it took a victim 600
hours of time to correct everything and the insurance would cover lost
wages.

This really irked me.  It's the companies' fault, not ours.

Why shouldn't the credit card companies assume all costs for identify
theft and card theft?  After all, in most cases it was their
sloppiness?  Do they aggressively go after violators?  No, they do
not, and small guys get away with it (ie photocopying a credit
card/driver's license then using it fraudently).  Those people aren't
prosecuted "too much trouble".

Does anyone support the companies?

[public replies please]

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

From: totojepast <totojepast@atlas.cz>
Subject: Which Video Plug-in For Skype? Video4Skype.com or vSkype.com?
Date: 21 Jun 2005 04:38:35 -0700


Would you recommend me Video4Skype.com or vSkype.com for Skype video
calls?

Is it possible to use these plug-ins when only one of the participants
uses a webcam?

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

Date: Mon, 20 Jun 2005 23:44:37 -0400
From: Monty Solomon <monty@roscom.com>
Subject: EFFector 18.17: Congress Considers PATRIOT Expansion


EFFector  Vol. 18, No. 17  May 26, 2005  donna@eff.org

A Publication of the Electronic Frontier Foundation
ISSN 1062-9424

In the 333rd Issue of EFFector:

 * Congress Considers PATRIOT Expansion Behind Closed Doors
 * Court Date Set for Showdown Over BnetD Videogame Software
 * EFF Supporters Liberate Digital TV   
 * MiniLinks (8): PWN3D by the Feds
 * Administrivia

http://www.eff.org/effector/18/17.php 

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

Date: Mon, 20 Jun 2005 23:45:35 -0400
From: Monty Solomon <monty@roscom.com>
Subject: EFFector 18.18: Action Alert - Urge Congress to Reform PATRIOT,


EFFector  Vol. 18, No. 18  June 9, 2005  donna@eff.org

A Publication of the Electronic Frontier Foundation
ISSN 1062-9424

In the 334th Issue of EFFector:

 * Action Alert: Urge Congress to Reform PATRIOT, Not Expand It! 
 * Transparent Lobbying for E-voting Reform This Week
 * Tor Named One of the Year's Best Products
 * Fighting Infringement on Campus Peer-to-Peer Networks:
   EFF White Paper Helps Universities Understand Their Options  
 * MiniLinks (15): Three Notes Bad 
 * Administrivia

http://www.eff.org/effector/18/18.php

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

From: Conference Secretary <aista2000@ise.canberra.edu.au>
Subject: CFP: IEEE in Co-operated International Conference
Date: Tue, 21 Jun 2005 17:32:17 +1000


                           CALL FOR PAPERS

International Conference on Computational Intelligence for Modelling,
                 Control and Automation
         28 - 30 November 2005 Vienna, Austria
   http://www.ise.canberra.edu.au/conferences/cimca05/

In co-operation with:
IEEE Computational Intelligence Society
Conference Proceedings will be published as books by IEEE in USA

Sponsored by:

European Society for Fuzzy Logic and Technology - EUFLAT
International Association for Fuzzy Set in Management and Economy - SIGEF
Japan Society for Fuzzy Theory and Intelligent Informatics - SOFT
Taiwan Fuzzy Systems Association - TFSA
World Wide Web Business Intelligence - W3BI
Hungarian Fuzzy Association - HFA
University of Canberra

                        Jointly with
International Conference on Intelligent Agents, Web Technologies
                    and Internet Commerce
      http://www.ise.canberra.edu.au/conferences/iawtic05/

Honorary Chair:
Lotfi A. Zadeh, University of California, USA
Stephen Grossberg, Boston University, USA

The international conference on computational intelligence for
modelling, control and automation will be held in Vienna, Austria on
28 to 30 November 2005. The conference provides a medium for the
exchange of ideas between theoreticians and practitioners to address
the important issues in computational intelligence, modelling, control
and automation.  The conference will consist of both plenary sessions
and contributory sessions, focusing on theory, implementation and
applications of computational intelligence techniques to modelling,
control and automation. For contributory sessions, papers (4 pages or
more) are being solicited. Several well-known keynote speakers will
address the conference.

Conference Proceedings will be published as books by IEEE (The
Institute of Electrical and Electronic Engineering) in USA and will be
indexed world wide. All papers will be peer reviewed by at least two
reviewers.  Topics of the conference include, but are not limited to,
the following areas:

Modern and Advanced Control Strategies:
Neural Networks Control,
Fuzzy Logic Control,
Genetic Algorithms and Evolutionary Control,
Model-Predictive Control,
Adaptive and Optimal Control,
Intelligent Control Systems,
Robotics and Automation,
Fault Diagnosis,
Intelligent agents,
Industrial Automations

Hybrid Systems:
Fuzzy Evolutionary Systems,
Fuzzy Expert Systems,
Fuzzy Neural Systems,
Neural Genetic Systems,
Neural-Fuzzy-Genetic Systems,
Hybrid Systems for Optimisation

Data Analysis, Prediction and Model Identification:
Signal Processing,
Prediction and Time Series Analysis,
System Identification,
Data Fusion and Mining,
Knowledge Discovery,
Intelligent Information Systems,
Image Processing, and Image Understanding,
Parallel Computing applications in Identification & Control,
Pattern Recognition,
Clustering and Classification

Decision Making and Information Retrieval:
Case-Based Reasoning,
Decision Analysis,
Intelligent Databases & Information Retrieval,
Dynamic Systems Modelling,
Decision Support Systems,
Multi-criteria Decision Making,
Qualitative and Approximate-Reasoning

Paper Submission:

Papers will be selected based on their originality, significance,
correctness, and clarity of presentation. Papers (4 pages or more)
should be submitted to the following e-mail or the following address:
CIMCA'2005 Secretariat School of Information Sciences and Engineering
University of Canberra, Canberra, 2616, ACT, Australia 
E-mail: cimca@canberra.edu.au

Electronic submission of papers (either by E-mail or through
conference website) is preferred. Draft papers should present original
work, which has not been published or being reviewed for other
conferences.

Important Dates:

31 August 2005 Submission of draft papers
30 September 2005 Notification of acceptance
21 October 2005 Deadline for camera-ready copies of accepted papers
28-30 November 2005 Conference sessions

Special Sessions and Tutorials:

Special sessions and tutorials will be organised at the
conference. The conference is calling for special sessions and
tutorial proposals. All special session proposals should be sent to
the conference chair (by email to: masoud.mohammadian@canberra.edu.au)
on or before 5th of August 2005.  CIMCA'05 will also include a special
poster session devoted to recent work and work-in-progress. Abstracts
are solicited for this session. Abstracts (3 pages limit) may be
submitted up to 30 days before the conference date.

Visits and social events:

Sightseeing visits will be arranged for the delegates and guests. A
separate program will be arranged for companions during the
conference.

Further Information:

For further information either contact cimca@ise.canberra.edu.au or
see the conference homepage at:
http://www.ise.canberra.edu.au/conferences/cimca05/default.htm

Organising Committee Chair:

Masoud Mohammadian, University of
Canberra, Australia

International Program Committee:

H. Adeli, The Ohio State University, USA
W. Pedrycz, University of Manitoba, Canada
A. Agah, The University of Kansas, USA
T. Fukuda, Nagoya University, Japan
J. Bezdek, University of West Florida, USA
R. C. Eberhart, Purdue University, USA
F. Herrera, University of Granada, Spain
T. Furuhashi, Nagoya University, Japan
A. Agah, The University of Kansas, US
E. André, Universität Augsburg, Germany
A. Kandel, University of South Florida, USA
J. P. Bigus, IBM T. J. Watson Research Center, USA
J. Liu, Hong Kong Baptist University, Hong Kong
A. Namatame, National Defense Academy, Japan
K. Sycara, Carnegie Mellon University, USA
B. Kosko, University of Southern California, USA
T. Baeck, Informatic Centrum Dortmund, Germany
K. Hirota, Tokyo Institute of Technology, Japan
E. Oja, Helsinki University of Technology, Finland
H. R. Berenji, NASA Ames Research Center, USA
H. Liljenstrom, Royal Institute of Technology, Sweden
A. Bulsari, AB Nonlinear Solutions OY, Finland
J. Fernandez de Cañete, University of Malaga, Spain
W. Duch, Nicholas Copernicus University, Poland
E. Tulunay, Middle East Technical University, Turkey
C. Kuroda, Tokyo Institute of Technology, Japan
T. Yamakawa, Kyushu Institute of Technology, Japan
J. Liu, Hong Kong Baptist University, Hong Kong
A. Namatame, National Defense Academy, Japan
A. Aamodt, Norwegian University of Science & Technology, Norway

International Liaison:

Canada and USA Liaison:

Robert John, De Montfort University, UK
Nasser Jazdi, Institut für Automatisierungs- und
Softwaretechnik, Germany

Europe Liaison:

Dr. Eng. Djamel Khadraoui, Centre de Recherche Public, Luxembourg
Frank Zimmer, SES ASTRA, Luxembourg

Asia Liaison:

Renzo Gobbin, University of Canberra, Australia
R. Amin Sarker, ADFA, Australia

Local Arrangements and Public Relation:

Zohreh Pahlavani, AVIP, Austria
C Meier, Australia

Publicity:

C. Meier, Australia
Zohreh Pahlavani, AVIP, Austria

Publication:

Masoud Mohammadian, Australia

In cooperation with:

University of Canberra, (Masoud Mohammadian)
Universidad Carlos III de Madrid, (José-Luis Fernández-Villacañas Martín)
University of Guelph, (Simon X. Yang)

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

From: AES <siegman@stanford.edu>
Subject: Re: Power Strips for Home Networks
Date: Mon, 20 Jun 2005 20:40:38 -0700
Organization: Stanford University


Daisy chaining plug strips anywhere in your lab gets you a citation from 
the governmental health and safety inspectors whenever they come around 
on an inspection visit, as they do periodically in my university.

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

From: bonomi@host122.r-bonomi.com (Robert Bonomi)
Subject: Re: Power Strips for Home Networks
Date: Tue, 21 Jun 2005 07:32:04 -0000
Organization: Widgets, Inc.


In article <telecom24.280.16@telecom-digest.org>, Howard S. Wharton
<yhshowie@acsu.buffalo.edu> wrote:

> Pat,

> By daisy chaining your power strips, you are causing the first ones in
> the chain to be overloaded and possibility the circuit it's plugged into.
> And it is a fire waiting to happen. 

How many 50 watt wall-warts can you daisy-chain off a strip with a 15
A breaker in it, before the built-in breaker overloads and trips?

I just surveyed a batch of my wall-warts.  The AC draw is mostly
between 21 and 35 watts each.  with one 50 watter in the mix.  It's
going to take, oh, about _30_ of those to equal the draw of my
toaster.  Assuming that they are drawing at their maximum rated load.

The rat's nest of wires is an invitation to trip over, agreed.

The "reliability" of such an arrangement is also laughable.

But an _overload_ problem??  Or a fire-safety hazard??  <guffaw>

Who do you think you're kidding?

I've got one set-up with over _forty_ devices, running of a
medium-large (1500VA) UPS.  The instrumentation built into the UPS
says the total draw is about 60% of rated capacity. There's one
12-outlet strip, two 8-outlet strips, and five 6-outlet strips, involved,
in total.  With two pieces of gear plugged directly into the UPS
itself.  The strips aren't all hooked into a single chain, but there
is one series that is 3 long.

Should I mention that the set-up _passed_ City fire-safety inspection.

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

From: ellis@no.spam
Subject: Re: Power Strips for Home Networks
Date: Tue, 21 Jun 2005 01:01:18 -0000
Organization: S.P.C.A.A.


In article <telecom24.280.16@telecom-digest.org>,
Howard S. Wharton <yhshowie@acsu.buffalo.edu> wrote:

> By daisy chaining your power strips, you are causing the first
> ones in the chain to be overloaded and possibility the circuit
> it's plugged into. And it is a fire waiting to happen.

Every power strip I own has a breaker in it. Please explain just show
daisy chaining power strips to power low wattage power supplies cubes
is able to overload anything without tripping the breakers.


http://yosemitenews.info/



[TELECOM Digest Editor's Note: I think the problem would arise when
the circuit breaker goes out of order, for example, melted into place
where it should not be. I had a very old (too old to inquire about
refund/replacement) Radio Shack device: 13.5 volts by 3 amps, DC
power. I called it my little 'power house'. I had it sitting out in my
garden shed, plugged in, providing power to a CB radio out there. In
addition to an assortment of plugs allowing me to draw current from it
in various ways (to run radios, etc), it also had a 'reset button' on
the back side, when an overload or a short circuit somewhere caused it
to trip. With little squat legs, it sat on a table back there, and had
a 'cigarette lighter' style plug on the front it it (such as in an
automobile) to either plug in a cigarette lighter or one of the more
permanent plugs used to operate a cell phone or a ham/CB radio in a
car.

One day I went out to the shed to get the bird food (seeds and corn I
put out for the little guys by their nests in my back yard); I could
literally _smell_ that thing cooking when I went in the shed. I
reached up to the outlet and pulled the plug. The power house was _red
hot_ ... just just warm, but _hot_. The little red reset switch on the
back seemed to be stuck. Looking inside the unit, I found the plastic
from the reset switch was melted where the breaker was supposed to
be. That seems to be the problem; not that the strips would overload
and blow their reset buttons, but that the reset buttons would be old
and faulty and fail to work as they should.  

Fortunatly, my garden shed did not burn down, but as an experiment I
took a few newspapers and laid them on top of the red hot power
supply. The papers did get a few scorch marks on them. That same day I
cut the head (outlet plug in) off the power house (so no one else [the
garbage collectors for example] would be tempted to retrieve it and
try to use it), then ditched the whole thing in the trash. For another
$39.00 (Radio Shack's price in 1990 approximatly) I can afford another
one easier than I could afford to rebuild my walk-in shed behind my
house.  PAT]

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

From: Paul <paule-nospam@mindspring.com>
Subject: Re: Is it Possible to Buy a Cell Phone With no Plan?
Date: Tue, 21 Jun 2005 07:55:23 -0400
Organization: Posted via Supernews, http://www.supernews.com


> I'm trying to buy a cell phone WITHOUT A PLAN. I am sending it to a
> relative in another country where they will activate it.

I saw this $49 GSM phone recently advertised in a magazine:
http://www.mobalrental.com/gsm/


-- Paul

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

From: kludge@panix.com (Scott Dorsey)
Subject: Re: Monitor/Recorder for Residential Power Line Outages?
Date: 21 Jun 2005 11:01:21 -0400
Organization: Former users of Netcom shell (1989-2000)


Robert Bonomi <bonomi@host122.r-bonomi.com> wrote:

> In article <telecom24.276.15@telecom-digest.org>, AES
> <siegman@stanford.edu> wrote:

>> In article <telecom24.275.11@telecom-digest.org>,
>> bonomi@host122.r-bonomi.com (Robert Bonomi) wrote:

>>> It should be obvious that any such device will need to be powered by 
>>> some sort of UPS.  Whereupon you may as well use a UPS.  <grin>

>> I don't see why a simple power monitor/logger gadget can't be battery
>> powered, or more precisely, line powered with battery power to carry
>> it over the hopefully rare occasions when the line power fails,

> <sigh> That battery "back-up" _is_ a UPS.  A "simpleton" DC-output
> variety, but a UPS nonetheless *grin*

Guys, this is a simple commercial product, and it's sold by a bunch of
companies.  Fluke makes a very nice one.  You can probably rent one from
a local test equipment rental, or you might be able to call your power
company and have them leave one on your line for a week or two.


--scott

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

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

From: hancock4@bbs.cpcn.com
Subject: Re: DSL Speed
Date: 21 Jun 2005 09:44:01 -0700
Organization: http://groups.google.com


Choreboy wrote:

> It seems to me that dialup and DSL would be analagous to two ways of
> yelling across a field; like two ways of yelling, DSL and dialup use
> the same medium.

A very simple analogy might be yelling, then using a megaphone
to yell.  The megaphone doesn't "amplify" your voice, but directs
it a little better so it can be heard further.

Adding this analogy, imagine yelling across a field crowded with
people talking as opposed yelling across an empty field.  The speech
of the other people will interfere with your yelling.

Another analogy might be signalling across a field using colored
flags.  In all cases you are using reflected light.  But the ability
to see the distant flag will vary based on the color of the flag.  A
person holding a green flag standing in front of trees will be
difficult to discern compared to someone holding an orange flag.  The
_carrier_ of your signal--the reflected color of the flag, is
different and different carriers are more efficient.

Let's note that the limitation isn't just in the plain copper wire
that comes out of your telephone.  There's also a limitation in the
telephone company facilities.  A voice conversation doesn't need much
"room" (bandwidth) to be clearly understood.  (Notice if you play
music over a telephone that sounds terrible at the other end -- that's
because the phone doesn't have the bandwidth for the more complex
sounds of music compared to voice).  Anyway, the telephone company has
your voice share space with other voices.  While this is fine for
voice, it limits data transmission to 56K.

> Between the CO and the customer, isn't voice service just bare wire?
> Are there inline amps?  If so, they could preemphasize high
> frequencies.

That varies tremendously from customer to customer.

> I don't understand what kind of signal dsl uses to carry so much more
> data than dialup without needing broadband cable.

It uses digital.  Crisp, to the point.  As mentioned above, an orange
flag transmits 'better' than a green flag.  Both are using the same
medium.  Digital transmits better and can make better use of a pair of
wires.

> If you have a second phone line for your modem, a $25 ISP, Direct TV,
> and perhaps other Bellsouth services, they will give you a price where
> going to DSL will lower your costs.  However, for somebody whose only
> cost is $100 a year for an ISP, DSL would add $500 to his annual
> budget.  Many feel they can't afford it, just as farmers before the
> Model T felt that they had no choice but to stick with slow,
> inconvenient horses and wagons.

AFAIK, if you get DSL, you no longer need a second phone line and
everything can come over your DSL line.  That is, you can talk on the
phone and use the computer at the same time, and get faster computer
response.

The pricing of services is a function of marketing, not technology.
A consumer has to choose the best price/service suited to their needs.
Sometimes a bundled package may end up still cheaper than a la carte.

> You say internet costs depend on how much traffic you have.

That's not really accurate.  Internet costs whatever you want it to
cost.  If need your response RIGHT NOW, you should get a higher speed
connection.  If you're doing a lot of work and don't like the long
waits, you should get a higher speed connection.  If you don't mind
slow response time, you can make do as is.  Plenty of people do.
There are even higher speed connections than DSL, although at some
point you're limited by the overall Internet traffic and the response
time of remote sites.  Indeed, often times what appears as slow
connections is actually not related to your own connection, but at
intermediate or distant ends.

> I think there's a big untapped market for DSL, and it could be
> profitable at a low price.  Cadillac did not introduce the Model T,
> and I guess Bellsouth doesn't want to offer existing customers
> something cheaper.

What is being offered is changing rapidly as technologies change and
new equipment is installed.  Many cable companies offer service over
their lines as well in competition with Bell companies.  Some Bell
companies are offering "FIOS" which is extra high speed.

Some of us whose modems keep getting fried by lightning are making
do with 14.4.

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

From: bonomi@host122.r-bonomi.com (Robert Bonomi)
Subject: Re: '80' Country Code
Date: Tue, 21 Jun 2005 01:42:33 -0000
Organization: Widgets, Inc.


In article <telecom24.280.8@telecom-digest.org>,
John R. Levine <johnl@iecc.com> wrote:

>> with '803' but there is no country with an '80' and '803' dialing
>> code.  Any ideas where the call came from?

> You can download the current country code list from the ITU's web
> site, and it says that code 800 is international freephone, and all
> other 80x are unassigned and reserved.

> Possibly the number was screwed up in your logs, which certainly
> happens.  Or maybe Pat's right and a leading 1 fell off on the way and
> it was really from South Carolina.

> Regards,

> John Levine, johnl@taugh.com, Taughannock Networks, Trumansburg NY
> http://www.taugh.com

> PS: Helsinki?

Yeah, John, HELSINKI.   358 0 {mumble}

Guess what happens if the first 2 digits get cut off.

Seemed more likely than somewhere in Bangladesh (country code 880),
wherever city code '3' is.

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

From: Colum Mylod <cmylod@despammed.com>
Subject: Re: '80' Country Code
Date: Tue, 21 Jun 2005 12:26:03 +0100
Organization: Me own
Reply-To: cmylod@despammed.com


On Mon, 20 Jun 2005 18:23:24 -0000, bonomi@host122.r-bonomi.com
(Robert Bonomi) wrote:

> Can you *GUESS* what happens when you take an 8-digit local number,
> prefix it with the Helsinki city code ('0'), prefix that with country
> code 358, and show only the last 10 digits?

Helsinki changed its code from 0 to 9 when the access code changed the
other way -- 9 to 0. I think it's more likely that the OP is seeing a
national number with the international flag set en route, perhaps it's
a French or Spanish "derived"/"virtual" number or a bad presentation
number.

In many countries national calls are routed abroad and back to take
advantage of settlement rates. This can cause local numbers to be sent
with mixed flags and truncated lengths. But we can only guess unless
the OP can nab the caller the next time.


New anti-spam address cmylod at despammed dot com

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

From: bok118@zonnet.nl (Gerard Bok)
Subject: Re: '80' Country Code
Date: Tue, 21 Jun 2005 15:34:06 GMT


On Mon, 20 Jun 2005 07:10:16 GMT, Geoff <nospam@nospam.com>
wrote:

>> [TELECOM Digest Editor's Note: Or maybe it was _area code_ 803,
>> which I think is somewhere in the Carolinas?   PAT]

> I do not think so because for calls within the US, the number is displayed
> as (803) xxx-xxxx.  This number was displayed as +803xxxxxxxxx.

My 2 cents:

Commonly the + prefix is used to indicate an international number.
But it could also be used to indicate a number that has more digits
than the display allows to show.

Maybe the caller was calling from the 803 area while passing more
digits than just your number ?

Easy to test, I guess. Dial your own number, add 1234 and see how
the display handles it :-)


Kind regards,

Gerard Bok

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

From: Barry Margolin <barmar@alum.mit.edu>
Subject: Re: Ping Between PC Through PABX
Organization: Symantec
Date: Mon, 20 Jun 2005 20:55:16 -0400


In article <telecom24.280.6@telecom-digest.org>,
yuniarsetiawan@gmail.com wrote:

> Hi there,

> I'm trying to connect two computer using PABX. So the PABX will be act
> like a hub. This is the diagram:

> [Computer 1] -> [Modem] -> [PABX] <- [Modem] <- [Computer 2]

> Both computer using Windows 2000 and both has sucessfully connected to
> the PABX after doing dial up. But why can't I ping between those
> computer?

> Both computer has been connected to the pabx, but they just can't
> ping/communicate each other. Is there anything wrong here? It is
> possible to do this, right?

> Thank you so much for the response.

One of them has to run PPP server software, i.e. it has to act like
the terminal server that an ISP has connected to its dialup modems.

Barry Margolin, barmar@alum.mit.edu
Arlington, MA
*** PLEASE post questions in newsgroups, not directly to me ***

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

From: ellis@no.spam 
Subject: Re: Pod Slurping Dangerous to Your Company
Date: Tue, 21 Jun 2005 00:56:16 -0000
Organization: S.P.C.A.A.


In article <telecom24.280.25@telecom-digest.org>,
jtaylor  <jtaylor@deletethis.hfx.andara.com> wrote:

> On Ebay there is a brisk trade in BIOS password chips, as well
> as kits for soldering them onto the motherboard.

> More trouble than shorting a jumper, to be sure, but it requires
> more equipment, and that equipment is unlikely to have any other
> reasonable purpose; being discovered with such tools would be a
> dead giveaway.

If you are already opening up the computer, why not just steal
the hard drive?

http://yosemitenews.info/
 
------------------------------

From: bonomi@host122.r-bonomi.com (Robert Bonomi)
Subject: Re: Bell Divestiture
Date: Tue, 21 Jun 2005 01:07:05 -0000
Organization: Widgets, Inc.


In article <telecom24.280.22@telecom-digest.org>,
<hancock4@bbs.cpcn.com> wrote:

> Robert Bonomi wrote:

>> Revisionist history at work. Computer "time sharing" did not exist

>> _at_all_ before mid-1964.

> It was running at Dartmouth College -- the pioneer -- in 1963.

You apparently know more about DTSS than _Dartmouth_ does.  I checked
the Dartmouth history before posting that. Yes, Dartmouth invented
time-sharing, I acknowledged that.  Development _started_ in 1963, but
it wasn't operational until May of 1964. (It supported an entire *TWO*
terminals in its original form.)

Quote:

 "In September, 1963, under the direction of mathematics professors John
  G. Kemeny and Thomas E. Kurtz, a project to establish a time-sharing
  system at Dartmouth got under way. The fruits of this project were
  BASIC, a simplified programming language, and a time-sharing system --
  using the GE-235 and Datanet-30 computers. This system began
  operations in May, 1964. In 1965, Dartmouth placed off-campus
  terminals in secondary schools in the area. "

By September '64, they had upped the capacity to a whopping 7 terminals.

>> _WHAT_ business??  In Randy's case it *was* just a hobby.  No income,
>> no membership 'fees', no nothing.  All the expenses came out of his
>> personal pocket.

> Repeat:  A non-profit is still considered a business.  Who paid for
> it wasn't the issue.  Bell was correct to charge business rates for
> this service.

Your opinion does not agree with the official rulings of the Illinois
regulatory authorities.  Thus, it is safe to say that in the
jurisdiction where the events occurred, you are quite wrong.

>> Speed of call set-up is irrelevant to the number of
>> _connected_and_running_ calls that can be handled

> Sorry, but faster speed makes for a more efficient system.  Faster
> speed allows a more sophisticated route selection and alternative
> paths.  Control and connection need not even be in the same physical
> place.  Connection facilities could be shared among a wider audience
> because the fast connection gear can make use of many more choices.

Yes, there are benefits (a few 'direct', many 'indirect') to 'speed'.
*NO*, they do not relate to the *number* of established calls that can
be handled simultaneously.

Putting a bigger engine in a Corvette will let it "go faster"; it is
utterly irrelevant, however, to increasing the number of passengers
that that car can carry.

Faster control elements does _not_ let you handle more calls, unless
you had an insufficient number of control elements to begin with.  The
limiting constraint on call-volume handling is "elsewhere".

What "faster speed" does is let you handle the *same* load of calls
with fewer control elements.  This is not an increase in 'capacity';
merely a decrease in 'unit cost'.

>>> Regulated monopolies were NOT _guaranteed_ a minimum rate of return.

> Others confirmed that statement.

Some people have seen franchise documents with fixed numbers
specified.  One can even find regulatory agency filings where it was
argued that the franchise-guaranteed rate was insufficient, due to the
present rate of inflation.

>> Western Union and most of the railroads were 'regulated common
>> carriers'.  Not regulated monopolies.

> The Bell System was a common carrier.  Railroads had "monopolies" in
> their service territories;

You've never seen tracks for two competing railroads running
side-by-side?  Tell me, in 1950, say, who had the 'monopoly' for
passenger service between New York City, and Chicago?  Or for freight
between those locations, for that matter?

Bell System held _exclusive_ franchises -- including the exclusive
right to run telephone cabling on public right-of-way -- for telephone
operations in many areas of the country.  In other areas, Central
Telephone, or United Telephone (later, United Telecom) held that
franchise.  Where such exclusive franchise existed, they were a de
jure monopoly. as well as being a common- carrier.

>> Hint: the SxS _was_not_capable_ of *native* touch-tone operation, a
>> front end translation from touch-tone to pulse was required.

> Right.  That contradicts your claim that Touch Tone actually saved the
> company money.

Repeating for the illiterate:
  
   'native' touch-tone operation was substantially cheaper for the telco
   than was 'native' pulse dialing.

   They retrofitted dial-to-pulse conversion on SxS switches so that they
   could 'pre-convert' customers to touch-tone before the switch was 
   converted to native touch-tone dialing.

This was a "short-term" expenditure of money now, to maximize
"long-term" benefits.  By having a significant "installed base" of
touch-tone users *already*in*place* when the C.O. was converted to
_native_touch-tone_ handling, they could get by with far fewer sets of
digit decoders (dial or pulse).  With 'pulse' tieing up the decoders
for average more than five times as long as touch-tone, there _was_
significant benefit to be obtained.  getting even 20% of the calls on
touch-tone, meant a _halving_ of the number of decoder elements
required.

The intent was to 'spend a little money now' to 'save a _lot_ of money
later'.  Especially since that 'spend a little money now' could be
done by making the customers pay for _that_ money, when the 'savings'
did *not* have to be given back.

It can be entertaining, in a morbid sort of way, to look at just
_how_much_ money the ILECs were raking in -- from that
$1.00-1.50/month/line 'touch-tone surcharge' -- vs. the 'piddling
cost' of installing the 'added cost' items (touch-tone converters) in
SxS switches.  the return on investment will make your head spin.

In article <telecom24.280.24@telecom-digest.org>, Michael D. Sullivan
<userid@camsul.example.invalid> wrote:

> Your one example is off.  AT&T introduced the picturephone at the NY
> World's Fair in 1964 and the Bell System never introduced it into
> service at all, as far as I can tell.  Does your phone show pictures?

Picturephone *was* offered to the public, in 'limited' markets. for a
few years. It wasn't really marketed, because it was still
quasi-experimental, the picture part worked only on local calls. but
it was available.  A few exchanges in Chicago, similarly in Los
Angeles.  And, I believe, at least one east-coast location as well.

In article <telecom24.280.21@telecom-digest.org>, TELECOM Digest
Editor noted in respnse to <hancock4@bbs.cpcn.com>: 

> [TELECOM Digest Editor's Note: My grandfather got me on at Standard
> Oil in the credit card office in Chicago in June, 1967, _not_ in 1978!
> His boss had gotten me the phone room job at University of Chicago
> when I was in high school in 1959; grandpa was with the company as an
> executive at Whiting Refinery for several years, but did not think I
> should be doing refinery work. You see, I am not really all that good
> at doing hard labor jobs. Grandpa's boss was going to put me to work
> in the superintendent's office either in Whiting or maybe send me back
> to Neodesha, KS (where grandfather had worked at one time); I thought
> I should stay around Chicago where my friends were so he suggested the
> marketing department or credit card processing office would be good
> for me.

> In the credit card processing office in 1967 they had IBM 370
> computers

Historical note:  the IBM 370 line was announced in June, 1970, with first
customer shipments the following spring.
http://www-03.ibm.com/ibm/history/exhibits/mainframe/mainframe_PR370.html

No doubt Standard Oil was one of the early S/370 customers.

> In 1970 I guess, I do not remember for sure, they brought around
> terminals, sat them on the desks and told people 'Do not Touch These'
> until we explain what to do, which was about a month later. We were
> told these would be replacing some of the job functions that had been
> done manually before. PAT] 

Probably '71 or '72.  After upgrade to a S/370 gave them the
horsepower to run 'online' CICS.  The 360 didn't have the speed/power
to do all the records work that SO threw at it, _and_ handle the
overhead of on-line processing.

In article <telecom24.281.5@telecom-digest.org>,
<hancock4@bbs.cpcn.com> wrote:

> Michael D. Sullivan wrote:

>>  I used it starting in 1965, when my high school got a
>> single TTY connected to it, either the only or one of a very few high
>> schools connected to time sharing in the mid 1960s.

>> By the late 1960s, time-sharing was much more widespread and was heavily
>> used.  But not in the mid-60s.

> Our school system got it in 1967.  Is that "mid" or is that "late"
> 1960s?

That would be generally considered "late" in the decade.  Typically,
x0-x3 was 'early', x4-x6 was 'mid', and 'x7-x9' was 'late.  Sometimes
people would blur things, and do things like call x6-x7 'late mid".

> In any event, the point is that the demand data lines were growing and
> the Bell System was responding to that demand.

The data-line growth at that time was the proverbial 'drop in the bucket' 
compared to a decade later.

> Of course let's remember Teletype (a Bell unit) developed a faster
> machine (the 33 and 35) that used the new ASCII code.

Nit: Teletype Corp. was, since 1930, a wholly-owned subsidiary of
Western Electric.

Teletype also had competition in the manufacture of such devices.  GE,
among the 'big name' manufacturers.  Also people like Xerox, Northeast
Electronics, and even Fujitsu.

>> The problem for regulators and regulated telcos comes when the
>> services that are providing the subsidy for below-cost residential
>> service are subject to competition.  ...

>> ... in the old days, AT&T had an incentive
>> to allocate costs to long-distance, to keep that price as high as
>> possible within its rate of return and keep local residential
>> service low ...

> Many people have stated that long distance rates were higher to
> cross-subsidize residential service.  But where is that documented as
> to _original_ reliable source?

Is Judge Greene, or the FCC, enough of an authority?

> Further, what was the dollars/percentage impact of that cross-subsidy?
> That is, how much more would residential service have cost and how
> much less would long distance?  Does anyone have an authoritive
> source?

After divestiture, there is a documented hard-dollar amount that the
IXCs had to pay LECs _per_customer_ to make up the 'lost revenues'
from the prior LD to local service subsidation.  A declining amount
over the years, but initially several dollars per month/line. placing
it at circa 20-25% of what customers were billed for basic local
service.

It was set initially to be roughly equivalent total revenues to what
the local service operations got in 'subsidy' from the long distance
operation.

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


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)

RSS Syndication of TELECOM Digest: http://telecom-digest.org/rss.html
  For syndication examples see http://www.feedrollpro.com/syndicate.php?id=308
    and also http://feeds.feedburner.com/TelecomDigest

*************************************************************************
*   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 #282
******************************