Pat, the Editor

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
Add this Digest to your personal   or  

 

TELECOM Digest     Sun, 26 Jun 2005 19:40:00 EDT    Volume 24 : Issue 292

Inside This Issue:                             Editor: Patrick A. Townson

    Little Agreement on Spyware Guidelines (Lisa Minter)
    Some Businesses Say E-Bay Starting to Slip (Lisa Minter)
    States Bar Teen Drivers and Cell Phones (Lisa Minter)
    Users Overlook XP's Non-Admin Security; Least Privilege (Monty Solomon)
    Re: Where to Buy a Cellular Phone Jammer? (Steve Sobol)
    Re: Where to Buy a Cellular Phone Jammer? (Fred Atkinson)
    Re: Major Advertisers Caught in Spyware Net (John McHarry)
    Re: Power Strips for Home Networks (Fred Atkinson)
    Re: Companies Want _US_ to Pay For Their Mistakes (Fred Atkinson)
    Re: Federal Laws Needed on ID Theft Notice (Wesrock@aol.com)
    Re: DSL Speed (Robert Bonomi)
    Re: Last Laugh! You Got the Wrong Number (John McHarry)

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: Little Agreement on Spyware Guidelines
Date: Sun, 26 Jun 2005 16:40:47 -0500


By ANICK JESDANUN, AP Internet Writer

Many anti-spyware programs scour computer hard drives for those
data-tracking files called cookies that we often get from Web visits.
Microsoft Corp.'s tool does not. And there are disputes aplenty about
whether certain widely used advertising programs circulating on the
Internet are clean of spyware.

No surprise, then, that there's little agreement on what should be
considered spyware, and what adware is exactly. Or on whether adware,
which delivers ads, is a form of spyware or a breed apart.

Consumers are confounded. Is their computer-cleaning overzealous or
not thorough enough? Are they removing useful programs with the dreck?

No less vexed are makers of anti-spyware software. They're beset by
legal headaches, constantly challenged for what their products define
and target as malware.

"It certainly distracts us from the job at hand," said David Moll,
chief executive of Webroot Software Inc.

Help may be on the way. Led by the tech-advocacy group Center for
Democracy and Technology, the anti-spyware industry is crafting
definitions and plans to eventually set up dispute-resolution
procedures. A draft is expected by late summer.

"A definition is the foundation," said Ari Schwartz, the center's
associate director. "If a consumer's going to make a decision in the
marketplace about what they have and what software they are going to
use, it's helpful to have a basis to do that on."

Similar efforts, however, have failed before.

Part of the challenge stems from how the term "spyware" evolved.

"It started out as being called spyware because a lot of it was spying
on people and sending personal information," said Dave Methvin, chief
technology officer with tech diagnostic site PC Pitstop. "It's a
catchy, quick word that is always easy for people to understand and
say."

But the term stuck even as some of these programs, in response to
consumer complaints, began sending back less data and became less
sneaky.

In some people's minds, spyware came to include programs that change
Web browser settings without asking or trick users into racking up
huge phone bills by making the equivalent of "900" calls to foreign
porn sites.

"Spyware has sort of become the euphemism for any software I don't
want," said Wayne Porter, co-founder of SpywareGuide.com.

The result is chaos.

Microsoft, for instance, chose not to scan cookies because many sites
need them to remember passwords and otherwise customize a surfer's
experience.  Cory Treffiletti of the online ad agency Carat
Interactive says cookies help sites identify repeat visitors so the
same ads aren't shown over and over.

But other spyware hunters flag cookies on the grounds that they help
advertisers track behavior. EarthLink Inc.'s Scott Mecredy says
anti-spyware programs have gotten sophisticated enough to distinguish
good cookies from bad.

Then there's the question of whether "spyware" includes adware.

Claria Corp., formerly known as Gator Corp., has sued several
anti-spyware companies and Web sites for calling its advertising
software "spyware." PC Pitstop rewrote some of its materials as part
of a settlement.

Even "adware" isn't good enough for some.

Joseph Telafici, director of operations for McAfee Inc.'s security
research unit, says the company now gets one or two complaints a week,
compared with two or three per quarter last year from companies whose
programs it has dubbed spyware or adware.

McAfee is in the process of assigning a full-time lawyer.

Symantec Corp. sought to pre-empt a lawsuit by filing one itself,
asking a federal court to declare that it had the right to call
Hotbot.com Inc.'s toolbar adware. Hotbot did not respond to requests
for comment.

Symantec still faces a lawsuit by Trekeight LLC, whose product
Symantec brands adware.

Though it has yet to sue, 180solutions Inc. takes issue with "adware,"
preferring "searchware" or "sponsorware." "Adware" has become too
linked with bad actors, and the industry needs more differentiation,
said its chief executive, Keith Smith. Most anti-spyware vendors,
however, still put 180solutions in that category.

Aluria Software LLC says one company, WhenU.com Inc., has changed its
practices enough that it is now spyware- and adware-safe.

But America Online Inc., though it uses Aluria's technology, prefers a
different test: What its users think.

AOL found that users overwhelmingly choose to rid their computers of
WhenU's SaveNow application when anti-spyware scans uncover it, so AOL
continues to list as adware.

Adding to the confusion is the fact that many legitimate programs -
including Microsoft Corp.'s Windows operating system and Web browser -
send out data without making the user fully aware, one of the common
attributes of spyware.

And many programs that spy do have legitimate functions - people may
run a keystroke recorder to monitor spouses whom they suspect of
cheating. Or they may willingly accept adware in exchange for a free
game or screensaver.

Anti-spyware software companies say they leave removal decisions to
customers, though many users simply follow their recommendations,
failing to distinguish the mild from the malicious.

"If an anti-spyware company recommends that the software (gets)
blocked, consumers will typically block it," said Keith Smith, chief
executive of 180solutions. "It doesn't matter how good an experience
they have with it."

Alex St. John, chief executive of WildTangent Inc., says anti-spyware
companies have an incentive to overlist programs: It makes their
products appear effective. Better definitions, he said, would help
clear his company's game-delivery product.

"We want to do anything under our power to be clearly defined as a
legitimate, upright consumer company," he said. "We would love to have
something to adhere to."

Guidelines could give anti-spyware vendors a better defense.

For consumers, said Tori Case of Computer Associates International
Inc., "if we start using the correct terminology, we can demystify it
a bit and help people understand what the real risks are."

Copyright 2005 The Associated Press.

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.

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

From: Lisa Minter <lisa_minter2001@yahoo.com>
Subject: Some Businesses Say E-Bay Starting to Slip
Date: Sun, 26 Jun 2005 16:34:26 -0500


By RACHEL KONRAD, AP Technology Writer

SAN JOSE, Calif. - Jewelry dealer Michael Jansma used to be one of
eBay Inc.'s biggest cheerleaders. The entrepreneur from Largo, Fla.,
sells roughly $250,000 worth of baubles every month on the auction
site. But the revenue Jansma gets from eBay has declined over the past
year, and in January the company raised fees, denting his profits.

To compensate, he added inventory on his own site, gemaffair.com,
which sells about $60,000 worth of pearls and other luxuries each
month. In November, he opened an account with Overstock.com, where he
sells $35,000 in merchandise per month. And in February, he began
selling on Amazon.com, where sales have more than doubled each month.

"I hope eBay gets the message: People have choices, and if we're not
happy we'll look elsewhere," Jansma said. "I hope eBay will rise to
the occasion."

With roughly 150 million registered users, eBay ranks among the
world's most powerful companies, online or otherwise. It had more than
1.4 billion items listed last year. For every $100 spent online
worldwide, $14 was spent on eBay.

But some say eBay's blockbuster growth has engendered arrogance.

Entrepreneurs grumble that executives pander to big-ticket electronics
vendors and industrial manufacturers -- not the teddy bear enthusiasts
and numismatists who were faithful a decade ago, when eBay was founded
and enjoyed a kitschy obscurity. They complain about shoddy customer
service, including site crashes and anti-fraud software that too often
mistakes a legitimate business for a huckster.

Meanwhile, eBay executives are looking for new revenue as growth slows
in North America and competition heats up from Amazon, Yahoo Inc. ,
Google Inc. and plucky startups. Business experts agree that eBay
faces daunting obstacles, such as cracking the nascent Chinese
e-commerce market and broadening the audience for PayPal, the online
payment division that still does 71 percent of its transactions
through eBay.

"They've made good strides but haven't fully monetized other
opportunities," said David Edwards, an analyst at American Technology
Research in San Francisco. "The nature of a marketplace is that once
you have a critical mass, it tends to stick, and there's not a lot
that can unseat it. But that's not to say that eBay doesn't have
significant challenges ahead."

EBay foes concede that it would be nearly impossible to eclipse the
world's largest online auction company. But that hasn't stopped them
from carving out niches where they perceive eBay to be weak.

Take fraud, for example. EBay maintains that less than one-hundredth
of 1 percent of all listings are fraudulent, but scammers target
high-priced items such as plasma TVs, and some victims have lost
thousands of dollars.  Although eBay's fraud-detection software alerts
internal investigators of suspicious listings, executives say it's
impossible to police a site receiving as many as 2,000 new listings
per second.

By contrast, Chicago-based UBid Inc. verifies addresses and checks
bank references for all 3,700 of its sellers. Service representatives
place random orders to ensure prompt delivery, said CEO Bob Tomlinson.

"EBay's taking a hands-off approach to fraud that makes some users
uncomfortable," Tomlinson said. "We're taking a hands-on approach."

EBay has also gained a reputation as unresponsive to complaints, a
company that acts like an unregulated monopoly and only recently has
extended an olive branch.

In mid-January, eBay warned sellers in a terse e-mail that the monthly
fee to operate an "Basic eBay Store" would increase from $9.95 to
$15.95, and standard listing fees would double, to 40 cents. Sellers
peppered eBay executives with angry mail, forcing the company to
reduce some fees.

EBay CEO Meg Whitman acknowledges that some of eBay's user
relationships have been difficult. But the company, which routinely
flies in buyers and sellers for focus groups, has "redoubled" efforts
to be innovative, she said.

"Sometimes it's a little bit like being a politician," Whitman
said. "We have work to do in understanding our users' sentiments."

Bill Cobb, president of eBay North America, said the company would try
to mollify disgruntled sellers with a new rule. If a winning bid comes
from someone who has no intention of paying, the seller's rating will
not suffer in eBay's "feedback" feature. Sellers often complain of too
many fake bidders, particularly on cultural zeitgeist items. For
example, in November, a grilled cheese sandwich purportedly depicting
the Virgin Mary sold for $28,000, but only after the posting received
1.7 million hits and several astronomical fake bids were eliminated.

Such changes are a departure from the original mission of eBay founder
Pierre Omidyar -- to create a site that would act as an intermediary
between buyers and sellers, devoid of oversight or bureaucracy.

"Pierre never in effect wanted customer support because the
marketplace was supposed to work everything out," Cobb said. "But when
you scale to 150 million members, you have to account for the
margins. Unfortunately you have a very small percentage of people who
will try to disrupt the marketplace."

But eBay's contrition may be too late. Salt Lake City-based
Overstock.com launched an auction site eight months ago that addresses
complaints from eBay sellers partly by charging roughly one-third of
eBay's listing and transaction fees. It has 225,000 listings, from
tractors to sneakers.

Holly MacDonald-Korth, senior vice president of Overstock auctions,
takes calls directly from sellers. By contrast, eBay only stopped
sending automated e-mail responses to sellers in February.

"Larger sellers give us a depth of inventory that we need, but the
smaller sellers really give us the flavor," MacDonald-Korth said.

Despite the complaints, eBay still maintains an enviable, passionate
user base. More than 10,000 sellers converged in San Jose last week
for eBay's 10th anniversary, which ended Saturday with a concert by
The B-52s.

Glenna Woolard of Santa Cruz, who sported a temporary eBay tattoo and
a woven ponytail in eBay's logo colors, has been a seller since
1999. A stay-at-home mother of four, she hawks items purchased from
local estate liquidations, garage sales and industrial auctions, with
monthly revenue of $3,000.

"EBay takes the 9-to-5 world away, so even someone like me can fit
into the economy," Woolard said. She hopes to spend next summer
collecting items to sell on eBay while driving cross-country in her
Fleetwood Bounder, a mobile home she purchased on eBay for $29,000.


Copyright 2005 The Associated Press. 

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.

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

From: Lisa Minter <lisa_minter2001@yahoo.com>
Subject: States Bar Teenage Drivers and Cell Phones
Date: Sun, 26 Jun 2005 16:42:22 -0500


By ROBERT TANNER, AP National Writer

There are a few things that the average teenager absolutely must have
in 21st century America -- a license to drive is one, a cell phone is
another.  But police officers, parents, and, increasingly, lawmakers
are coming to the conclusion that those essentials are a dangerous mix
when combined with inexperience on the road.

A growing number of states are creating legal barriers to keep young
drivers from using cell phones, even as few ban adults from talking --
at least handsfree -- while driving.

"It's not a silver bullet solution, but it's one piece of a puzzle we
need to put in place if we're serious about eliminating highway
deaths, highway crashes, as the No. 1 cause of death of young
Americans," said Maryland Delegate William Bronrott.

The year began with just two states limiting cell phone use for teen
drivers. But as legislative sessions moved ahead, lawmakers in six
states passed bills to bar all cell phones, handheld or handsfree, for
teenage drivers with learner permits or provisional licenses.

Now, laws in Colorado, Connecticut, Delaware, Maryland and Tennessee
say young drivers must keep the phone off. Illinois's measure is
waiting for Gov. Rod Blagojevich to sign it into law, but his staff
says he intends to.  Maine already bars cell phones for drivers with
provisional licenses up to age 21, and New Jersey bans them for those
drivers at any age.

At least a dozen more states considered similar measures in recent
months and balked, though advocates say they'll be back.

Lawmakers don't necessarily expect teenagers to like it -- and they
don't.

"I don't know anybody who says it's a good idea, or it's fair to
single out 16- or 17-year-olds," said Adam Bonefeste, a 17-year-old
from Springfield, Ill. Nearly all his friends have their own cell
phone, and everybody needs to drive for work, school and social life,
he said.

"I drive and talk on my cell phone all the time," he said. "I've never
had any problems, never run into anything or got a ticket."

Whether or not they're using cell phones, teenagers are much more
likely than older drivers to get into accidents. At age 16, boys get
into 27 crashes per million miles driven and girls 28 crashes. Those
numbers drop quickly as drivers age. By the time drivers reach the
20-to-24-year-old group, there are eight crashes per million miles for
men, and nine crashes for women, according to the Insurance Institute
for Highway Safety, based on 2001 data.

Those crashes take a deadly toll. The insurance institute says that 32
16-year-olds died per 100,000 drivers in 2003, four times the fatality
rate of the 30-to-59 age group.

Researchers say there is clearly a problem with teenage drivers
becoming easily distracted on the road. Their work has bolstered
efforts to ease teenagers into the driving world, giving them more
time to learn, restricting nighttime driving and barring other teenage
passengers, who sometimes incite dangerous behavior. Now 45 states
have some version of what's called graduated drivers licenses.

But many researchers say convincing evidence is lacking on any link
between cell phone use and accidents -- even with academic studies like
one published last winter that found young motorists talking on cell
phones react as slowly as senior citizens, and are more impaired than
drunk drivers.

"It's just not clear," said Susan Ferguson, vice president of research
at the insurance institute. The

National Transportation Safety Board and the Governors Highway Safety
Association both endorse bans for cell phone for novice drivers. But
they back off on bans for adult drivers.

State legislators and governors, too, have proved largely reluctant to
limit or ban cell phones for all drivers. New York banned handheld
devices in 2001, and since then only New Jersey in 2004, and the
Connecticut legislature -- this year -- approved a ban. Connecticut's
law is waiting on the governor's signature.

"This is part of an evolution, part of a revolution as we learn more
and more about human factors in driving," said Ellen Engleman Conners,
the chairman designate at the National Transportation Safety
Board. More research is being pursued to shape public policy, but
until then, it makes sense to protect teenagers because their
vulnerability to distractions and accidents is indisputable, she said.

It's easy to pass a law, but harder to change behavior, said Sheriff
Dave Owens in McLean County, Ill. "Just the fact that that becomes law
 ... is that enough to get people to stop? We have speeding laws in
this country and people routinely speed," he said.

In Maryland, advocates had pushed for years to get tougher
restrictions on teenagers that included many of the elements of
graduated drivers licenses.  They had always failed -- until this
year, when a series of fatal crashes sharpened public attention to the
problem.

"There were 18 teens killed in about three months," said Bronrott, a
longtime advocate of safe driving rules. "It was a huge wakeup call."


On the Net:
Insurance Institute for Highway Safety: http://www.iihs.org
National Highway Traffic Safety Administration: http://www.nhtsa.dot.gov

Copyright 2005 The Associated Press.

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.

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

Date: Sun, 26 Jun 2005 12:58:53 -0400
From: Monty Solomon <monty@roscom.com>
Subject: Users Overlook XP's Non-Admin Security; Least Privilege


By Ryan Naraine

Microsoft is sparing no expense to spread the Least-privileged User
Account security gospel ahead of next year's Longhorn launch, but a
little-known fact-especially among IT administrators and end users-is
that the technology is already available in the Windows operating
system.

The LUA principle, also known as non-admin or minimum rights, is
accepted within software security circles as a key to reducing damage
from malicious hacker attacks, but on Windows systems, although the
option is available, experts say end-user adoption remains
"frighteningly low."

http://www.eweek.com/article2/0,1759,1830637,00.asp

Least Privilege' Can Be the Best
By David Coursey

Opinion: Forcing administrator privileges to be set as the default
for all accounts leaves users exposed to malware.

Want fewer security hassles? Demote yourself!

Want to do something right now that can help protect you from malware?
Then stop being an administrator. No, I am not suggesting a career
change, though I suppose that would have much the same effect.
Rather, I hope you'll consider using your desktop's administrator
account only when absolutely necessary and creating a user account for
general computing.

Why am I making this suggestion? Because too many people do all their
computing as administrators -- even those whose user name is something
besides "Administrator."

http://www.eweek.com/article2/0,1759,1772361,00.asp

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

From: Steve Sobol <sjsobol@JustThe.net>
Subject: Re: Where to Buy a Cellular Phone Jammer?
Date: Sat, 25 Jun 2005 15:01:06 -0700
Organization: Glorb Internet Services, http://www.glorb.com


NOTvalid@XmasNYC.Info wrote:

> Within walking distance of CONUS is Canada.

Not within walking distance of Brooklyn Center.

Brooklyn Center, MN is a suburb of Minneapolis. Not a border town by
any stretch of the imagination. It's on the wrong side of the state to
be a border town.

JustThe.net - Steve Sobol / sjsobol@JustThe.net / PGP: 0xE3AE35ED
Coming to you from Southern California's High Desert, where the
temperatures are as high as the gas prices! / 888.480.4NET (4638)

"Life's like an hourglass glued to the table"   --Anna Nalick, "Breathe"

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

From: Fred Atkinson <fatkinson@mishmash.com>
Subject: Re: Where to Buy a Cellular Phone Jammer?
Reply-To: fatkinson@mishmash.com
Date: Sun, 26 Jun 2005 01:35:21 GMT
Organization: EarthLink Inc. -- http://www.EarthLink.net


On Sat, 25 Jun 2005 21:05:50 GMT, Bruce L. Bergman
<blbergman@withheld_on_request> wrote:

>> The operation of transmitters designed to jam or block wireless 
>> communications is a violation of the Communications Act of 1934, 
>> as amended ("Act"). See 47 U.S.C. Sections 301, 302a, 333. The Act 
>> prohibits any person from willfully or maliciously interfering with 
>> the radio communications of any station licensed or authorized under 
>> the Act or operated by the U.S. government. 47 U.S.C. Section 333. 
>> The manufacture, importation, sale or offer for sale, including 
>> advertising, of devices designed to block or jam wireless 
>> transmissions is prohibited. 47 U.S.C. Section 302a(b). Parties in 
>> violation of these provisions may be subject to the penalties set 
>> out in 47 U.S.C. Sections 501-510. Fines for a first offense can 
>> range as high as $11,000 for each violation or imprisonment for up 
>> to one year, and the device used may also be seized and forfeited 
>> to the U.S. government.

> Bruce L. Bergman, Woodland Hills (Los Angeles) CA - Desktop
> Electrician for Westend Electric - CA726700 
> 5737 Kanan Rd. #359, Agoura CA 91301 (818) 889-9545
> Spamtrapped address:  Remove the python and the invalid, and use a net.

Don't miunderstand me here.  I basically agree with your position.
But didn't the more recent communications act render the
Communications Act of 1934 obsolete?  I don't think that cell phone
technology was considered when it was written, either.

I do think that perhaps use of such jamming devices (if properly
designed) might be useful in prisons where there is a problem with
contraband cell phones running being used for drug deals and other
problematic things.  Of course, we'd have to address the issues and
how to correctly make it legal for use (so that situations like you've
described can be avoided).


Fred 

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

From: John McHarry <jmcharry@comcast.net>
Subject: Re: Major Advertisers Caught in Spyware Net
Date: Sat, 25 Jun 2005 22:23:58 GMT
Organization: EarthLink Inc. -- http://www.EarthLink.net


On Sat, 25 Jun 2005 00:59:53 -0400, Monty Solomon wrote:

> By MICHAEL GORMLEY Associated Press Writer

> Pop-up ads carried by spyware and adware aren't just employed by
> fringe companies hawking dubious wares _ such as those tricky messages
> that tell you your computer has been corrupted.

It strikes me that _any_ company doing that is fringe and hawking
dubious wares. Just because they have a recognizable name doesn't mean
they are trustworthy.

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

From: Fred Atkinson <fatkinson@mishmash.com>
Subject: Re: Power Strips for Home Networks
Date: Sat, 25 Jun 2005 18:55:27 -0400


> http://www.tigerdirect.com/applications/SearchTools/item-details.asp?EdpNo392778

> This is the best solution I've seen so far, you can not only use the
> extension for a brick, but you can also stack tall bricks over+above
> smaller bricks too.

This is the same as a previous suggestion
http://www.cyberguys.com/templates/searchdetail.asp?T1=121+2510 .
And it looks like a pretty fair one.

I would warn you off about Tiger Direct, though.  My experience with
them was never very good.  When I would call them, their customer
service people were very rude.  They'd tell me that they never
received an order I'd called in.  When I'd ask to speak to a
supervisor, they'd tell me (in a very obnoxious tone of voice) that I
didn't need to speak to a supervisor because the order was never
placed.  Turns out, they had created four different accounts on me and
he was looking in the wrong account.  I didn't place the order, huh?
When I finally did get to speak to a supervisor (about two or three
calls later), he discovered the multiple accounts and found my order.

When I would call back for information about some of the equipment I
had ordered (I'd lost the invoice and told them I didn't have the
order number).  The guy just kept asking me for the order number
anyway.  After about the fifth time I told him that the invoice was
lost, I pointed out that he was sounding like a broken record.  He
said, "Goodbye" and hung up on me.  (And you don't have an order
number?  And you don't have an order number?  And you don't have an
order number?  And you don't have an order number?  And you don't have
an order number?  And you don't have an order number?  ).  Sheesh.

I spoke to a supervisor about these kind of unprofessional behaviors.
He was quite shocked and assured me that he'd look into it.  But, it
never changed.  I wrote the company twice about their customer
service's behavior problems.  They never even answered the letters.  I
resolved not to do business with them again.

But, I might get some from Cyberguys.  It'll be a trial basis for
them.  If they work out all right, I might start using them for a
supplier.

Regards,

Fred Atkinson

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

From: Fred Atkinson <fatkinson@mishmash.com>
Subject: Re: Companies Want _US_ to Pay For Their Mistakes
Date: Sat, 25 Jun 2005 19:39:45 -0400


> In message <telecom24.286.8@telecom-digest.org> DevilsPGD
> <spamsucks@crazyhat.net> wrote:

>> [TELECOM Digest Editor's Note: I think they are a little too tricky to
>> fall for that, however. They _might_ pay for one or two hours of your
>> time -- maybe -- but I imagine they would tie it in with getting some
>> statement from your employer about time off the job. They are not
>> going to just send you a couple of regular payroll checks however.

> Why not?  If I'm taking 600 hours of time to correct everything, and
> I'm paying for insurance that covers lost wages due to dealing with
> fraud ...

TELECOM Digest Editor noted:

>> if you took time off from work to cure this 'fraud' was it a situation
>> you could not have accomplished during regular off hours from work?
>> PAT]

> That's a good point -- I don't know about you, but my off-hours are more
> important then my work hours.

> In fact, there is even a basis in law for this, in my area overtime
> pay is a minimum of 1.5x your base pay rate.

I admit I've come in on the middle of this and maybe I'm missing
something here.

If you are refering to correcting work that was incorrectly performed
by your company, why wouldn't you be required to correct with without
additional charge?  They've already paid you for the work to be done
the right way.  Why should they pay you again for fixing work that you
performed incorrectly?

When I was helping my employer (SkyTel) with the telephone grid at the
new office, I proposed installing a Homaco distribution frame.  I got
a bid on the thing and they accepted the bid.

When we met with [then] Bell Atlantic (now Verizon, I believe), I
didn't want them terminating RJ-21s on our distribution frame as that
wasn't what RJ-21 should or would have ever been considered for (why
should you install a device with a twenty-five pair amphenol connector
on it when the interconnects were going to be done with cross-connect
wires?).

I wanted Bell Atlantic to terminate our house cables on the wall in a
phone closet and we would amphenol some twenty-five pairs cables to
run to the frame so we could put their appearance on split sixty-six
blocks.  Bell Atlantic said they'd prefer to terminate directly on our
frame.  We said we'd agree to that only if split sixty-six blocks were
used as we wouldn't permit RJ-21s (amphenol connectors) being
terminated on our frame.  They agreed and we cleared them to terminate
on our distribution frame based upon that agreement.

Several months later (after the frame had been installed in our new
office), I stopped by to see how well the frame was progressing with
the cables (from all the contractors).  Guess what I found terminated
on the frame?  You guessed it.  There were eighteen RJ-21s on our
frame.  I told the telco guy that was standing there to prepare to
remove them.  He was quite shocked, but I didn't care.  When I
returned to the old office, I spoke to our director and we immediately
initiated a conference call to Bell Atlantic on the matter.

I asked our account representative if she recalled our agreement about
them terminating on our frame.  She confirmed that she knew that and
remembered it quite well.  I then asked her why the RJ-21s had been
installed against our agreement.  She pulled out the paperwork she had
sent through and said she had indeed written it up right and
apparently someone had changed it further down the chain of command.

She set us up to meet with the installers and their supervisor.  I got
the standard, "that's the way the FCC requires us to do it" speech.  I
told them I didn't care what the FCC required and that they were going
to terminate it on the frame the way we had agreed to.

The supervisor was taken by surprise when I told him that we had an
agreement with Bell Atlantic that he had apparently not been told
about.  But, he proposed an alternative solution.  He wanted to remove
the amphenol connectors and the wires off the RJ-21s, effectively
turning them into split sixty-six blocks.  I had them do one right
then.  It turned out pretty neatly so I gave them an OK to do it that
way.  And it worked pretty well over the time we were in there.  I
still have trouble understanding thinking that you are required to
install something with the wrong type of connection to please the FCC.
But, that mentality runs prevalent among Telcos (and I know I'm going
to get jumped here).

Of course, we had to pay for all their time to come back and fix their
mistake.  They didn't seem to think that they should be required to do
the work the way we agreed to rather than charging us again for their
time to correct their faulty work.

Time showed that I was right as the frame turned into a pretty
efficient and professional means of interconnecting both our office
grid and all of the equipment in the paging center.  In fact, my name
received prominent mention for it when our board of directors sent
down an 'attaboy' letter for all who were on the committee to plan and
implement this distribution frame (because I had proposed it and
personally managed the quality of the installation), the computer
center, and the office grid.  It made our interconnct management much
easier.  The morning after we moved into the new office (we had
relocated the paging computer and the rest of its facilities over that
weekend and the cutover went without a hitch), the V.P. and directors
from engineering stopped at my desk and shook my hand congratulating
me on how well it had been managed and how quickly and efficiently
they'd been able to hook everything up over the weekend because of
that distribution frame.

And it went so well because I never had any reservation about making
Telco or any other contractor redo their work in the correct manner.
There were a number of times when I made other contractors pull it out
and do it entirely over again.  The director of engineering always
backed me when I told them to redo it.  And time always showed that I
was right.

But it always amazes me how quick these folks (and I'm not singling
Telco out here) are to charge you for correcting their own deficient
work.

Regards,

Fred



[TELECOM Digest Editor's Note: Actually, we were discussing in this 
instance how a certain credit card company wanted to sell you 
insurance to pay for 'credit card fraud' which you are not responsible
for anyway. And in their pitch to purchase their insurance, they
offered as how it could compensate you for all the 'worry' and 'time
lost from work' that you would spend correcting _their screw-up_. I
mean, can't you imagine some guy telling his boss, "oh, I will be
coming in to work two hours late tomorrow; I have to call the credit
card people, chances are likely I will be kept on hold for at least
an hour before reaching a live person; when I reach a live person,
more than likely I will be 'worried sick' from all the paperwork they
will make me go through, I may not be in at all tomorrow."

Well, that's what the 'credit card fraud insurance' was going to 
cover if you bought some. As for me, I'd rather just pay the fifty
dollar maximum loss if they did not agree (nor volunteer to) write
it off after I had harassed them. But your point, of telco totally
disregarding instructions on a work order, then trying to force you
to pay for their mistakes is also a good one.  PAT]

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

From: Wesrock@aol.com
Date: Sat, 25 Jun 2005 19:46:45 EDT
Subject: Re: Federal Laws Needed on ID Theft Notice


In a message dated Sat, 25 Jun 2005 02:39:24 -0400, Monty Solomon
<monty@roscom.com> writes:

> By RACHEL BECK AP Business Writer

> NEW YORK (AP) -- The names and bank account details of up to 40
> million credit-card holders have been exposed to fraud. Too bad the
> only way that information reached the public was largely thanks to
> California.

I wonder if this was really 40 million credit card holders or records
of 40 million transactions.


Wes Leatherock
wesrock@aol.com

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

From: bonomi@host122.r-bonomi.com (Robert Bonomi)
Subject: Re: DSL Speed
Date: Sun, 26 Jun 2005 02:05:23 -0000
Organization: Widgets, Inc.


In article <telecom24.291.5@telecom-digest.org>,
Choreboy  <choreboyREMOVE@localnet.com> wrote:

> Robert Bonomi wrote:

>> In article <telecom24.288.13@telecom-digest.org>, Choreboy
>> <choreboyREMOVE@localnet.com> wrote:

>>> At the farm, it seems to be the wire that limited my dialups to 46k
>>> when I got 52k in town.

>> Yes, and no.  The particular _type_of_signaling_used_ over that wire
>> was limited by that wire to 46k.

>>> If the wire wouldn't carry more than 46k, it wouldn't matter what
>>> the telco did at their end.

>> *NOT* exclusively a 'wire' limitation.  Also a limitation of the
>> signalling technology employed. the distributed capacitance of the
>> wire was such that it 'blurred' the signal such that reconstruction of
>> the original waveform =after= the *VOICE*GRADE* analog-to-digital
>> conversion in the CO switch lost the 'fidelity' required for the
>> higher data rate.

>>> I wonder how a DSL signal can carry 1.5M through those mile of wire.

>> DSL uses a different 'signalling technology' for sending the data down
>> the wire.

>> The DSL signal does _not_ go through those 'voice-grade'
>> analog-to-digital converters that PSTN calls do.  the signal is
>> isolated before that point, and dumped into a totally _different_ kind
>> of receiver.

> Is DSL modulated into some sort of analog signal?  It's hard to imagine
> carrying hig-frequency digital pulses on copper telephone lines.

Get thee to a _library_.  they have entire books on the subject.

>> DSL _does_ suffer 'performance losses', as the wire length gets
>> greater.  The degree of degradation is considerably worse than with
>> POTS modems.  E.g., at 1,000' from the C.O. you may be able to get
>> several megabits/sec.  at 15000 ft, you'll be lucky to get 256k.  At
>> 18,000 ft, even 144kbit/sec is iffy.  Beyond 25,000 ft, "forget it"
>> applies -- an analog POTS modem is higher performance.

> The farm appears to be 35,000 feet from the central office.  My browser
> often shows downloads faster than 1.5 Mb/s (150kB/s).

That which "appears" to be the situation is often not the reality.

There may be a 'remote node' outlying from where you "think" the central
office is.  The DSLAM equipment can be located there.

>>>>> I have trouble understanding on the phone, and I often resort to
>>>>> the phonetic alphabet to be understood.  I think the problem may be
>>>>> more in the typical quality of phones than in bandwidth.  You could
>>>>> have broadcast quality microphones and loudspeakers and it will
>>>>> still sound like a telephone because of the limited bandwidth.
>>>>> Since bandwidth is limited, telephone components aren't high
>>>>> fidelity as it would be a waste to make them so.  (I believe the
>>>>> modern "K" handset is clearer than the older "G" handset.)

>>> Military AM and SSB are limited to 300-3000 Hz. Shortwave radios can
>>> be filtered that way for tuning and difficult conditions.  Speach
>>> comes across pretty clearly.  If telephone voices are harder to
>>> understand, I think the problem must be something besides the nominal
>>> bandwidth of a telephone.

>> The official specification for a voice-grade POTS call is that same
>> 300-3000Hz passband.  Modern digital systems deliver a 'high end' of
>> 4000hz. and often have a lower 'low end' as well.

> Some modern phones sound very good.  It depends on who's calling.

Some phones are made cheaper than others.   <grin>

>>>>> Does a POTS line from the CO to a house carry multiple voices?

>>>> Depending on the location, often times yes.  Between central offices
>>>> or within the CO almost always yes.  I mean if you live across the
>>>> street from the CO you probably have dedicated copper pair, but you
>>>> live some distance you probably are multiplexed over a carrier line.
>>>> The degree of multiplex determines your bandwidth.

>>> Would you be able to connect with V90 on a multiplexed line?

>> Only in *very* rare situations.

>>> As far as capacity goes, I don't know how fast is the digital stream
>>> for a voice call,

>> After digitalization, a standard POTS voice-grade call uses 64000
>  bits/sec.

> Is that between telco facilities?

Or even between the telco and _customer_ facilities that use 'digital
entrance' to the telco.

>>> but I'm sure DSL at 2.5Mb/s requires much more of the telco's
>>> capacity.

>> "Not Exactly" applies here.  The DSL signal rides the wires from the
>> customer premises _to_ the telco switching facility.  *BUT* before it
>> would get to the telco switching gear, it is separated out,
>> segeregated, and sent to some *entirely*different* equipment -- called
>> a DSLAM, if you care.  Frequently that DSLAM equipment does *NOT*
>> belong to the telephone company, but to the company providing DSL
>> services.  the 'upstream' connection out of the DSLAM is a dedicated
>> data circuit -- possibly rented from the telco, but often _also_
>> supplied by the company that runs the DSLAM.  Regardless, it is not
>> using up any capacity on the Telco's VOICE network.

> If the telco owns the DSLAM, won't their investment cost depend on
> capacity?  If they contract for the DSLAM service, won't they be
> charged according to traffic?

If the telco itself is offering/providing DSL service, then it is
virtually certain that they own the DSLAM equipment.  If a third-party
provider is doing the DSL provisioning, then the incumbent telco may,
or _may_not_ have any involvement with the DSL equipment.

As to 'how things are priced/charged-for', that's a whole 'nuther kettle of
fish.  Some arrangements are 'flat rate', where you pay a fixed price for
the capacity that is available to you. Pthers are so-called 'burstable'
rates, where you pay based on how much traffic you send.

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

From: John McHarry <jmcharry@comcast.net>
Subject: Re: Last Laugh! You Got the Wrong Number
Date: Sat, 25 Jun 2005 22:20:01 GMT
Organization: EarthLink Inc. -- http://www.EarthLink.net


On Sat, 25 Jun 2005 02:26:18 -0500, Patrick Townson wrote:

> Some 'Dancing' Voters Call Wrong Number

> MOUNT PLEASANT, Mich. - An apparent phone number mix-up has voters for
> an ABC reality show calling a central Michigan answering service
> instead. 

Remember that series a number of years ago where a probation office or
some such accidentally printed an old lady's number on its stationery?
They refused to do anything about it until Telecom Digest published
their number and they started getting thousands of calls for her. In
the end, they corrected their printing, and rerouted her number
through their switchboard to screen her calls until the situation
quieted down. She is probably still mythologized as the Sweet Little
Old Lady from Hell around there.

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


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

              ************************

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

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 #292
******************************

Return to Archives**Older Issues