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 ****************************** | |