TELECOM Digest     Sun, 21 Aug 2005 16:07:00 EDT    Volume 24 : Issue 379

Inside This Issue:                             Editor: Patrick A. Townson

    Spammer Diversifies, Gets Rich, Goes to Jail (Steve Karnowski)
    Campaigners Prepare to Battle EU Storage Rules (Huw Jones)
    Re: Two VOIP Boxes on the Same Port (Robert Bonomi)
    Re: Two VOIP Boxes on the Same Port (Gordon Burditt)
    Re: Don't Forget Peter Jennings'... Flaw (William Warren)
    Re: Linux vs. Windows: TCO Comparison  (Jim Haynes)
    Re: Local Exchange Not Local in Sylva, NC (Robert Bonomi)
    Re: Hiroshima Marks 60th Anniversary of Atomic Bomb Attack (Wesrock@aol)
    Re: Yet More on FiOS (jmeissen@aracnet.com)
    Re: Not so Fast! 'xxx' Startup Put on Hold (DevilsPGD)
    Re: Last Sad Laugh! new.site.p0rn0..ch|ldren$ 4601527 (Steven Lichter)

Telecom and VOIP (Voice over Internet Protocol) Digest for the
Internet.  All contents here are copyrighted by Patrick Townson and
the individual writers/correspondents. Articles may be used in other
journals or newsgroups, provided the writer's name and the Digest are
included in the fair use quote.  By using -any name or email address-
included herein for -any- reason other than responding to an article
herein, you agree to pay a hundred dollars to the recipients of the
email.

               ===========================

Addresses herein are not to be added to any mailing list, nor to be
sold or given away without explicit written consent.  Chain letters,
viruses, porn, spam, and miscellaneous junk are definitely unwelcome.

We must fight spam for the same reason we fight crime: not because we
are naive enough to believe that we will ever stamp it out, but because
we do not want the kind of world that results when no one stands
against crime.   Geoffrey Welsh

               ===========================

See the bottom of this issue for subscription and archive details
and the name of our lawyer; other stuff of interest.  

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

From: Steve Karnowski <ap@telecom-digest.org>
Subject: Spammer Diversifies, Gets Rich, Goes to Jail
Date: Sat, 20 Aug 2005 19:10:38 -0500


By STEVE KARNOWSKI, Associated Press Writer

Christopher Smith's neighbors didn't know exactly what he did for a
living. But they knew well that he liked to collect expensive cars and
set off fireworks at all hours.

At an age when most of his peers could barely afford a new car,
Smith was amassing a collection that would include BMWs, Hummers, a
Ferrari, a Jaguar and a Lamborghini. And when other 20-somethings were
trying to save for down payments on modest starter homes, Smith paid
$1.1 million for a house in a more affluent suburb.

Smith got all that through his successes in massive unsolicited e-mail
marketing, authorities say. The Spamhaus Project, an anti-spam group,
considered him one of the world's worst offenders.

He was just 25 when the feds in May shut down his flagship company,
Xpress Pharmacy Direct, and seized $1.8 million in luxury cars, two
homes and $1.3 million in cash held by Smith and associates.

But even then, prosecutors say, he refused to give up.

They say he tried to relaunch his online pharmacy from an offshore
haven -- the Dominican Republic -- intending to build his business
back up to $4.1 million in sales by its second month, right where it
was before.

Brian McWilliams, author of "Spam Kings," said young people like Smith
aren't unusual in the fast-buck world of spammers.

"A lot of them are guys who haven't had success anywhere else in life
but they find this easy money to be made in the spam trade," he
said. "They don't want to give it up."

Authorities were waiting when Smith flew back to Minneapolis in late
June.

Smith remains free on bail as he awaits another hearing Thursday on
contempt-of-court charges for which prosecutors are seeking six months
in jail. He also faces a grand jury investigation of his e-mail
businesses, which could lead to more charges and potentially longer
sentences.

The high school dropout, operating under the nickname Rizler, got his
start in the late 1990s, selling police radar and laser jammers.
Along the way he added cable TV descramblers and other products.

After Time Warner Cable got an injunction in 2002 putting Smith out of
the descrambler business, he diversified and generated more than $18
million in sales from drugs online, including the often-abused
narcotic painkiller Vicodin, without obtaining proper prescriptions,
federal prosecutors say.

Smith's former neighbors in a hilly, heavily wooded part of
Burnsville were glad to see him go after he moved to pricier, more
secluded digs in Prior Lake over the winter.

Sue Parson said things began to get out of hand in May 2004. When her
husband complained about loud fireworks, she said, Smith's response
was: "Too bad. We can set them off if we want to." Not long after one
complaint, someone set off fireworks at the foot of the Parsons'
driveway early one morning, she said.

Neighbors didn't know exactly what Smith did for a living. Parson said
he told one person he had a lawn service, another that he was "into
computers" and yet another that he was "into pharmaceuticals."

"There were these Hummers outside, the limos outside," she said. "It
was like, 'Where do these people get their money from?'"

Just four days after a federal judge put Xpress Pharmacy Direct into
receivership, Smith made what prosecutors say was a brazen play to
stay in business.

Smith took off for the Dominican Republic and went to work setting up
a new online pharmacy and call center, where prosecutors say helped
he'd be safe from extradition and out of the reach of the U.S. Drug
Enforcement Administration.

Former employees, his wife and even his girlfriend brought or sent
Smith "substantial sums of cash" there, and one former employee passed
him a disk with data on more than 100,000 Xpress Pharmacy customers,
court documents and testimony allege.

Smith even managed to withdraw some money from an account that was
supposed to be frozen. He also launched two new Web sites, the
documents allege.

In the Dominican Republic, Smith was a guest of Creaghan Harry, a
man the government described as another notorious spammer.

According to the court documents, Harry, who runs a call center there,
earned more than $2 million from Smith for telemarketing.

Harry said the call center he manages, Santo Domingo-based Americas
Best Worldwide, was just one of many that took orders for Smith. He
said it had no other connection with Smith's new business.

"We basically got pulled in to this because Chris Smith decided to
come down here," Harry told The Associated Press. "But we are not his
company or even his call center. Taking pharmaceutical orders is only
a small part of our business."

Harry acknowledged that Smith had stayed in his Santo Domingo
apartment for a week in early June, but then left for a beach resort
in Boca Chica, outside Santo Domingo, where he took up scuba
diving. He then went to the eastern island resort town of Punta Cana,
Harry said.

"It just seemed Chris was on vacation," he said.

Though Smith mentioned over a few lunches in Santo Domingo that he
planned to start up a new business, he didn't offer details, Harry said.

Whether it was a business trip or vacation, it ended with Smith
going straight to jail when he returned to Minnesota.

Authorities arrested him on a contempt-of-court warrant and said in
court last month that they plan to seek unspecified criminal charges
against him. Assistant U.S. Attorney Nicole Engisch told U.S. District
Judge Michael Davis a grand jury has been hearing evidence against
Smith and others she did not name. She said she did not know when
indictments might come down, nor did she say what the charges might
be.

Smith and his stepfather declined to comment on his legal troubles as
he left the courthouse the next day after his release on $50,000
bail. Prosecutors also declined to comment on the case, citing the
ongoing investigation.

Smith's father, Scott Smith, declined to comment for this story after
initially agreeing to talk. In an earlier interview with the Star
Tribune, he portrayed his son as a business genius who dropped out of
high school because he was bored.

"That spamming stuff they talk about, sometimes Chris may have been a
middleman helping other business people, but he never broke the law.
I'm sure of it," Scott Smith told the newspaper.

As Smith sat in Davis' courtroom, wearing orange jail garb and
flashing an occasional forlorn smile at his father and wife,
high-profile local defense lawyer Joe Friedberg conceded that Smith
had violated the judge's May 20 injunction by taking $2,000 from a
frozen account.

But Friedberg contends the government hasn't proven that anything
else Smith did in the Dominican Republic was illegal.

As Davis freed Smith on bail, he put him on home monitoring and
ordered him to surrender his passports.

And Davis admonished Smith: Stay away from computers and don't set
up any more Web sites.

On the Net:
Spamhaus background on Rizler: http://www.rizler.com

Associated Press Writer Peter Prengaman contributed to this story
from Santo Domingo, Dominican Republic.

Steve Karnowski can be reached at skarnowski(at)ap.org

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. AP News Radio and headlines 24/7 at:
http://telecom-digest.org/td-extra/AP.html

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

From: Huw Jones <newswire@telecom-digest.org> 
Subject: Campaigners Prepare to Battle EU Data Storage Bill
Date: Sun, 21 Aug 2005 13:09:39 -0500


By Huw Jones

Telecom firms and civil liberty groups are readying themselves to
influence a battle next month between European Union member states and
the European Commission over rival plans to log calls and emails to
combat terror.

A council of EU justice and interior ministers put forward a
data-logging plan after the March 2004 Madrid train bombs, saying
retaining such data would help tackle terror and other crime. The
attacks in London in July revived the plan.

EU ministers have pledged to reach final agreement in October, but the
Commission hopes it can persuade ministers to switch to the
executive's proposal for a directive next month.

The council text would only need member state approval, while the
Commission's would need the go-ahead from the European Parliament as
well as member states.

"We expect the directive to be presented mid-September," said
Alexander Alvaro, the German EU deputy responsible for data retention.
The Commission has said it would present its proposal after the
summer.

"I don't believe the council will ignore this because if they do it
would be an institutional slap in the face. Lobbying has increased
quite a lot and now it's becoming serious."

The presidency of the EU, currently held by Britain, had no immediate
comment.

Neither proposal seeks to log the content of email and telephone
traffic. A draft of the Commission's proposal was recently obtained by
the European Digital Rights group EDRI.

The Commission wants calls and email traffic to be retained for six
months to a year, while member states proposed up to 48 months. The
council plan wants all Web addresses people use to be logged but the
Commission draft makes no mention of this.

Over 27,000 people have already signed an EDRI online anti-logging
petition.

"Large scale data mining will lead to many people's innocent behavior
becoming suspicious," said Sjoera Nas, board member of EDRI, which
sees no need for either proposal.

"There will be this whole climactic battle in September between the
Commission and the justice ministers," Nas said.

Telecom firms outside the European Union also worry a lengthy
retention period would become the norm for them as well.

"What benefit is only half a call record? If American carriers are
either originating or terminating an international call, then they are
in fact covered by this requirement," Stephen Trotman, a senior vice
president at U.S. carrier industry group CompTel in Washington said.
 
"What's going to happen is that the additional cost of retaining,
storing and sorting that data is going to be shifted to the consumer.
The consumers will pay for their own privacy to be invaded," Trotman
said.

The council plan makes no mention of who would pay extra IT costs,
while the Commission says in its draft proposal that governments
should contribute toward compliance costs.

A study by Dutch Erasmus University shows in nearly all 65 cases where
traffic data was useful in combating crime, the police got the
information they needed from data going back three months -- the
typical period data is already stored by telecom firms for billing
purposes.

"Three months in general should be enough for storing data," Alvaro
said.

German industry bodies BITKOM, BDI and VATM said a solid and
adequate impact study of the proposals has not been done and that any
retention period must not exceed six months.

Copyright 2005 Reuters Limited.

NOTE: For more telecom/internet/networking/computer news from the
daily media, check out our feature 'Telecom Digest Extra' each day at
http://telecom-digest.org/td-extra/more-news.html . Hundreds of new
articles daily.

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

From: bonomi@host122.r-bonomi.com (Robert Bonomi)
Subject: Re: Two VOIP Boxes on the Same Port
Date: Sat, 20 Aug 2005 21:47:56 -0000
Organization: Widgets, Inc.


In article <telecom24.377.5@telecom-digest.org>, Fred Atkinson
<fatkinson@mishmash.com> wrote:

> As I've previously mentioned, I've just moved from Columbia, SC to
> Sylva, NC.  I took my Vonage phone (Columbia number) with me and got a
> new VOIP phone from Voicepulse (Sylva, NC number).  I've got both of
> them connected to my Cisco 831 router via Ethernet cables.

> I've been having some problems getting fast busies when dialing.  I
> hang up and dial it a second time and it goes through.  Voicepulse was
> not able to sort it out so I contacted Sipura, who was the
> manufacturer of the VOIP adapter (Sipura 3000).

> Sipura said that having two VOIP devices on a single router can be a
> problem.  To fix it, they said that you have to change the SIP port on
> one of them.  Typically, I believe they said that it was on port 5061
> and 5062.  They suggested changing one of them to 5063 or above.

> I called Voicepulse and asked them to make the change.  They said that
> wasn't possible.  I spoke with the supervisor there.  He said that
> their system wouldn't accomodate me using a different SIP port from
> the one I have now.

> Can the VOIP experts on here sort this out?  To expand upon my system,
> I have a Cisco 831 home/office router connected to Mediacom
> cablemodem.  Each VOIP device is plugged directly into an Ethernet
> port on the router.

> Is Sipura's story plausible?  How likely is it that Voicepulse is
> telling the truth about not being able to change the SIP port to
> communicate with their system?

They are right. And you are right.

To use their system, you have to contact their system at the IP
address and port number(s) they specify.

YOUR system, on the other hand, can be at any IP address you can use,
and can _originate_ from any available port number on that address.

Two devices trying to use the same originating address _and_ the same
port number *will* confuse anything you try to talk to.

Details of 'fixing' the situation depend on the gory details of your
set-up.  Do you have multiple IP addresses available to you?  Or only
a single address?  Are you using DHCP?  Are you using NAT/PAT?
Depending on those answers, you _may_ be able to do the necessary
things entirely in the Cisco 831.  Or, you may have to access the
configuration stuff for the VoIP devices.

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

From: gordonb.tqwky@burditt.org (Gordon Burditt)
Subject: Re: Two VOIP Boxes on the Same Port
Date: Sun, 21 Aug 2005 00:50:23 -0000
Organization: Posted via Supernews, http://www.supernews.com


> As I've previously mentioned, I've just moved from Columbia, SC to
> Sylva, NC.  I took my Vonage phone (Columbia number) with me and got a
> new VOIP phone from Voicepulse (Sylva, NC number).  I've got both of
> them connected to my Cisco 831 router via Ethernet cables.

> I've been having some problems getting fast busies when dialing.  I
> hang up and dial it a second time and it goes through.  Voicepulse was
> not able to sort it out so I contacted Sipura, who was the
> manufacturer of the VOIP adapter (Sipura 3000).

A Sipura 3000 is effectively two SIP devices, one FXS (plug in an
analog phone) and one FXO (plug in a phone line), which can
cross-connect (e.g. dialing 911 can be routed out your local landline,
and incoming calls on the analog line can be routed to the analog
phone).  Mine came with the FXS at port 5060 and FXO at 5061.  If
yours was preconfigured by a provider, it may be configured
differently, and there may be lots of settings you can't change or
even see at the option of the provider who configured it.

> Sipura said that having two VOIP devices on a single router can be a
> problem.  To fix it, they said that you have to change the SIP port on
> one of them.  Typically, I believe they said that it was on port 5061
> and 5062.  They suggested changing one of them to 5063 or above.

You cannot have two devices on the same public IP and the same port,
as a NAT gateway cannot decide where to send packets coming in from
the outside.  Since the Sipura 3000 is two sip devices, you'd need to
set two alternate ports.

If your setup has the two VOIP devices on two different public IP
addresses (no NAT), this should present no problem (except for
bandwidth and latency issues, which mostly has to do with pipe size).

> I called Voicepulse and asked them to make the change.  They said that
> wasn't possible.  I spoke with the supervisor there.  He said that
> their system wouldn't accomodate me using a different SIP port from
> the one I have now.

This may be administratively impractical.  If you make an IP-to-IP SIP
call (as your provider will be doing to send a call to you), is there
even a syntax to specify an alternate port?  Asterisk does have one,
but it's far from obvious that everything else does.  You might be
able to get an alternate port to work for outgoing calls only on one
of the devices.

To take another example, if I set up an *EMAIL* server on an alternate
port, I may be able to specially set up one of my servers to forward
mail there (MX records do not include a port number), but there is no
way to write an email address to get most of the servers in the world
to forward mail there (e.g. user@do.main.com:26 doesn't work as an
email address on most servers).  I'd have to arrange for the mail to
be routed through a server that uses a conventional port number.

It is possible to set up SRV records to specify what port incoming
calls come in on, if someone is calling using a domain name to dial.
However this does not allow specifying two different ports where the
caller is supposed to intelligently choose which one to used based on
precognition.  Providers usually figure out where to send the call
based on registration, which may not track port numbers.

> Can the VOIP experts on here sort this out?  To expand upon my system,
> I have a Cisco 831 home/office router connected to Mediacom
> cablemodem.  Each VOIP device is plugged directly into an Ethernet
> port on the router.

I presume here that you have *ONE* public IP.  This is part of the
problem.

> Is Sipura's story plausible?  How likely is it that Voicepulse is
> telling the truth about not being able to change the SIP port to
> communicate with their system?

An unlocked Sipura 3000 can be configured for an alternate port on
your end.  A locked one might also be configurable as to port number.
The problem is more likely on their end, which does not consider the
port to connect to on an outgoing call to be a variable.


Gordon L. Burditt

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

Date: Sun, 21 Aug 2005 13:32:13 -0400
From: William Warren <william_warren_nonoise@comcast.net>
Subject: Re: Don't Forget Peter Jennings'... Flaw


Pat wrote:

> To answer your question bluntly and succintly (and with this benediction
> I hope and pray this thread soon comes to a close without having to
> rudely toss many of the messages on same) I _firmly_ and _strongly_
> support the US Constitution the way it is written. I do wish that
> those guys in the 18th century, Adams, Jefferson, et al had been able
> to tell the future, or been as succinct at times in their writings as
> I attempt to be with mine. (snore!). Especially, a wee bit more
> laborious in writing numbers one and two. Break up one to be more
> plain about religion and speech and in the case of two, to be more
> precise about terms like 'well regulated militia' and re-ordered their
> punctuation a bit differently, removing any and all doubt about each
> of those two Amendments. Both of them (one and two) give us much grief
> when there are court battles about them. 

> My opinion: if number two means what many claim it means, that a 'well
> regulated militia' refers to the National Guard or the military
> service in general and this 'well regulated' National Guard or
> military has a right to bear arms but the rest of us ordinary citizens
> do _not_ have such a right, then I would have to say that is the one
> item in the Bill of Rights which allows the _government_ (as opposed to
> regular citizens a 'right'). The National Guard or the Army does not
> have to get permission (in the form of a constitutional amendment) to
> 'bear arms'. Think about it that way; the entire Bill of Rights was
> written to provide we the people with certain rights; does it make
> sense that the second amendment is an exception to that, and it
> (second amendment) is to give the government 'rights'? The government
> does not need protection from the people; the people are the ones
> needing protection. So why would the Bill of Rights grant the 'right
> to bear arms' to its own agencies (National Guard and Army, etc).
> A 'well regulated militia', IMO, refers to _law abiding_ citizens who
> wish to arm themselves. 

> Now if 'well regulated' equals 'law abiding' (instead of equalling 'a
> government agency' as the government claims) then we have problems. 
> Far too many of us are not 'well regulated' in that sense; we grow 
> angry or we get drunk or we otherwise break the law and take our host-
> ility out on police officers and other more 'well-regulated'
> citizens. Does it seem a bit odd that the New York Times constantly
> chatters about 'gun control' yet the late publisher of that journal
> used to always get chauffered to work each day carrying a gun in his
> suit pocket or briefcase?  Many people think that 'gun control' should
> apply to everyone else _except for themselves_. I can trust me, but I
> can't trust you, that sort of thing. And you never hear of the ACLU 
> taking on a Second Amendment case; they seem to be happy with the
> status quo also. 

[snip]

Pat,

If I had to guess, and I do, I'd guess that the writers of the
amendments wanted to leave their descendants some room to
maneuver. The amendments weren't part of the original constitution
because those who wrote it believed that some things should be either
understood or left open to interpretation: they had, after all, just
finished the war for independence, and had seen first hand how easily
the common men could be stirred up and set to march, so it's my guess
that they were a little afraid of having an absolute right to bear
arms.

Nonetheless, the amendments were written and passed. I feel, though,
that the second amendment was _suppossed_ to be vague: those who wrote
it had heeded the lesson of the constitution's original authors. No one
would advocate an absolute right to bear arms: a crazy man should not
be able to buy a firearm, let alone bear or use one.

A "Well Regulated Militia" is, of necessity, a _group_ of soldiers,
not an individual. My interpretation of the amendment is that it was
intended both to give citizens the right to band together in armed
groups when needed to protect their other rights, and also to prevent
individuals from claiming the "right" to show up at town meeting with
a flintlock.

Speaking of which, let's remember the class of firearms available in
that era: single shot, muzzle loaded, non-rifled muskets which are, in
comparison to today's machines, laughable. I don't and can't be made
to believe that any of the amendment's authors would advocate a right
of any private citizen, and probably not even of a militiaman, to have
a submachine gun or even a Glock semi-automatic pistol.

The Founding Fathers were, above all else, mindful of "The Last Argument 
of Kings" -- a phrase engraved on one manarch's canons -- and I think they 
wanted this to be a never-ending debate.  They got their wish.

FWIW. Your caliber may vary.

Charles Cryderman wrote:

> Steve Sobol responded to a somewhat crass commit on Mr. Jennings:

>> You're entitled to your opinion. However, I think you're exceedingly
>> foolish if you believe any particular slant in ABC's coverage is the
>> fault of Jennings or any other reporter. Your posthumous attack seems
>> rather sleazy to me -- you should direct your ire at the people actually 
>> responsible for making decisions about coverage.

> Actually Steve you are wrong on this one. Last night August 10, 2006,
> ABC had a wonderful retrospective on Mr. Jennings. His title was
> "Senior Editor, ABC World News Tonight". As such, he was given total
> control over the content of "ABC World News Tonight - With Peter
> Jennings". This included what stores to present and how they were to
> be presented. [snip] 

> Chip Cryderman

> [TELECOM Digest Editor's Note: I am not a 'proud gun owner' and in
> fact guns scare me a lot. But I support the people who own them and
> use them _properly_ as needed. If you went around Independence here,
> you are not going to find a bunch of raving lunatics driving in the
> streets waving or displaying or shooting off their weapons. But if
> you went to at least a few private homes, you would find some weapons
> put away, out of children's reach, unloaded, etc to be used as the need
> arose. Peter Jennings was a good reporter, and he _did_  control the 
> stuff that went out on the air, but yes, he did have that one 'blind
> spot' in his life; he did not 'believe in' the private ownership of
> weapons, and he did not promote any positive publicity on private
> gun ownership; many others in the media do not either.    PAT]

It's no surprise that Mr. Jennings didn't believe in a "right" to have 
guns: for most of his life, he was a Canadian citizen.

That said, I'll also add that Mr. Jennings was a competitive television 
reporter, and he knew that telling people what they don't want to hear 
is a shortcut to the ratings cellar. I think he steered away from the 
topics because his polsters told him it was sure to offend a major 
portion of his viewers no matter what was said.

This won't be popular, but it needs mentioning anyway: Peter Jennings 
was a reflector of public opinion, not a creator. The attention paid to 
his death amazes me; I haven't bothered to check, but I'd bet that there 
were at least ten people more worthy of our admiration and remembrance 
who died on the same date. We have confused popularity with 
statesmanship, and glibness with oratory.

No matter what my opinion is of Mr. Jennings, the issue of gun "control" 
  _deserves_ attention, and I'll ask you to ask yourself one question:

Do you know someone who would be dangerous if they owned a gun?

William
(Filter noise from my email address for direct replies.)


[TELECOM Digest Editor's Note: Define 'dangerous' in your context. As
in taking _my_ life, for example? Is that supposed to be a major
issue?  Anytime it is my turn to go, I can assure you I will; there is
nothing to be afraid of. Death is actually the last thing I worry about.

And your theory on the Second Amendment is good, and worth
considering.  But I still want to know: the other nine (of the
original ten 'basics') all address the protections given to _citizens_
in this land. Why should number two be an exception, and given the
government the 'right to bear arms' (if well-regulated militia is
taken to mean Army, National Guard, etc). The citizens have the right
to speak, to have the religion they want, to be free from being
searched or seized in their homes, etc.  And then number two says 'the
_government_ has the right to bear arms' ?  Personally, I do not think
so.

I have heard these folks who say (in a real pissy, whimpering tone of
voice) "Well, we citizens do not have to bear arms, that is what the
National Guard and Army is for." Usually I tell those folks "well, in
that case we do not need free speech either; we have the New York
Times and the Washington Post and Katherine Graham's News Weak
magazine, and TELECOM Digest to do our speeches. Why do you need the
right to speak also?"

And regards the 'final argument of Kings' that is also the final
argument of the government is it not? Oh, we do not see them most 
days, and we 'voluntarily' do as we are told by the government, but
the final solution, the gun, is back there waiting, is it not? And
as needed, it will be produced and used. PAT] 

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

Subject: Re: Linux vs. Windows: TCO Comparison 
Reply-To: jhaynes@alumni.uark.edu
Organization: University of Arkansas Alumni
From: haynes@alumni.uark.edu (Jim Haynes)
Date: Sat, 20 Aug 2005 21:43:25 GMT


The Groklaw website, www.groklaw.com, has had quite a bit to say about
Ms. DiDio's contributions to the Linux vs. everything debate.  One
might want to read that before taking this too seriously.

jhhaynes at earthlink dot net

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

From: bonomi@host122.r-bonomi.com (Robert Bonomi)
Subject: Re: Local Exchange Not Local in Sylva, NC
Date: Sat, 20 Aug 2005 22:10:16 -0000
Organization: Widgets, Inc.


In article <telecom24.377.4@telecom-digest.org>, Fred Atkinson
<fatkinson@mishmash.com> wrote:

> I recently moved to Sylva, NC to work in nearby Cullowhee, NC (it's
> about a fifteen minute drive (tops) between the two places).

> Our local calling area is between three small cities, Sylva,
> Cullowhee, and Cashiers.  Anything outside that zone is long distance
> for us.

> I acquired Voicepulse VOIP service when I moved here.  They offered
> Sylva and Cashiers, NC telephone exchanges.  I got a Sylva number on
> the 534 exchange.  It's been working fine.

> Today, I tried to dial into my home number from work so I could
> check my voicemail.  I dialed 9 and then 53 and got no farther.  It
> retuned a busy signal.  We tried it from several different phones
> and got the same results.  I called the telecom guys and told them
> of this dilemma.  Despite the fact that I had explained about it
> being from a VOIP provider, he asked me several times if it was a
> Verizon exchange.  I told him no, it wasn't.  It was a special
> services exchange in the Sylva, NC area.

> He told me he couldn't get it added to the switch without going
> through a bunch of hoops (a number of people had to sign off on it).
> I couldn't believe it.  All he should have to do is call their
> provider and confirm that it is a local exchange.

Your place of work has a PBX.  Your home exchange is not known to the
'dialing plan' for that switch.

"Company policy" has a problem, regarding handling exchanges assigned
to CLECs.

This is not an issue that _you_ need to fight.  See to it that your
*boss* has your home phone number, for 'emergency' use.

Make sure said boss knows that you _cannot_ be reached via a 'company'
phone due to a 'programming problem' in the company's switch.

> Meantime, my colleagues cannot call me at home (from work) when a need
> arises.

Isn't that a SHAME!  <*grin*>

You cannot be disturbed on your non-work time, because the company you
work for won't let other employees call and bother you.

Some people would _pay_extra_ for that kind of an arrangement!  :)

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

From: Wesrock@aol.com
Date: Sat, 20 Aug 2005 19:51:06 EDT
Subject: Re: Hiroshima Marks 60th Anniversary of Atomic Bomb Attack


In a message dated Fri, 19 Aug 2005 20:07:24 -0300, jtaylor
<jtaylor@deletethis.hfx.andara.com> writes:

> The Japanese government fully intended to stop the peace negotiations
> before the attack occured, but the diplomatic staff at the Japanese
> emabssy was too slow decoding the message sent from Japan.

The Japanese intended that the message cutting off negotiations be
delivered just before the attack.  Since it was Sunday morning in
Washington, the Japanese embassy had to call the code clerk to come
in.

Since the USA had broken the Japanese diplomatic code, and had people
on duty all the time, the USA had the full text in President
Roosevelt's hands before the Japanese ambassador delivered the note.
   
And keep in mind that communications between Washington and Honolulu
weren't the simple matter they are now.  You couldn't just dial 1+.and
be connected.


Wes Leatherock
wesrock@aol.com
wleathus@yahoo.com

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

From: jmeissen@aracnet.com
Subject: Re: Yet More on FiOS
Date: 21 Aug 2005 00:24:16 GMT
Organization: http://extra.newsguy.com


In article <telecom24.377.3@telecom-digest.org>, Lee Sweet
<lee@datatel.com> wrote:

> John's comments are quite true, I believe, *if* you are in an area
> where you are "forced" to get VZN fiber.  If you aren't required to
> get the fiber, and want to use another ISP in order to run your own
> local servers, I'd retain the copper so you have the option to use
> another ISP that is more flexible.

Actually, that's not clear either. The FCC has given Verizon the right
to exclude other ISP's from their DSL circuits, too. That is set to
take effect in approximately a year.

> In VZN's defense (can't believe I'm saying that ...), I do see why
> they have blocks on inbound port 80 (for web servers) and the like,
> because of the high upload bandwidth of the fiber network (2 Mb
> mimimum?), if they didn't, *everyone* would be running servers.

Verizon plans to deliver video content in competition with the local
cable company (here it's Comcast). I doubt they're worried about
bandwidth issues.

And inbound port 25 (SMTP) doesn't use any bandwidth to speak of.

> I use Dreamhost; for $9.95 a month, I get two domains, all the email
> addresses I could want, webmail access for when I'm away from home,
> gigabytes of storage, tons of things I don't use, and even a shell
> account on their machine.  Very sastified customer here!  (See
> http://www.dreamhost.com for details.)

That's a possible alternative. But the main reason for running my own
mail server is the complete control over it. My spam blocking, for
instance, currently is running at over 150 per day with almost 100%
efficiency. I don't quarantine, and I don't worry about lost
messages. If I have to rely on someone else then I'll still have to
look at ~150 spams per day just to make sure they're legit. The ONLY
spam blocker I trust is the one my current ISP uses, which also
happens to be what I'm using.

There's lots of other reasons for running my own servers ... I can add
domains for the cost of the registration, for instance, which is real
useful with teenage kids around. At times I've hosted an IRC server
for work. The list goes on. With my own system I'm free to do what I
want with it.


John Meissen                                           jmeissen@aracnet.com

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

From: DevilsPGD <spamsucks@crazyhat.net>
Subject: Re: Not so Fast! 'xxx' Startup Put on Hold
Date: Sun, 21 Aug 2005 01:41:32 -0600
Organization: Disorganized


In message <telecom24.378.10@telecom-digest.org> TELECOM Digest Editor
noted in response to DevilsPGD spamsucks@crazyhat.net>:

> [TELECOM Digest Editor's Note: Where did you get this idea that there
> is going to be an en-masse removal of sites from one domain to another?
> I do not recall ever saying that ... those web sites who are willing
> to and gracious enough to take up residence in .xxx will be permitted
> to do so, just as sites took up residence in .info, .biz, .aero, and
> .museum ... and those of us Moderators and others who do not give a
> shit about dubious information, biz-iness ventures, museums or
> aeroplanes would be free to filter it out. But we won't be permitted
> to filter out .xxx which I suspect will be the rudest, crudest and 
> lewdest of all because (name the red herring of your choice) is likely
> to happen as a result. Oh, we will able to filter .xxx -like material
> in a sort of half-assed way using the tools we are given, but that is
> all, not .xxx domains in their entirety. 

I'm not against the creation of .xxx -- I'm only pointing out that
making it mandatory won't work.  If we make it optional then all that
has been done is to open up more domain space (Which isn't a bad
thing, but .biz and .info haven't exactly been successful, and how
many .name domains have you seen?)

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

From: Steven Lichter <shlichter@diespammers.com>
Reply-To: Die@spammers.com
Organization: I Kill Spammers, Inc.  (c) 2005 A Rot in Hell Co.
Subject: Re: Last Sad Laugh! new.site.p0rn0..ch|ldren$ 4601527
Date: Sat, 20 Aug 2005 20:50:45 GMT


TELECOM Digest Editor noted in response to spam sent by 
hongli@levitte.org:

> [TELECOM Digest Editor's Note: For those among us who are still in
> denial about the extent to which child pornography has become a big
> part of email and web sites, below is a piece of email I receive
> every few days from someone in Russia. What you see is just the
> way it arrives here each time. Much of the text below is apparently
> Cryllic or similar and unprintable on American screens, but the
> intent is quite plain.    PAT]

>     ==============================================

> Hello dear friend ! Ptownson 

> NEW (HILDREN P()RN@ AROUSE FOR YOU 

> New#site#2005#years#CH!LDREN#P0RN0#...
> DISCOUNT 5 DAY 25% click here and VELCOME in site ch!l dear friend !
> 
> çäðàñòâóéòå åñëè çàõ&icrc;òèòå óâèäèòü íàø ñàéò ò&icrc; âàì íàäà çäåëàòü 3 ýòàïà
> 1) çàéäèòå íà ñàéò  http://hondaclub.by
> 2) çàéäèòå íà forum
> 3) &icrc;ñòàâòå âàø åìàë è íàïèøèòå íàì ( ò&icrc;åñòü åìàéë àäìèíà)
> íà ñàì&icrc;ì ñàéòå http://hondaclub.by
> è âàì ïðèøëþò &icrc;ñòàëüíóþ èíô&icrc;ðìàöèþ
> ==========================================

> CHILDREN$ P()RN0
> new.s*candal0us.material*ch|ldren$.

> CHILDREN$ P()RN0

> ptownson@massis.lcs.mit.edu
> 21H0rny.super.site._ch|ldren$.f0r.adult.abs0luty.new

I get the same one, but my filters catch it and it gets dumped in the 
trash and is deleted.


The only good spammer is a dead one!!  Have you hunted one down today?
(c) 2005  I Kill Spammers, Inc.  A Rot in Hell Co.

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


TELECOM Digest is an electronic journal devoted mostly to telecomm-
unications topics. It is circulated anywhere there is email, in
addition to various telecom forums on a variety of networks such as
Compuserve and America On Line, Yahoo Groups, and other forums.  It is
also gatewayed to Usenet where it appears as the moderated newsgroup
'comp.dcom.telecom'.

TELECOM Digest is a not-for-profit, mostly non-commercial educational
service offered to the Internet by Patrick Townson. All the contents
of the Digest are compilation-copyrighted. You may reprint articles in
some other media on an occasional basis, but please attribute my work
and that of the original author.

Contact information:    Patrick Townson/TELECOM Digest
                        Post Office Box 50
                        Independence, KS 67301
                        Phone: 620-402-0134
                        Fax 1: 775-255-9970
                        Fax 2: 530-309-7234
                        Fax 3: 208-692-5145         
                        Email: editor@telecom-digest.org

Subscribe:  telecom-subscribe@telecom-digest.org
Unsubscribe:telecom-unsubscribe@telecom-digest.org

This Digest is the oldest continuing e-journal about telecomm-
unications on the Internet, having been founded in August, 1981 and
published continuously since then.  Our archives are available for
your review/research. We believe we are the oldest e-zine/mailing list
on the internet in any category!

URL information:        http://telecom-digest.org

Anonymous FTP: mirror.lcs.mit.edu/telecom-archives/archives/
  (or use our mirror site: ftp.epix.net/pub/telecom-archives)

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

*************************************************************************
*   TELECOM Digest is partially funded by a grant from                  *
*   Judith Oppenheimer, President of ICB Inc. and purveyor of accurate  *
*   800 & Dot Com News, Intelligence, Analysis, and Consulting.         *
*   http://ICBTollFree.com, http://1800TheExpert.com                    *
*   Views expressed herein should not be construed as representing      *
*   views of Judith Oppenheimer or ICB Inc.                             *
*************************************************************************

ICB Toll Free News.  Contact information is not sold, rented or leased.

One click a day feeds a person a meal.  Go to http://www.thehungersite.com

Copyright 2004 ICB, Inc. and TELECOM Digest. All rights reserved.
Our attorney is Bill Levant, of Blue Bell, PA.

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

DIRECTORY ASSISTANCE JUST 65 CENTS ONE OR TWO INQUIRIES CHARGED TO
YOUR CREDIT CARD!  REAL TIME, UP TO DATE! SPONSORED BY TELECOM DIGEST
AND EASY411.COM   SIGN UP AT http://www.easy411.com/telecomdigest !

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

Visit http://www.mstm.okstate.edu and take the next step in your
career with a Master of Science in Telecommunications Management
(MSTM) degree from Oklahoma State University (OSU). This 35
credit-hour interdisciplinary program is designed to give you the
skills necessary to manage telecommunications networks, including
data, video, and voice networks.

The MSTM degree draws on the expertise of the OSU's College
of Business Administration; the College of Arts and Sciences; and the
College of Engineering, Architecture and Technology. The program has
state-of-the-art lab facilities on the Stillwater and Tulsa campus
offering hands-on learning to enhance the program curriculum.  Classes
are available in Stillwater, Tulsa, or through distance learning.

Please contact Jay Boyington for additional information at
405-744-9000, mstm-osu@okstate.edu, or visit the MSTM web site at
http://www.mstm.okstate.edu

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

   In addition, gifts from Mike Sandman, Chicago's Telecom Expert
   have enabled me to replace some obsolete computer equipment and
   enter the 21st century sort of on schedule. His mail order 
   telephone parts/supplies service based in the Chicago area has
   been widely recognized by Digest readers as a reliable and very
   inexpensive source of telecom-related equipment. Please request
   a free catalog today at http://www.sandman.com 
   ---------------------------------------------------------------

Finally, the Digest is funded by gifts from generous readers such as
yourself who provide funding in amounts deemed appropriate. Your help
is important and appreciated. A suggested donation of fifty dollars
per year per reader is considered appropriate. See our address above.
Please make at least a single donation to cover the cost of processing
your name to the mailing list. 

All opinions expressed herein are deemed to be those of the
author. Any organizations listed are for identification purposes only
and messages should not be considered any official expression by the
organization.


End of TELECOM Digest V24 #379
******************************