TELECOM Digest     Thu, 25 Aug 2005 16:11:00 EDT    Volume 24 : Issue 385

Inside This Issue:                             Editor: Patrick A. Townson

    Japan Internet Providers Spy and Inform on Suicide Postings (Reuters)
    Chinese Web Sites Used to Target USA Systems (Reuters News Wire)
    Internet Phone Companies May Cut Off Customers (Bruce Myerson)
    Melding of Cell Phones and Wi-Fi Will be Cosmic (Kevin Maney)
    The Front Lines - August 25, 2005 (Jonathan Marashlian)
    Report: Vonage to File for IPO (USTelecom dailyLead)
    The Luncheon Meat Associated With Junk Email? (Lisa Hancock)
    Re: Broadband Competition Must Surely be Working (Garrett Wollman)
    Re: Broadband Competition Must Surely be Working (John Levine)
    Re: Broadband Competition Must Surely be Working (Neal McLain)
    Re: Broadband Competition Must Surely be Working (jmeissen@aracnet.com)
    Re: An Exciting Weekend With a Sneak Thief (Steven Lichter)
    Spam With Some Commentary: Purchase of Your Phones (Daniel Frank)
    Help Wanted With Telecom Chat Room (TELECOM Digest Editor)

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: Reuters News Wire <reuters@telecom-digest.org> 
Subject: Japan Internet Providers Spy and Inform on Suicide Postings
Date: Thu, 25 Aug 2005 10:28:34 -0500


Japan's communications and Internet services industry is planning to
provide police information on people who post messages suggesting they
may be close to committing suicide.

Four communications industry groups have worked out guidelines for
submitting the information, which could include the names and
addresses of such people, Kyodo news agency reported on Thursday.

Rising numbers of Japanese are dying each year in group suicides after
meeting online via suicide web sites, posing a new problem for
officials trying to tackle the nation's alarmingly high suicide rate.

The guidelines mandate disclosing the information to police only as an
emergency measure when suicide attempts are believed to be imminent.

The industry groups will present the guidelines, drawn up with help
from the Internal Affairs and Communications Ministry and National
Police Agency, to group members for their feedback, aiming to put them
into practice in October, Kyodo added.

Officials could not be immediately reached for confirmation.

According to police, 32,325 Japanese took their own lives in 2004,
down from the record 34,427 who killed themselves the year before but
still the seventh straight year of suicides rising above 30,000.

The number of people who committed group suicides linked to the
Internet came to 70 in the first half of this year, eclipsing last
year's total of 55, Kyodo said.

No religious prohibitions exist against suicide in Japan and it has
long been seen as a way to escape failure, or of saving loved ones
from embarrassment or financial loss.

In 2000, according to the World Health Organization, Japan's suicide
rate was 35.2 per 100,000 for men and 13.4 per 100,000 for women. The
rate in the United States that same year was 17.1 per 100,000 for men
and 4.0 per 100,000 for women.

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: Reuters News Wire <reuters@telecom-digest.org>
Subject: Chinese Web Sites used to Target U.S. Systems
Date: Thu, 25 Aug 2005 10:30:23 -0500


Web sites in China are being used as a staging ground for attacks on
computer networks in the U.S. Defense Department and other agencies,
the Washington Post reported on Thursday.

The newspaper said no classified systems have been compromised but
officials were concerned that data pulled together from different
agencies could become useful intelligence to an adversary.

The newspaper cited four government officials who spoke separately
about the intrusions, which were said to go back two or three
years. It said the FBI had launched an investigation.

"It's not just the Defense Department but a wide variety of networks
that have been hit," including the departments of State, Energy, and
Homeland Security as well as defense contractors, one official was
quoted as saying.

"This is an ongoing, organized attempt to siphon off information from
our unclassified systems." the official said.

All of the officials spoke on condition of anonymity because of the
sensitivity of the matter, the Post said.

The report said U.S. analysts were divided over whether the attacks
were a coordinated effort by the Chinese government to penetrate
U.S. government databanks or if it was the work of other hackers using
Chinese networks to hide the origin of the intrusions.

Pentagon figures show that more attempts to scan Defense Department
systems come from China than any other country, the Post said.

But a Pentagon official said that does not mean China is where the
probes start.

Lt. Col. Mike VanPutte, vice director of operations for a new task
force that manages the Pentagon's computer networks, told the
newspaper that China is a convenient "steppingstone" for hackers
because of the large number of computers there that can be
compromised.


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. See USA Today news headlines at:
http://telecom-digest.org/td-extra/othernews.html

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

From: Bruce Meyerson <ap@telecom-digest.org>
Subject: Internet Phone Companies May Cut Off Customers
Date: Thu, 25 Aug 2005 10:27:14 -0500


By BRUCE MEYERSON, AP Business Writer

Providers of Internet-based phone services may be forced next week to
cut off tens of thousands of customers who haven't formally
acknowledged that they understand the problems they may encounter
dialing 911 in an emergency.

The Federal Communications Commission had set the Monday deadline as
an interim safeguard while providers of Internet calling, also known
as "VoIP" for Voice over Internet Protocol, rush to comply with an FCC
order requiring full emergency 911 capabilities by late November.

Vonage Holdings Corp., the biggest VoIP carrier with more than 800,000
subscribers, told The Associated Press Wednesday that 96 percent of
its customer base have responded to the company's notices about 911
risks. But that still means as many as 31,000 accounts would need to
be shut off as early as Tuesday.

Other leading carriers declined to quantify the response rate beyond
the updates they were required to file with the FCC two weeks
ago. AT&T Corp.  spokesman Gary Morgenstern said customer
acknowledgments are now "significantly higher" than the 77 percent
figure it reported to the FCC on Aug. 10.

The FCC issued its order in May after a series of highly publicized
incidents in which VoIP users were unable to connect with a live
emergency dispatch operator when calling 911.

Vonage, AT&T and other carriers have indicated that they plan to
comply with the FCC deadline to disconnect customers.

"There is no way to know just how close (to a 100 percent customer
response) we will get by Monday," Vonage spokeswoman Brooke Schulz
said.

She added that the company has been meeting with the FCC weekly "to
seek their guidance as to how to implement the approaching Aug. 29
cutoff date."

But Time Warner Cable, the biggest VoIP provider in the cable TV
industry with more than 600,000 users, has told the FCC it sees no
need to disconnect anyone.

The division of Time Warner Inc. said in its FCC filing that all
customers have already been adequately informed about the risk of
losing 911 service in a power outage -- the primary issue for
cable-based VoIP services -- and that all have already acknowledged
that risk.

Some VoIP users have expressed anger on Web forums at what they
perceive as a heavy-handed approach by the FCC, while others have
mistakenly seen the disconnection warnings as an arbitrary policy
adopted by their service providers.

Compared with many vague government pronouncements, the wording of the
FCC order is clear-cut on the disconnections, which could create a
situation where some VoIP users suddenly find themselves with no phone
service at all during an emergency rather than a functioning phone
with inferior 911 service.

The FCC declined to say how it might enforce or check up on compliance
with the order, which originally called for disconnections in late
July before the agency pushed the deadline to Aug. 29. The agency also
declined to discuss whether it might allow another temporary reprieve.

Unlike the traditional telephone network, where phone numbers are
associated with a specific location, VoIP users can place a call from
virtually anywhere they have access to a high-speed Internet
connection.

That "roaming" flexibility, while generally viewed as a benefit, can
make it more complex to connect VoIP accounts to the computer systems
that automatically route 911 calls to the nearest emergency dispatcher
and instantly transmit the caller's location and phone number to the
operator who answers the call.

As a result, most VoIP providers have only been able to offer a
watered-down version of 911 service that often directs emergency calls
to a general administrative phone number at a local public safety
office. In many cases, those lines are not staffed by emergency
operators, and some may even play only a recording or go unanswered,
particularly during non-peak hours.

In addition, while traditional phone lines generally keep working
during a blackout, VoIP users might not be able to dial 911 during a
power outage because the high-speed Internet modems, phone adapters
and personal computers needed for VoIP calling rely on electrical
outlets and batteries.

Cable-based VoIP services have avoided the roaming issue by tying each
phone number to a specific location and emergency dispatch center.

But VoIP providers who allow their customers to use their numbers in
multiple locations face major challenges. They need to adopt a
technology that will patch their customers into a disparate national
patchwork of 911 call-routing systems and databases. That means they
must reach an interconnection agreement with each of the more than
1,000 local phone companies who maintain and operate those 911
systems.


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. For AP News Radio and other headlines, go to:
http://telecom-digest.org/td-extra/AP.html

To chat about this report or other items in the Digest, go to:
http://telecom-digest.org/td-extra/chatpage.html

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

From: Kevin Maney <usa-today@telecom-digest.org>
Subject: Melding of Cell Phones and Wi_Fi Will be a Cosmic, Man 
Date: Thu, 25 Aug 2005 12:26:30 -0500


Back in 1965, Bob Dylan took the stage with an electric guitar, and
although some folk faithful booed, the enlightened went, "Oooo, you
can combine folk AND rock. Folk-rock, man.  Dig it."

And nothing was the same again.

This kind of thing is about to happen with cell phones.

Over the next few years, companies will start selling dual-mode
cellular/Wi-Fi phones. The phones will be able to make voice calls
either on a cellular network, or by connecting via Wi-Fi wireless
Internet to make calls using VoIP (a.k.a. Voice over Internet
Protocol).

Cell-Fi, man. Dig it.

When in range of Wi-Fi in your office, home, Starbucks the phone will
make calls using VoIP,which should be cheaper and better quality than
a typical cell call. When there's no Wi-Fi, the phone will switch to
the cell network.

That might not sound like a big deal, but it is. These phones will
alter the dynamics of the telecom industry and change the way
consumers think about phone service.

People could truly have one phone that is their home and cell phone,
with all the advantages of both. Cell-Fi phones are the beginning of
the end for common wired telephone service, which will become the
bottom-rung stepchild of its industry the equivalent of AM radio,
single-blade razors and film cameras.

"The implications for the industry are huge," says Keith Nissen,
analyst at research firm In-stat, which predicts 66 million cell-Fi
phones in use by 2009.

But we're not there yet. The industry is still experimenting with
every aspect of this technology, including the chips and software that
make it go, the systems and standards for switching calls between
cellular and Wi-Fi, and the business models for offering it to
consumers and corporations.

Japanese cellular provider DoCoMo is probably the furthest along. Over
the past few months, DoCoMo began offering cell-Fi phones on a limited
basis. One is made by NEC, another by Motorola.

Just about every cell phone maker has some version of the technology
in the works. The Nokia 9500 is a cell phone that can connect to
Wi-Fi, but it's not set up to do VoIP calls. Some hackers have
figured out how to put Internet phone service Skype on a Nokia 9500
and make free phone calls over Wi-Fi, but it's apparently pretty
clunky. Nokia meanwhile is working on a real cell-Fi phone that it
plans to start offering to business customers early next year.

Corporations love the concept. A company could give employees one
phone. In any of the company's offices, that phone would connect to a
secure Wi-Fi network (presuming the company installs one), and act
like a typical office desk phone. Travel from a field office in
St. Louis to a subsidiary in Istanbul, and your phone would operate
just as if you were sitting at your desk same phone number, voice mail
and every other feature.

Outside the company, the phone would become a cell phone, with the
same phone number as you have at the office. At home, assuming you
have Wi-Fi, the phone could securely connect through the Internet back
to your corporate network and once again become your work phone great
for people who sometimes work at home.

For consumers, analyst Nissen thinks that the likes of Verizon
Wireless and Sprint will offer combination cellular-VoIP packages.
This could work to a wireless company's advantage because, Nissen
figures, up to 30% of cell phone calls are no made inside homes. If
those calls could be routed through the relatively cheap Internet
instead of over costly cell networks, wireless companies would save
money and free up capacity.

Because of the cost savings, a provider might be able to offer a
bucket of thousands of minutes of cell-Fi service for maybe
$50. "That's enough minutes so consumers just make phone calls and
don''t worry where it goes," Nissen says. Even the most chatty people
would have a hard time using 2,000 minutes a month.

You'd get one number for home and cellular. Same voice mail. One
bill. Cheaper because you're paying for one phone service, not two.

Once cell-Fi service is in place and priced right, consumers will jump
on it and get rid of their land lines.  This will happen, much as
there came a day when people realized it was time to get a car instead
of a horse, or a gas stove instead of a wood-burning stove.

In the meantime, the whole industry is wrestling with some interesting
questions big and small.

On the big side: Who will have a leg up in cell-Fi? Maybe today''s
wireless carriers, because they have the cellular piece. But it could
be today's broadband providers, whether phone companies selling DSL
or the cable companies. They have the VoIP piece.

Or might it be a third party, like Skype?  Or Google, which is on such
a roll it could open a chain of bowling alleys and make a killing?

Earlier this year, Time Warner Cable started trying to sell cellular
service in Kansas City. Seems like a smart step if cell-Fi is
coming. My neighborhood looks like it's been attacked by giant moles
as Verizon digs up everything to put in broadband lines a good idea if
Verizon wants to marry wireless to VoIP.

As for little questions: Nokia wonders whether, in some circumstances,
people might NOT want a seamless handoff between Wi-Fi and cellular.

"In your office, you're using your Wi-Fi phone and walking around, and
as you get close to a window, it might switch to cellular," says Nokia
executive Gerard Bruen. "Then you walk back to your desk and it
switches to Wi-Fi again. That might cause some issues."

And how about airplanes? Airlines, it seems, are going to nix cell
phone usage in the air. But they will increasingly provide wireless
Internet. If you have a cell-Fi phone and it's connecting through
Wi-Fi and allowing you to talk is that against the rules? Or will you
figure that out only after your fellow passengers flush your cell-Fi
phone down the commode?

Kevin Maney has covered technology for USA TODAY since 1985. His
column appears Wednesdays. Click here for an index of his Technology
columns. E-mail him at: kmaney@usatoday.com.

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. Read USA Today headlines at no charge each day at
http://telecom-digest.org/td-extra/othernews.html

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

From: Jonathan Marashlian <jsm@thlglaw.com>
Subject: The Front Lines - August 25, 2005
Date: Thu, 25 Aug 2005 10:35:39 -0400
Organization: The Helein Law Group


http://www.thefrontlines-hlg.com/ The FRONT LINES
http://www.thlglaw.com/

Advancing The Cause of Competition in the Telecommunications Industry 

FCC REGULATORY FEES DUE NO LATER THAN SEPTEMBER 7th 

The Federal Communications Commission has published a notice in the
Federal Register announcing the Fiscal Year 2005 Regulatory Payment
window is now available to accept annual regulatory fee payments.
Regulatory fee payments will be accepted from August 23, 2005 through
September 7, 2005.  Any payments received after 11:59 p.m. September
7, 2005 will be assessed a 25% late fee.

If your company is registered with the FCC as an interstate carrier
(i.e., Form 499 registration) you should have already received an
invoice for Regulatory Fees.

FCC EXTENDS VoIP E-911 REPORTING AND COMPLIANCE DEADLINES

On July 26, 2005, the FCC's Enforcement Bureau released a "guidance"
notice to Interconnected VoIP providers regarding the July 29, 2005
E-911 customer notification deadlines.  In the notice, the Bureau
provided additional information concerning its planned enforcement of
the VoIP E-911 subscriber notification provisions of the FCC's Rules.
The FCC also extended the deadline for compliance by 30 days, to
approximately August 29, 2005, provided the VoIP provider has met
certain reporting requirements by August 10, 2005.

FCC ENFORCEMENT BUREAU PROPOSES OVER $2.5 MILLION IN FORFEITURES
AGAINST 5 CARRIERS FOR ALLEGEDLY VIOLATING USF AND OTHER REGULATORY
PROGRAM RULES

In the past month, the FCC has issued Notices of Apparent Liability
("NALs") totaling over $2.5 million against five telecommunications
carriers for apparently violating Universal Service Fund ("USF") and
other regulatory program laws, including those for the Telecommuni-
cations Relay Service ("TRS"), the North American Numbering Plan
Administration ("NANPA"), and regulatory fees.

The programs at issue in the NALs further important statutory and
regulatory goals.  The USF ensures that consumers in all regions of
the nation have access to affordable, quality telecommunications
services.  The TRS fund enables persons with hearing or speech
disabilities to communicate by telephone with the help of a relay
operator.  The NANPA ensures the equitable availability of telephone
numbers.  Regulatory fees distribute the cost of certain regulatory
activities.  Under the Communications Act and the Commission's rules,
every telecommunications carrier that provides interstate service must
contribute to these programs on an equitable basis.  The Commission
requires carriers to register with the Commission in order to monitor
activities in the telecommunications marketplace.

The five corporations that are the subject of the NALs are: Carerra
Communications, LP, InPhonic, Inc., Teletronics, Inc., Telecom
Management, Inc., and OCMC, Inc.

According to FCC News Releases, the NALs help level the playing field
for all telecommunications carriers by demonstrating a "no tolerance
policy" for any carrier that fails to pay its required USF and other
regulatory obligations.  The apparent violations distort the
marketplace by causing carriers in compliance with the requirements to
carry a disproportionate share of the costs of funding these programs
and frustrate the purposes for which Congress and the Commission
established the programs.

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

The Front Lines is a free publication of The Helein Law Group, P.C.,
providing clients and interested parties with valuable information,
news, and updates regarding regulatory and legal developments
primarily impacting companies engaged in the competitive
telecommunications industry.

The Front Lines does not purport to offer legal advice nor does it
establish a lawyer-client relationship with the reader. If you have
questions about a particular article, general concerns, or wish to
seek legal counsel regarding a specific regulatory or legal matter
affecting your company, please contact our firm at 703-714-1313 or
visit our website:

http://www.thlglaw.com/ www.THLGlaw.com

The Helein Law Group, P.C.
8180 Greensboro Drive, Suite 700
McLean, Virginia 22102

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

Date: Thu, 25 Aug 2005 11:21:17 EDT
From: USTelecom dailyLead  <ustelecom@dailylead.com>
Subject: Report: Vonage to File For IPO


USTelecom dailyLead
August 25, 2005
http://www.dailylead.com/latestIssue.jsp?i=24123&l=2017006

		TODAY'S HEADLINES
	
NEWS OF THE DAY
* Report: Vonage to file for IPO
BUSINESS & INDUSTRY WATCH
* SBC to offer Yahoo! music service
* Nokia widens lead in global handset market
* Tech powerhouses join power line broadband group
* Motorola may sell phones geared toward children
* Cablers edge telcos in Q2 broadband growth
USTELECOM SPOTLIGHT 
* Today! Personeta presents:  Profiting from converged services for SMBs
EMERGING TECHNOLOGIES
* Intel teams with Skype on VoIP
* Have you heard? Voice is back
REGULATORY & LEGISLATIVE
* Cell phone carriers jump on NYC's subway plan

Follow the link below to read quick summaries of these stories and others.
http://www.dailylead.com/latestIssue.jsp?i=24123&l=2017006

Legal and Privacy information at
http://www.dailylead.com/about/privacy_legal.jsp

SmartBrief, Inc.
1100 H ST NW, Suite 1000
Washington, DC 20005

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

From: hancock4@bbs.cpcn.com
Subject: The Luncheon Meat Associated With Junk Email?
Date: 25 Aug 2005 09:28:40 -0700
Organization: http://groups.google.com


There's a name given to junk email that is the same as a pork luncheon
meat product produced by Hormel.  I don't think the Hormel company is
too pleased about their product associated with something negative and
undesirable, but the usage has become widespread.

I was wondering if this word association has helped or hindered sales
of the food product.

The meat product has been around for years.  It was given to troops
during WW II.  Complaints then arose about it, but they were NOT about
the quality or taste of the product, which was fine.  The problem was
that the troops in the field were given that as meal three times a
day, seven days a week and they got sick of the monotony.  The
Quartermaster Corps attempted to provide a variety of tasty food for
front line troops, but was constrained by (1) shipping and preserving
food from the U.S. to Europe and the Pacific, 2) shipping food from
foreign ports to the front line, 3) preparing food in combat
conditions to serve mobile troops.  The official history (the Army
"green series" books) goes into interesting candid detail on their
logistical challenges and their efforts to overcome them**.  (They
freely admitted that their "powdered lemon drink" proved more useful
as a floor cleaner than tasty beverage.)

Getting back to words and communication, it is interesting how the word
"pig" is so contradictory.  As I understand it, the pig is actually a
nice animal and some people have them as pets.  But we have so many
negative "pig" usages -- a nasty term for cops, sloppy eating,
greediness, an overly aggressive man, rude behavior etc.  Yet pig
meats -- processed luncheon meats*, pork, ham, bacon,  scrapple*, etc.,
are very popular foods.

(*balogna, salami, hot dogs, sausage, liverwurst, etc.  Scrapple is a
popular Philadelphia food made from scraps.)

(**The combat cooks used mobile gasoline stoves, but the stoves
required unleaded gas otherwise the burners would clog up from the
lead.  The army stocked leaded gas for vehicles, carrying a separate
fuel was another burden.  As an aside, apparently gasoline fired
stoves and heaters were popular at one time, but no longer.  Anyone
know why?  Gasoline too flammable?  Why didn't they use safer kerosene
back then?)


Public replies, please.


[TELECOM Digest Editor's Note: I sometimes give scraps to my cats to
eat, although I am sort of particular about which kind and how much.
They are better off with genuine cat food rather than left-over human
food. 

Regards the use of the term 'spam' for unwanted email, my impression
has always been that Hormel treats it like a joke. Consider for
example various television commercials for Spam (the meat product) in
recent months: _they are quite funny_, IMO. In one, a family is
sitting down to dinner and they have a guest. The guest comments on
the delicious quality of the food she is being served, and asks the
cook about the recipe. The cook enumerates the various ingredients,
and then says "I put a lot of sliced up Spam in it also." As he says
the word 'Spam' the camera closes in on his face and mouth as he
deliberatly and willfully pronounces the word. The guest tell the cook
it was really good, and looking at the serving dish she exclaims, "I
wish there were more, I would have another serving, but it is all
gone." Her face has a frown. "Oh, no," says the cook, "there is a lot
more, we always have plenty of Spam." The cooks snaps his fingers and
says, "More Spam, please", (again we see his mouth up close,
deliberatly pronoucing the word) and a huge, semi-tailer truck full
of little cans of Spam drives through, and dumps its huge load all
over the family computer which is sitting nearby.

In the second Hormel advertisement, some guy is sitting at his
computer doing some work. Something bad has happened because we see
him turn around and face the camera with an angry look on his face; up
close we see his contorted mouth as he yells, "more spam!" and angrily
tries to erase it all. When he says 'more spam' the same semi-trailer
truck backs up and dumps its load of Spam cans all over the computer,
burying the machine totally under the cans. In both commercials, as
the truck dumps its load, one of the little cans of Spam flips over
upright so its label is upright, and the word 'Spam' fills the screen
then another image saying 'a product of Hormel Meat Company; find it
at your grocers.'  PAT]
  
------------------------------

From: wollman@khavrinen.csail.mit.edu (Garrett Wollman)
Subject:  Re: Broadband Competition Must Surely be Working
Date: Thu, 25 Aug 2005 13:11:20 UTC
Organization: MIT Computer Science & Artificial Intelligence Laboratory


In article <telecom24.384.6@telecom-digest.org>,
 <hancock4@bbs.cpcn.com> wrote:

> So, if a telecom provider wants to bundle services, why shouldn't it?

Because the market for residential communications services cannot
support what economists call "effective competition".  The barriers to
entry in "local loop" services are so high that allowing bundling
stifles competition on the services built on top.

What should have been done back in 1984, and wasn't, is the unbundling
of outside plant from telephone service (with both by preference
provided by separate companies).  By the late 1990s, most states
understood this, and implemented a similar model for energy
deregulation: you buy your energy from a competitive supplier, who
then must contract with a regulated distribution company to deliver it
to you.

-GAWollman

-- 

Garrett A. Wollman    | As the Constitution endures, persons in every
wollman@csail.mit.edu | generation can invoke its principles in their own
Opinions not those    | search for greater freedom.
of MIT or CSAIL.      | - A. Kennedy, Lawrence v. Texas, 539 U.S. 558 (2003)

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

Date: 25 Aug 2005 14:20:44 -0000
From: John Levine <johnl@iecc.com>
Subject: Re: Broadband Competition Must Surely be Working
Organization: I.E.C.C., Trumansburg NY USA


>> My DSL circuit is carried on a wire-pair that is nearly 50 years old,

> That's nice.  But a lot of old loop plant was replaced, in whole or in
> part.

I think you will be surprised to find out how little "a lot" is in

>> There *IS* a third alternative.  Separate the 'content' from the
>> 'delivery infrastructure'.

> That brings back regulation.  We broke up the Bell System to get away
> from regulation and to go to competition.

My, how soon we forget.  The Bell breakup was about long distance
competition, and LD has indeed been quite competitive, at least until
all of the LD carriers merge into one in a couple of years.  But the
breakup made no difference at all to local competition.  Your local
Bell company was and is just as much of a monopoly after the breakup
as before.

> So, if a telecom provider wants to bundle services, why shouldn't it?

Because the telecom provider is a monopoly, or now maybe a duopoly.
The only companies with wires into everyone's house are the phone
company and the cable company, and that is as true now as it was 20
years ago.  The first mover advantage is insurmountable, and although
it would be legal for someone to raise $100 billion and overbuild a
new phone infrastructure alongside the one we have, it'll never
happen.  (If it were at all possible, it would have happened during
the dot.com bubble when capital was free.)  Verizon bundling DSL
service is like your state telling you that you can only drive cars
they sell you on their roads, and you are free to buy any other car
you want if you build the roads to drive it on.

The point of splitting the telco into switchco and loopco is that the
loop part is a natural monopoly and the switchco isn't.  So split them
up, require the loopco to provide service to everyone on an equal
basis, and then completely deregulate the switchco.  That would work,
and we'd end up with a much more vibrant market.

> Otherwise we're back to the Bell System and we must wait for the
> government to tell us what we may and may not have.

Uh, no.  Please, put down the kool-aid and think about what's really
going on.

R's,

John

PS:

> As an example, the Bell System proposed its first cellular (called
> AMPS then) test system many years ago. It took the FCC over a YEAR to
> grant permission.

Considering all the new radio spectrum they wanted, a year was pretty
quick.

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

Date: Thu, 25 Aug 2005 10:55:14 -0500
From: Neal McLain <nmclain@annsgarden.com>
Reply-To: nmclain@annsgarden.com
Subject: Re: Broadband Competition Must Surely be Working


<jmeissen@aracnet.com> [TD V24:372] wrote:

> So, while the landscape today includes a diverse collection of local
> and national ISP's with a range of services and cost options, the
> future will be dialup at $10-15/month or Comcast or Verizon/MSN at
> ~$50/mo.  No more local businesses, no more local customer service,
> no choice of services.

AES <siegman@stanford.edu> [TD V24:373] responded:

> If accurately described here (and I have no reason to think it isn't) 
> this is absolutely criminal -- and probably entirely typical of what 
> most or all "broadband to the premises" types services (copper, 
> cable, fiber or wireless will try to impose on us).

> Has your local government no way to control what comes to your 
> premises over the publicly owned rights of way?

Local governments have very limited control over content provided by
telecommunications networks placed on their rights of way.

Under our system of law, property law is the province of state
governments, but interstate commerce law is vested in the Congress.
Congress has determined, and numerous court decisions have confirmed,
that content carried by telecommunications (telco and CATV) networks
falls within the meaning of interstate commerce.

Since my background is in CATV, I'll cite how this situation has
affected the CATV industry, and leave it to other readers to cite how
it's affected telcos.

Federal law does give local governments the right to "manage" rights
of way used by CATV, but exactly what "manage" means has been a source
of much controversy.

Some matters indisputably fall within the meaning of "managing":

 - Determination of the physical location of facilities within
   the ROW (aerial or buried; distance from edge of ROW; depth
   of burial; location of utility poles; restrictions against
   new poles; etc.).

 - Permitting and inspection of work, including restoration of
   work areas to "as was" condition.

 - Traffic control in work areas.

 - Maintenance of public records and system maps related to the
   CATV company.

 - Imposition and collection of fees based on actual services
   rendered, such as permit fees, inspection fees, utilities,
   reimbursement for employee time/overtime, etc.

However, under to federal law, content-related matters do not fall
within the meaning of "managing."

 - Local governments may not exercise control over video programming
offered by any CATV, except for PEG access channels specifically
authorized by federal law.  This limitation is rooted in FCC and
federal court decisions dating back to the 1950s and 60s holding that
CATVs are not common carriers because they alone select the content
carried over their networks [1,2].  Subsequent court decisions have
affirmed that such content selection constitutes "speech" protected by
the First Amendment [3].  This policy has always been, and continues
to be, controversial [4-7].

 - Local governments may not exercise control over "Title II
telecommunications services" (including ISP access) offered by any
CATV.  This limitation follows directly from the Communications Act of
1996 [8], and was recently confirmed by the Supreme Court in the
"Brand X" decision [9].  Nevertheless, this policy continues to be
controversial [10,11].

PAT [TD V24:373] added:

> [TELECOM Digest Editor's Note: But what the cableco will _claim_ is
> that the 'right of way' is not publicly owned; and telco will claim
> that municipal ownership of the right of way gives unfair
> competition to them in providing ISP services.  Or so they will all
> claim.  PAT]

Huh?  I was in the CATV business for 25 years, and I never heard anybody
claim that municipal ROW was "not publicly owned."

The right of a franchised CATV operator to occupy land stems from
three sources:

FRANCHISE AGREEMENT.  A franchise agreement grants a CATV company the
right to occupy (install and maintain its facilities on) ROW owned by
the (one or more) municipal and/or county government(s) that
constitute the LFA (local franchising authority).  But a franchise
does not grant the right to occupy:

 - Other government property (as parks, recreation facilities, schools,
   government buildings, etc.) unless specifically so stated in the 
   franchise agreement).

 - Property owned by any municipal or county government that is not a
   constituent government of the LFA.

 - Property owned by any separate governmental entity (federal or
   state government; school district; public college or university,
   etc.). 

 - Railroad ROW.

 - Private property.

PRE-EXISTING RECORDED UTILITY EASEMENT.  Franchised CATV operators
have a federal right to occupy existing recorded utility easements
"which have been dedicated for compatible uses" [12].  Many states
also have similar provisions; for example, Texas [13].

NEGOTIATED EASEMENT or PERMIT.  If a CATV company wishes to occupy any
property not covered by a franchise agreement or by an existing
recorded utility easement, it must negotiate a separate easement or
permit with the property owner.

PAT's statement that

   "But what the cableco will _claim_ is that the 'right of way'
   is not publicly owned ..."

mystifies me.  If PAT is referring to property owned by the LFA (or a
constituent government of an LFA), then I don't agree with his
statement.  If he's referring to property owned by any other entity,
then he's right: the CATV will indeed, and correctly, claim that the
ROW is not owned by the LFA (or a constituent government of the LFA).

   ----- references  -----

[1] Federal Communications Commission.  "Frontier Broadcasting v.
Collier" (determining that CATV systems are not common carriers).  24
FCC 251, 1958.  Cited in Mary Alice Mayer Phillips, "CATV: A History
of Community Antenna Television."  Evanston: Northwestern UP, 1972,
51-52.

[2] United States Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia
Circuit.  "Philadelphia Television Broadcasting Co. v. FCC" (affirming
"Frontier").  359 F. 2d 282, 1966.  Cited in Phillips, 56.

[3] Thompson-Findlaw.  Annotations to the U.S. Constitution, First
Amendment, "Governmental Regulation of Communications Industries,"
"Regulation of Cable Television."  http://tinyurl.com/cut6t

[4] Fred H. Cate.  "The First Amendment and Compulsory Access to Cable
Television."  Evanston: Northwestern University, n.d.
http://tinyurl.com/agl9z

[5] Thomas W. Hazlett.  "Let's Regulate Cable Now!"  New York: The
Manhattan Institute, October 1998.  http://tinyurl.com/8hqpu

[6] Thomas W. Hazlett.  "Regulation," "Wiring the Constitution for
Cable."  Washington: The Cato Institute, n.d.
http://tinyurl.com/athvj

[7] Andrew Glass.  "Cable TV indecency."  The Hill, February 8, 2005.
http://tinyurl.com/ao5hz

[8]  47 U.S.C. 541(b)(3).  http://tinyurl.com/84syy

[9] Supreme Court of the United States.  "National Cable &
Telecommunications Association et al. v. Brand X Internet Services et
al."  http://tinyurl.com/dqgxr

[10] Yuki Noguchi.  "Cable Firms Don't Have to Share Networks, Court
Rules."  The Washington Post, June 28, 2005, D01.
http://tinyurl.com/e25gf

[11] Consumers Union.  "Statement of Consumers Union and the Consumer
Federation of America on the Supreme Court's Decision to Grant Cert in
the Brand X Case."  December 2004.  http://tinyurl.com/7935z

[12] 47 U.S.C. 541(a)(2).  The term "compatible uses" is usually
construed to mean easements dedicated for electric power and/or
telephone facilities.  http://tinyurl.com/84syy

[13]  Texas Utilities Code 181.101 - 181.104.  http://tinyurl.com/byzeu

Neal McLain

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

From: jmeissen@aracnet.com
Subject: Re: Broadband Competition Must Surely be Working
Date: 25 Aug 2005 17:59:04 GMT
Organization: http://extra.newsguy.com


In article <telecom24.384.6@telecom-digest.org>,
<hancock4@bbs.cpcn.com> wrote:

> Many stores also sell their own house brand.  If you like a particular
> house brand, you may only get it at the associated store, not at any
> other store.  If you like WalMart's t-shirts, don't look for them at
> JCPenney.  That's bundling.

You've inverted the analogy. You're saying if I want to use Verizon
Online/MSN I shouldn't expect to get it through Covad. And I agree.  A
correct analogy would be a store ONLY offering its own house brand,
while being the only retail outlet in the area. If I don't like the
house brand then I'm screwed.

> So, if a telecom provider wants to bundle services, why shouldn't it?

We've seen the effects of that many times. And each time it involved a
monopoly (or near-monopoly) the results were bad enough to get the
government involved. For instance, in the old days you HAD to use IBM
software and peripherals with your IBM mainframe. It was called
"bundling", and the government eventually stepped in and forced them
to unbundle their products and services.

Most of the "examples" you cited aren't valid analogies. In almost
every case the "bundles" are value-added services or features that
might make using one service slightly mor attractive than using a
competing one.  The Verizon "bundling" is much more like the sporting
event, where you're FORCED to use and pay for the parking facilities
associated with the event.

John Meissen                                   jmeissen@aracnet.com

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

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: An Exciting Weekend With a Sneak Thief
Date: Thu, 25 Aug 2005 12:09:37 GMT


DevilsPGD wrote:

> In message <telecom24.383.12@telecom-digest.org>
> bonomi@host122.r-bonomi.com (Robert Bonomi) wrote:

>> In article <telecom24.382.7@telecom-digest.org>, shlichter1@aol.com
>> <shlichter1@aol.com> wrote:

>>> DevilsPGD wrote:

>>>> In message <telecom24.380.11@telecom-digest.org> J Kelly
>>>> <jkelly@*newsguy.com> wrote:

>>>>> The problem with checks is that all I need is your routing and account
>>>>> number, and guess what?  Those are printed on every one of your checks
>>>>> in plain human readable numerals.  I can print up new checks on my
>>>>> computer with any ID on them I want, and your account number.  I can
>>>>> start passing them around town same as your sneak thief.  And guess
>>>>> what?  I can easily get a fake ID to match the ID of the person I put
>>>>> on the check.  Checks are terribly insecure.

>>>> You also need a signature, at least if you want the money to come from
>>>> my account.

>>>> Now you obviously don't care if a merchant gets screwed since you've
>>>> long since run off with the goods, but for the consumer, it's not as
>>>> bad as the above makes it sound.

>>> Most banks don't even look at the signature, that is unless the check
>>> it presented in person at the issuers bank.

>> And they *don't* do any comparasion with the signature card that is
>> 'on file'.  This has been the case for 20 years or more.

> Actually, this is starting to change thanks to computers -- No more
> signature card required, but they do sometimes check the signature
> against an online image of the signature.

> It certainly doesn't happen often, and probably only above a certain
> amount, but they do perform checks of cheques in some cases -- I know
> because I've had a cheque held while they called a bank officer over
> to approve a signature because the signature wasn't close enough for
> the rep to eyeball it and approve it.

They did that only in the case of you going to the issuing bank,
through the automatic system it would never have been done.

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.

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

Date: Thu, 25 Aug 2005 17:03:14 +0100 (BST)
From: Daniel Frank <danfrank_2@yahoo.co.uk>
Subject: Spam With Commentary: Purchase of Your Phones


Hello sir,

              I am mr Daniel Frank the Sales Manager of (Daniloux 
communication nig ltd) which is based in nigeria .I am here in 
conjuction with my general manger and with the support of my 
company to have a business transaction with your company  in the 
sence that i want to order some good from your store house and i 
also like if you send me your site so as for me to order for the 
paticular goods i need .in termes of payment i will pay you  in 
cheque but it will be hanged as soon as i get the goods i will 
realse it , why i said so is b cos so many people have have 
bambiozled and frauded me on it thats why i said so .

                 Thanks from the sale manger

Daniel frank
danfrank_2@yahoo.co.uk
General manger
Johnson smith
moulinexstore@yahoo.co.nz 


[TELECOM Digest Editor's Note: So the man wants us to sell him phones;
that's good. But then he let's us know he will pay us only when he
gets the actual merchandise, because he (and apparently others?) 
in Nigeria have been defrauded so often (by the Americans, no doubt?).
If this guy is a serious, legitimate business person in Nigeria I must
say I feel very sorry for him in attempting to do business with the
rest of the world. And yes, there _are_ honest business people in that
country. Too bad -- if he is legitimate -- how a relative handful of
screwups have managed to get a whole scam routine (Nigerian 419) named
after them. PAT]

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

Subject: Help Wanted With Telecom Chat Room
Date: Wed, 24 Aug 2005 00:55:44 EDT
From: ptownson@massis.lcs.mit.edu (TELECOM Digest Editor)


Anyone who likes to chat on telecom topics is invited to use the
chat area we have available:
         http://telecom-digest.org/td-extra/chatpage.html

I would also like to have a few people agree to take over the
moderator duties in the Telecom Chat. It is an IRC-style chat
program, in javascript. It is a volunteer position, but intended
to have someone around at various times to help answer questions
 from newcomers, and promote conversations on the topics going on
here in the Digest. Please check it out, and if you would like to
volunteer to be a chat room moderator, please let me know.

Patrick Townson

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


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

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

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

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 #385
******************************