TELECOM Digest     Thu, 1 Dec 2005 01:28:00 EST    Volume 24 : Issue 542

Inside This Issue:                            Editor: Patrick A. Townson

    Microsoft Lets Consumes Try New Security Services (Michael Kahn)
    BlackBerry Maker Urged to Settle Dispute (Monty Solomon)
    Skype 2.0 Offers Free Video Calling (Monty Solomon)
    Implementation Date of Automatic Elevators (Lisa Hancock)
    Re: Security Flaw Allows Wiretaps to be Evaded, Study Finds (Michael Quinn)
    Re: When is TDMA Being Phased Out? (John Levine)
    Re: When is TDMA Being Phased Out? (Jim Burks)
    Re: Verizon GTE Merger -- How Did it Go? (Wesrock@aol.com)
    Re: Verizon GTE Merger -- How Did it Go? (Steven Lichter)
    Re: WSIS Report - ccTLD Problems Linger (John Levine)
    Re: JFK Assassination (hancock4@bbs.cpcn.com)
    Re: Voicepulse Owns Your Number (John McHarry)
    Re: Showdown with USA Over Internet Control (Mark Crispin)
    Re: Showdown with USA Over Internet Control (Seth Breidbart)

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: Michael Kahn <reuters@telecom-digest.org> 
Subject: Microsoft Lets Consumers Try New Security Service
Date: Wed, 30 Nov 2005 22:47:44 -0600


By Michael Kahn

Microsoft Corp. on Wednesday started giving computer users the chance
to test its new security service as the world's largest software maker
took its biggest step yet into the lucrative consumer security market.

The company is making its Windows OneCare Live service available for
free in a "beta," or test version, to help it work out any potential
problems before the product's likely introduction next year.

The service, which offers anti-virus, firewall, backup and recovery,
as well as personal computer maintenance, will eventually be available
for a subscription fee, said Microsoft spokeswoman Samantha
McManus. The company has not yet determined how much it will charge.

"This is the first major step for Microsoft into the consumer security
market," McManus said, noting about 15,000 customers have been taking
part in a limited test since June.

The security service is part of the company's Windows Live strategy
announced on November 1 aimed at competing with challengers such as
Google, Yahoo and Salesforce.com, which have used the Web to quickly
and easily deliver new products and services to customers.

Windows Live is a free Web-based service in which individual users can
sign up for a "live" home page that pulls in constantly updating
content from a range of information sources including Web searches,
e-mail, syndicated headlines from other sites and photos and audio
from across the Web.

With the service, the Redmond, Washington-based company also plans to
wade into the fast-growing consumer security market dominated by
companies like Symantec Corp. and McAfee Inc..

Microsoft has already introduced its Windows Live Safety Center
service allowing consumers to go to a Web site to have their computers
scanned for viruses and cleaned of them, McManus said.

The Windows Live Safety Center service is a one-time fix requiring
consumers to go back to the Web site while OneCare Live provides
constant and more comprehensive protection against viruses and other
security threats.

She also said the aim of OneCare Live was not to take customers from
companies such as Symantec and McAfee but rather to win over the
estimated 70 percent of consumers who do not have anti-virus software
or do not keep it updated.

Still, the company said running more than one anti-virus software
program at a time on a personal computer would end up bogging down any
protection and actually leave computers less secure. This means
customers might have to choose between Microsoft and another vendor.

"They end up getting in each other's way and you end up having less,"
McManus said. "The goal with OneCare is you probably won't need new
offerings."

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.

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

Date: Wed, 30 Nov 2005 18:48:21 -0500
From: Monty Solomon <monty@roscom.com>
Subject: BlackBerry Maker Urged to Settle Dispute


By STEPHANIE STOUGHTON AP Business Writer

RICHMOND, Va. (AP) -- A federal judge moved a step closer Wednesday to
reissuing an injunction that threatens BlackBerry e-mail service in
this country, placing more pressure on the wireless device's maker,
Research In Motion Ltd., to settle the patent case.

The judge rejected RIM's bid to enforce a preliminary $450 million 
settlement reached earlier this year with NTP Inc., a small firm that 
has convinced a jury that BlackBerry infringes on its patents for 
wireless communication.

In another blow to RIM, U.S. District Judge James R. Spencer turned 
down the Canadian company's request to delay the case pending final 
word from the U.S. patent office, which has preliminarily rejected 
the patents at the heart of the lawsuit.

With those issues out of the way, Spencer next plans to address
damages and, once again, an injunction would force RIM to halt
BlackBerry service in the United States. After a jury decided against
RIM in 2002, Spencer held off on the injunction pending appeals.

Analysts and industry observers say RIM, based in Waterloo, Ontario,
will likely be forced to settle the lawsuit for as much as $1
billion. Still, some also say RIM's hands aren't completely tied; it's
also somewhat unlikely NTP would want to force a shutdown, a scenario
that could leave it with a smaller payoff.

      - http://finance.lycos.com/home/news/story.asp?story=53574955

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

Date: Thu, 1 Dec 2005 01:00:09 -0500
From: Monty Solomon <monty@roscom.com>
Subject: Skype 2.0 Offers Free Video Calling


By BRUCE MEYERSON AP Business Writer

NEW YORK (AP) -- Skype is upgrading its popular Internet telephone
service to add video calling and a toolbar for Microsoft Outlook to
find and dial contacts with a click.

The long-promised "2.0" edition was launched Thursday by Skype, which
was acquired last month by Internet auctioneer eBay Inc. for an
eye-popping $2.6 billion.

While the Windows download is available to any user, the application
is actually a Beta version, meaning the company is still tweaking the
software into a final edition. Skype did not provide a timetable for
the final edition or the planned release of a version for the
Macintosh operating system from Apple Computer Inc.

The video feature will not cost extra, so Skype's trademark
computer-to-computer calls will remain free (Fees apply to calls to
traditional and cell phones).

Users would need to attach a digital camera to their computers, though
some laptops hitting the market have built-in cameras. To that end,
Skype also announced partnerships to sell webcams made by Logitech
International SA and Creative Labs Inc.

The new edition of Skype also features a new search box to type in
names or numbers and pull up matching entries in the user's address
book, as well as an installable toobar to perform the same function
within the Outlook e-mail program from Microsoft Corp.

The upgrade also includes more features and personalization options
such as ringtones and special icons to let others see a user's mood on
their buddy lists.

       - http://finance.lycos.com/home/news/story.asp?story=53580333

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

From: hancock4@bbs.cpcn.com
Subject: Implementation Date of Automatic Elevators?
Date: 30 Nov 2005 21:40:14 -0800
Organization: http://groups.google.com


We tend to forget these days that elevators once had operators.
Pressing the call button displayed a signal in the car and the
operator took the car to the location.

In the 1960 movie "The Apartment", the fancy modern office building
had elevator operators, and one operator figured prominently in the
plot.

"The Day The Earth Stood Still" was on tonight (early 1950s) and they
travelled in an automatic elevator.  I thought they didn't come out
until the late 1950s.

I remember in some late 1950s buildings the buttons were touch
sensitive, you just touched them (no pressing) and they registered.

Many office buildings and department stores maintained operators well
into the 1970s.

Automatic elevators require some logic, not only to start and stop the
car and position it properly, but also to respond to floor calls and
cabin settings.  In office buildings, there was logic to move cars to
meet peak needs, such as up in the morning and down in the afternoon.
That was available by the early 1960s.

The Bell System had a particular model telephone set for elevator use,
designed to squeeze into a box.  Today the phones are auto dial
intercoms.  They make me nervous because I wonder if someone will
always answer at the other end or a machine will pick up requiring the
pressing of tone keys, obviously not possible on a sealed autodialer
unit.

BTW, "The Day The Earth Stood Still" is an excellent movie.  Shows how
paranoid people can get.

It was done in B&W and B&W films had to make good use of lighting.
Shadows and texture were very carefully utilized to give film depth
and character, that is something sometimes lost in color.

"The Apartment" is an excellent movie, too.  Good satire of bullpen
office life.  The office machines may be different, but the atmosphere
hasn't changed much.  Good scene of someone using a keyset, the line
buttons lamps worked exactly in relation to the hookswitch, even
flickering a bit when the phone was gently hung up; that's rare.

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

Subject: Re: Security Flaw Allows Wiretaps to be Evaded, Study Finds
Date: Wed, 30 Nov 2005 16:16:35 -0500
From: Michael Quinn <quinnm@bah.com>


My understanding is that the "c-tone" is the same as that generated by
the "C" button of the A-B-C-D/FO-F-I-P column found on old DoD
precedence-equipped touch-tone AUTOVON phones. The C or I (for
"Immediate" precedence) button delivers a DTMF pair of 852 and 1633
KHz.  Ping me off net for some AUTOVON phone pics.

Mike
quinnm@bah.com

> From: harold@hallikainen.com
> Subject: Security Flaw Allows Wiretaps to be Evaded, Study Finds

<snipped>

> This is the first I'd heard of the "c-tone'.

> Harold

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

Date: 30 Nov 2005 22:11:57 -0000
From: John Levine <johnl@iecc.com>
Subject: Re: When is TDMA Being Phased Out?
Organization: I.E.C.C., Trumansburg NY USA


> Could someone describe what is "TDMA" and "GSM" in layman's terms?

They're two different digital mobile protocols that are technically
fairly similar, but incompatible with each other.  The practical
difference is that GSM phones use a SIM chip and TDMA phones don't.
You can move your SIM chip to any GSM phone and it'll work.  Switching
TDMA phones requires help from the carrier to reprogram the phone and
put the new phone's serial number into the switch.

Outside of the Americas and Japan, most mobile systems in the world
are GSM, and GSM systems are very well integrated.  I have SIM chips
from Switzerland and Luxembourg, and if I put one of them into my
phone, by golly, you can call it on my Swiss or Lux phone number
(forwarded to the US at great expense to me, of course.)  At the
moment I'm in Vancouver, so I bought a prepaid GSM SIM with a
Vancouver number to use while I'm here.

> I get the impression all three companies are actually a hodgepodge of
> smaller companies they acquired and merged into along the way.  That
> means service quality of a particular carrier will vary greatly from
> one part of the country to another, just as landline service varies
> greatly.  (In Verizon particularly which is made up of many different
> companies).

That's true, they're all working on it to integrate their networks and
make them work more consistently.  Most of the recent merges have been
between networks with the same technology, e.g., Cingular and AT&T
were both TDMA moving to GSM, so the phones all work, but sometimes
they think they're roaming.

Sprint and Nextel is different, the technologies are completely
incompatible and it remains to be seen if they're going to migrate
Nextel's iDen customers to Sprint's CDMA network, move to CDMA in
Nextel's band (which propagates better than Sprint's) or what.

R's,

John

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

From: Jim Burks <jbburks@hotmail.com>
Subject: Re: When is TDMA Being Phased Out?
Date: Thu, 01 Dec 2005 01:38:52 GMT
Organization: Road Runner High Speed Online http://www.rr.com


<hancock4@bbs.cpcn.com> wrote in message 
news:telecom24.541.9@telecom-digest.org:

> Could someone describe what is "TDMA" and "GSM" in layman's terms?  I
> presume these are communication protocols and are not compatible with
> each other.  Is one analog?

TDMA, GSM and CDMA are all digital cellular standards, concerning
signaling, call control, etc. None of them are compatible with each
other. All of them work on various frequencies (800, 850, 900, 1800,
1900 mhz) in various parts of the world.

Analog cellular is called 'AMPS'.

Current (old) NexTel uses iDen. It's not used much anywhere else and
NexTel is phasing it out with the Sprint merger. But, it does
push-to-talk really well.

TDMA is being phased out quickly as the Cingular / ATT Wireless merger
goes through, though it is still available in almost every area.

Europe and most of the world outside the US use GSM.  GSM uses SIM
cards to carry the subscriber information (phone number, etc.). If you
switch your SIM card into another phone, your number and account go
with it. If you travel internationally, you can also use your fancy US
handset with a local SIM card and pay local in-country rates (but
calls won't be forwarded from your US number).

> Do other carriers (ie Verizon) use them or other protocols?  Does
> Verizon have any protocols that are going away?

GSM = Cingular ,T-Mobile, Vodaphone
CDMA = Verizon Wireless, Sprint
TDMA = Cingular, ATT Wireless (legacy)
AMPS = all right now, going away before 2010

Most handsets work on ONE of these protocols. New handsets now are
either GSM only or CDMA only. The are also frequently locked to a
single carrier.  The better GSM handsets are tri-band or quad-band
(more frequencies). This will allow them to roam in many parts of the
world.

Older handsets were either GSM / AMPS, TDMA / AMPS or CDMA /AMPS to
use as areas built out digital coverage. Nokia built one line that was
GSM / TDMA / AMPS (all three) for Cingular and ATTws. Verizon offers a
CDMA / GSM combo handset for world travelers, but it's much more
expensive than most, for the same features.

> I guess now there are three big cellular companies -- Verizon, Cingular,
> and VoiceStream?  Is Sprint still independent or did they merge?

No, really four: Cingular (with ATTws), Verizon, T-Mobile and Sprint
(with NexTel). VoiceStream either became T-Mobile or was acquired by
Verizon (not sure which).

> I get the impression all three companies are actually a hodgepodge of
> smaller companies they acquired and merged into along the way.  That
> means service quality of a particular carrier will vary greatly from
> one part of the country to another, just as landline service varies
> greatly.  (In Verizon particularly which is made up of many different
> companies).

Exactly. They also use various frequencies in different parts of the
country. Cingular uses 850 and 1900 mhz.

There are also a number of regional carriers.

Also coming up are MVNOs -- marketing companies without
networks. These include Virgin Mobile, TracFone (pay as you go) and
there are many others coming online in the next 18 months. It will be
like the CLEC expansion.  Many names, all using a few networks. Most
MVNOs right now are using Sprint.

Which carrier is right for you?

Glad you asked. It depends on where you live, work and travel.

In the Northeast, Verizon Wireless does quite good. If you travel
internationally, pick a GSM carrier (Cingular, T-Mobile) and you can
roam most places in the world.

If you live in a big city, Sprint and T-Mobile are a little cheaper,
but if you travel out of the cities and off the freeways, you're out
of luck.

If you live in the wilds of Montana or Arizona, look on eBay for a 3
watt analog bag phone. They have MILES more range.

If you stay in the same town all the time, some of the local /
regional carriers offer real unlimited usage (day, night, weekend).

Jim Burks
Memphis, TN 

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

From: Wesrock@aol.com
Date: Wed, 30 Nov 2005 16:07:45 EST
Subject: Re: Verizon GTE Merger -- How Did it Go?


In a message dated 30 Nov 2005 07:35:52 -0800, hancock4@bbs.cpcn.com
writes:

> A while back Verizon (formerly Bell Atlantic and Nynex NY Telephone et
> al) acquired GTE -- General Telephone & Electronics local phone
> companies.  GTE was the biggest of the "independents", that is, local
> telephone companies not affiliated with the Bell System.

> I was wondering how well the integration of GTE into Verizon was
> working.

> The former Bell System was heavilly standardized, down to the pens on
> desktops.  Most equipment came from Western Electric and usually
> (though not always) was the same throughout the country.  By equipment
> I mean switchgear, carrier technology, and local loop plant (and pay
> phones).  Also, business practices were somewhat consistent, such as
> rate plans and service representative styles.

The standardization certainly existed, but it was by no means total.
I don't remember anything about pens on desktops, for example.

Rate plans certainly varied all over the place.  Message rate service
was the only service offering in many places; but in most places it
was optional and flat rate service was chosen by a very large majority
of customers.

After the breakup in 1984, the Bell operating companies were in a
stampede to find other suppliers that Western Electric.  W.E. was in
the unfamiliar position of having to compete for business, and other
manufacturers got a lot of the Bell business, including C.O. gear and
outside plant.

Carrier technology was pretty common across many telephone companies,
with many circuits and systems jointly owned with the independent
companies owning the pnysical plant and terminal gear in its territory
and the Bell company the same in its territory.  Compatible gear was
available from numerous independent suppliers.

W.E. gear, usually made to specs furnished by Bell Labs, was designed
with the idea it would be in place for many years and was built to
extremely high standards.  This was particularly true of customer
premises equipment, where the local telco provided all the
maintenance -- on-premises maintenance.  The cost of a repair call,
whether for a simple telephone set or a massive centrex or PBX, was
high, and it made sense to build the equipment to last.  When
customers were permitted and then required to buy and maintain their
own equipment, this no longer made sense, particular for such simple
gear such as a telephone set.

> A key difference between Bell and GTE was that overall GTE (and the
> other independents) tended to serve much less densely populated areas.
> A map of Pennsylvania shows half the land mass of the state served by
> "independents" yet the vast majority of phones were under Bell
> control.  Historically, Bell gained control of the cities and nearby
> suburbs while the independents were generally left with the rural
> areas (there are some exceptions).  I wonder if this characteristic
> has impacted the merger.

An effect of this in rapidly growing areas was the the independents,
frequently bought up by GTE, owned the areas of high-growth,
high-income in the suburbs. Some of this places where this was
particular noticeable was in the Southern California area (General of
California was larger than at least a couple of the Bell operating
companies and attracted some senior Bell executives to fill high-level
vacancies), Dallas (Irving, Las Colinas where many corporate
headquarters are located, Plano, much of Carrolton and numerous
others).  In the Tulsa area, General, later GTE, owned the Broken
Arrow exchange which served not only the growing and high-dollar
limits of its namesake city but also well into the adjoining similar
territory in the municipal limits of Tulsa.  (As an aside, Bell
speakers at the national level were wont to extol the virtues of a
single nationwide long distance network by noting that you could reach
even such remote places as Broken Arrow, Oklahoma, which always made
us in Oklahoma snicker because it was about as non-remote a place as
anywhere in the country.  They probably meant Broken Bow, a place that
would more or less fit the "remote" description and was served by a
well run, locally-owned, non-GTE independent.)

Wes Leatherock
wesrock@aol.com
wleathus@yahoo.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: Verizon GTE Merger -- How Did it Go?
Date: Thu, 01 Dec 2005 01:59:35 GMT


hancock4@bbs.cpcn.com wrote:

> A while back Verizon (formerly Bell Atlantic and Nynex NY Telephone et
> al) acquired GTE -- General Telephone & Electronics local phone
> companies.  GTE was the biggest of the "independents", that is, local
> telephone companies not affiliated with the Bell System.

> I was wondering how well the integration of GTE into Verizon was
> working.

> The former Bell System was heavilly standardized, down to the pens on
> desktops.  Most equipment came from Western Electric and usually
> (though not always) was the same throughout the country.  By equipment
> I mean switchgear, carrier technology, and local loop plant (and pay
> phones).  Also, business practices were somewhat consistent, such as
> rate plans and service representative styles.

> In contrast, I don't know how much GTE was standardized.  For one
> thing, GTE was made up of smaller local independent companies acquired
> or traded over the years.  In the 1970s, many local companies
> "swapped" exchanges so as to give each other contiguous areas instead
> of a patchwork for more efficiency.

> GTE owned a supplier, Automatic Electric.  However, I wonder if GTE
> was so strictly wedded to AE as was Bell to Western.  In other words,
> over the years perhaps equipment from other suppliers was used as
> well.  My impression was that GTE was always more "informal" and less
> rigid than the Bell System in doing things.  (Just as Remington
> Rand/Sperry Univac was much more informal than IBM in the computer
> industry).

> A key difference between Bell and GTE was that overall GTE (and the
> other independents) tended to serve much less densely populated areas.
> A map of Pennsylvania shows half the land mass of the state served by
> "independents" yet the vast majority of phones were under Bell
> control.  Historically, Bell gained control of the cities and nearby
> suburbs while the independents were generally left with the rural
> areas (there are some exceptions).  I wonder if this characteristic
> has impacted the merger.

> Merging two dis-similar organizations can bring down both if not done
> carefully.  The Penn Central Railroad is the classic example of how
> not to do a merger.  In more recent years, megarailroad and airline
> mergers have had troubles too.

> [public replies, please]

By the time of the merger GTE was pretty standard. It for the most
part was installing Nortel and Lucent switches.  Also GET merged AE
with Western Electric long before the merger and now it is wholly owed
by Lucent with support for the GTE 5, but that is really it.

To me a retired GTE employee the merger was a complete mistake, as you
said they are dis-similar, GTE always had large amounts of money and
no debt, now the company has a lot of debt and its stock is in the
dumps.  I have done contract work for Verizon in Washington State,
Oregon as well as California and it still seems to be running about
the same, it is run by regional Presidents.

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: 30 Nov 2005 21:57:18 -0000
From: John Levine <johnl@iecc.com>
Subject: Re: WSIS Report - ccTLD Problems Linger
Organization: I.E.C.C., Trumansburg NY USA


> A criticism of ICANN is that it focuses on commercialization issues,
> rather than internationalization issues. Instead of extending ccTLDs
> to include other alphabets like Chinese, ICANN focuses on the
> interests of the trademark holder community."

That's odd.  At this very moment there is a six hour long session at
the Vancouver ICANN meeting discussions international character sets
in domain names.


[TELECOM Digest Editor's Note: Let's see how they get with it. I'd
not be surprised if like so many proposals given to them, they
didn't just shelve it or send it to some committee for examination
and effectively, burial.   PAT]

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

From: hancock4@bbs.cpcn.com
Subject: Re: JFK Assassination
Date: 30 Nov 2005 13:59:21 -0800
Organization: http://groups.google.com


George Mitchell wrote:

> And still does.  Perhaps you're familiar with the cathode ray _tube_?

How soon will that be replaced by cheaper plasma, LCD, etc?  They're
still making CRT monitors and TV sets for now, but eventually the more
modern devices will come down in price.

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

From: John McHarry <jmcharry@comcast.net>
Subject: Re: Voicepulse Owns Your Number
Date: Thu, 01 Dec 2005 01:51:22 GMT
Organization: EarthLink Inc. -- http://www.EarthLink.net


On Wed, 30 Nov 2005 00:43:25 +0000, Seth Breidbart wrote:

> Port it to a landline carrier, then port it to Carolina net.  Numbers
> port only between carriers that have agreements, and VOIP carriers
> tend not to have agreements with each other.  They all have agreements
> with the local landline companies in order to be able to _take_
> numbers.

Are you sure about that? Last I knew, most of the routing in LNP areas
was in the ILEC's SCPs. Since they assign blocks of numbers, for which
they charge everyone else, I would have thought they make the decision
on whether a port request is legitimate and should be honored.

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

From: Mark Crispin <MRC@CAC.Washington.EDU>
Subject: Re: Showdown with USA Over Internet Control
Date: Wed, 30 Nov 2005 16:17:35 -0800
Organization:  Networks & Distributed Computing


I know that I am making a mistake by contradicting the tin-foil hat crowd 
in public, but this latest bit of nonsense from Scott and Pat was far over 
the top.

On Wed, 30 Nov 2005, Scott Dorsey wrote:

> The same thing that SRI did, before ICANN existed.  Disconnect sites
> that refuse to control their problem customers.

SRI *never* managed the Internet (or the ARPAnet before it).  The only
thing that was at SRI was the Network Information Center (NIC) which
held the RFCs, the "official" (but widely disregarded) host table, and
later the master files for the root.  That all ended over 15 years
ago.

The management of the network was in the hands of the US Department of
Defense, which could (and *did*) disconnect sites which failed to toe
the line.  The first erosion of this was when ARPAnet and Milnet split
about 20 years ago, with DoD running Milnet as before and the rump
ARPAnet being run by civilian branches of the US government.

The National Science Foundation (NSF) took over that authority when
NSFnet started about 18 years ago; and promptly refused to exercise
it.

NSF presently took itself out of the loop in favor of for-profit
entities, and the US government disclaimed any authority over who
could connect to the network (there was quite a bit of discussion when
China was connected).

Then nobody ran the network.

> Very simple.  The reason that spam exists is because some ISPs permit it.
> The reason that some ISPs permit it is because backbone sites permit it.

People who use such phrases as "very simple" tend to have more hot air
than knowledge at their disposal.

> Shutting off connectivity to kornet and thrunet would about halve
> the spam problem, right there.

Bullshit.

Not just bullshit, but irresponsible and smacking of racist bigotry.

Refer to:

http://www.spamhaus.org/statistics/networks.lasso

MCI is #1, more than two and a half times greater than #2 (SBC).  Kornet 
is down at #9, and thrunet isn't in the top 10.

More to the point,
http://www.spamhaus.org/statistics/countries.lasso
shows that the USA is the #1 spam origin country, at five times #2 (China) 
and nine times #3 (South Korea).

> If ICANN took spam seriously, backbone sites would have to.

More bullshit.  ICANN has no authority to decide who is or is not 
connected.

Much of the paranoia about the US government and the Internet has been
over the specious claim that the US government would attempt to
exercise such authority over foreign networks.  Never mind that the US
government essentially gave up any pretense of such authority in the
early 1990s.

The US government will not pull the plug on Iran or North Korea, much
less South Korea.

It needs to be emphasized to the international community (who have
expressed worries about the possibility of the US government pulling
plugs) that Scott and Pat are cranks whose opinions are not taken
seriously by either the US government or the US Internet community.

> Yes. [ICANN] can say "your service is not appropriate and therefore we
> refuse to allow bulkemail.com (a former uunet customer) to receive
> DNS."  Furthermore, they can shut off the uunet dns until uunet gets
> their spam problem under control.

Please point to the clause in ICANN's charter from the US DOC that
gives it that remarkable level of authority.

> JUST like Postel did with problem customers back in the days when he
> ran the name server.

I knew Jon Postel personally.  He did no such thing.

> [TELECOM Digest Editor's Note: __Thank you very much__ for speaking
> the truth on this, something which seems to be in very short
> supply where the liars at ICANN and their mouthpiece Vint Cerf are
> concerned.

Pat, take off your tin foil hat.  It isn't shielding you from the
"rays". If anything, it's amplifying them.

By using TELECOM as your personal political forum, you are ruining its 
credibility and usefulness as a resource.

> I have said time and time again that spam could be cut
> back considerably if ICANN would just make it happen.

Repeating nonsense "time and time again" does not make it true.

 -- Mark --

http://staff.washington.edu/mrc
Science does not emerge from voting, party politics, or public debate.
Si vis pacem, para bellum.


[TELECOM Digest Editor's Note: How _very_ typical it is, that when 
one disagrees with these 'experts' they respond furiously, with
insult after insult. Mark, are you _certain_ (as your .sig notes) that
'science does not emerge from voting, party politics or public
debate'? How odd ... considering the number of scientists in the
employ of various government agencies, and universities, etc. But
thanks very much for writing. I needed the abuse today.  PAT]

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

From: sethb@panix.com (Seth Breidbart)
Subject: Re: Showdown with USA Over Internet Control
Date: Thu, 1 Dec 2005 02:15:23 UTC
Organization: Society for the Promulgation of Cruelty to the Clueless


In article <telecom24.516.2@telecom-digest.org>, Patrick Townson
<editor@telecom-digest.org> noted in response to an article by
Andy Sullivan wrote:

> Andy Sullivan writing for Reuters, quoted Commerce Secretary Michael
> Sullivan in TD V24_#515:

> Where spam and scam are concerned, ICANN almost treats it as just an
> abberation, something out of the blue which 'coincidentally' happens
> and that we users should not be concerned; after all, the 'experts'
> will cure it for us if they decide it needs curing, and we can
> always 'filter' our email, and run virus scanners galore, isn't that
> sufficient? And they do not want to make things _too easy_ to filter
> out; that might make the internet useful for average, everyday
> citizens once again.

Is that why ICANN kicked AOL off the Internet?

> Considering the huge amount of spam and cybercrime on the internet
> these days, I really have to wonder why the USA thinks it would be
> so awful having an 'oppressive government' involved in running things.
> Isn't the amount of spam and cybercrime we have now oppressive enough
> in its own right? Could (for example) China or Iraq make things any
> worse? In some ways they might make things _better_. 

Considering how friendly a lot of Chinese networks are to spammers, I
think it very unlikely they'd make things better.

In article <telecom24.541.12@telecom-digest.org>, Scott Dorsey
<kludge@panix.com> wrote:

> <nospam4me@mytrashmail.com> wrote:

>> So what would you have ICANN do about spam and other forms of
>> anti-social net behavior?

> The same thing that SRI did, before ICANN existed.  Disconnect sites
> that refuse to control their problem customers.

ICANN doesn't have control over the wires.

> Very simple.  The reason that spam exists is because some ISPs permit it.
> The reason that some ISPs permit it is because backbone sites permit it.

> Shutting off connectivity to kornet and thrunet would about halve
> the spam problem, right there.

Good idea.

> If backbone sites took spam seriously, it would go away.  If ICANN took
> spam seriously, backbone sites would have to.

Why would they have to?

> <jmeissen@aracnet.com> wrote:

>> I'm afraid you're overstating things a bit.

>> ICANN's arbitration authority is over the domain name. Period. It
>> has nothing to do with the content hosted at any site. They have
>> no control over any website (other than their own), simply the
>> name by which it's referenced.

> Yes. They can say "your service is not appropriate and therefore we
> refuse to allow bulkemail.com (a former uunet customer) to receive
> DNS."

Sure.  So spammers would use even more throwaway domains than they do
now.

> Furthermore, they can shut off the uunet dns until uunet gets
> their spam problem under control.

Not likely; besides, how much does uunet actually need the domain?
(All of their customers who are likely to go to it get DNS through
UUNET so they'd get there anyway.)

> I have said time and time again that spam could be cut back
> considerably if ICANN would just make it happen.

But how could it do that?

> But ICANN and Vint Cerf are not about to make that happen; their
> preference, (and the loud mouths of their choir of apologists)
> _like_ seeing the internet gradually being converted to a totally
> commercial thing.

There's nothing wrong with it being commercial; somebody has to _pay_
for all the wires, after all.

Seth



[TELECOM Digest Editor's Note: Two comments, Seth ... _when_ did ICANN
'kick AOL off the internet'?  And, if as you claim, 'ICANN has no
control over the wires' then how come if I do not sign their contract
when requested, granting them ownership and sole arbitrator privleges
over the name 'telecom-digest.org' they can refuse to allow me to be
on the net?  I would say that if I am required to sign a contract
which 'allows me' to use my name and make speeches on the net, then 
the person or entity who makes that requirement has a lot of control
over the net, wouldn't you?  And what real problem would there be,
in the process of handing out those contracts to sign in which I must
agree to certain things to _amend_ those contracts to include things
dealing with spam/scam, etc?  Everyone has to sign one of those
contracts every so often, don't they?  So when they renew their name
every so many years, what if certain statements regards spam were
put in that contract with the same provisions otherwise: pay us our
money and sign this agreement? But since Vint Cerf and ICANN are
_purely_ into looking after USA commercial interests I doubt they
would go along with that at all.  

Oh, Seth, do you know where I could get a .gif or .jpg of a little
man, preferably both cranky and a crank with a tin foil hat?  I may
start a movement here called 'tin foil hat pride'? And I would put
a little script under him saying "I wanted to use the net in peace
and quiet, but today (date) I had to toss (number of) spams and
(number of ) virii and (number of) scams before I could start my
work. The (number of) slots would increment all the time. PAT] 

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


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 #542
******************************