From editor@telecom-digest.org Wed Aug 21 16:31:13 2002 Received: from localhost (localhost [[UNIX: localhost]]) by massis.lcs.mit.edu (8.11.3nb1/8.11.3) id g7LKVDK25278; Wed, 21 Aug 2002 16:31:13 -0400 (EDT) Date: Wed, 21 Aug 2002 16:31:13 -0400 (EDT) From: editor@telecom-digest.org Message-Id: <200208212031.g7LKVDK25278@massis.lcs.mit.edu> X-Authentication-Warning: massis.lcs.mit.edu: ptownson set sender to editor@telecom-digest.org using -f To: ptownson Approved: patsnewlist Subject: TELECOM Digest V21 #1 TELECOM Digest Wed, 21 Aug 2002 16:31:00 EDT Volume 21 : Issue 1 Inside This Issue: Editor: Patrick A. Townson Starting Year 22 (TELECOM Digest Editor) ---------------------------------------------------------------------- Date: Wed, 21 Aug 2002 15:48:07 EDT From: TELECOM Digest Editor Subject: Starting Year 22 TELECOM Digest began publication on August 21, 1981. For a couple of days back then, 22 years ago, there were test messages, a message sent out about how messages to/from the Digest and the old arpa.telecom newsgroup would be passed back and forth, etc. We began as an offshoot or expansion of HUMAN NETS Digest, which had begun a couple years earlier. There were a number of people reading HUMAN NETS who wanted telephone discussion, so it was decided to break out the telecom-related threads and put them in a new Digest of their own, thus TELECOM Digest started, and the first several issues of this Digest contained message threads which had originally been started/discussed in HUMAN NETS. In those days, prior to the 'modern internet' the passing of messages required manual intervention through a couple of well-known and well-connected gateways. You can read about those things if you look in the archives at the test message, the introductory message and Volume 1 Issue 1 of this Digest. You will also note how syntax has changed over the years such as the adoption of '@' to replace 'at' as a system identifier. My email address in those early days would have been 'ptownson at lcs.mit.edu' rather than what was phased in during the early eighties 'ptownson@mintaka.lcs.mit.edu' Mintaka as a work station at LCS has long since been gone. The archives in those early days were kept at a site called DUFFEY, which was an MIT location. Contrary to what is commonly thought, I did not found TELECOM Digest. I inherited it from Jon Solomon in the middle 1980's. There were a couple of the charter subscribers to the Digest in those days who thought that was a mistake (putting me in charge of the Digest) and maybe some of them still think so. Yes, we have about a half-dozen or so individuals who came on board here from HUMAN NETS and are still here today, 22 years later. I was a regular poster in the Digest when Jon Solomon was the moderator in the early 1980's. In those days, we all used Usenet News; today very few folks use Usenet in the way we used to. It has become simply to spam-ridden to of much value except for a few newsgroups. Because I used to have to pay for long distance calls in the old days, *and* use a 300-1200 baud modem, the long distance charges to call into the 'annex box' (or router) at MIT to reach LCS and work on the Digest got rather expensive. I applied for a user account at Northwestern University in Evanston, IL which was close to my home and a local phone call. I did the Digest from there for several years while keeping the archives first at Boston University then later back at MIT. I think I did the Digest from nwu.edu for about five years, during the period 1989 through 1993 or 1994, until about the time the net started going commercial. Wasn't 1993 the final year of the golden days of the Internet? Our website (telecom-digest.org) began in 1995. Prior to that, the archives were accessible using FTP and still are. I held off starting a web site as long as possible; it seemed to me to be a foolish waste of resources. Bill Pfieffer, who I had 'taught about computers' in 1977-78 from scratch using an old OSI C-1-P computer with 8 K memory came to me in 1994 and said 'Patrick, you *gotta* start a web site; thats really where things on the net are going'. So I did, and the daily user count began climbing very astronomically; user counts we never could obtain in the old FTP days. When I managed to get to the point of a 9600 baud modem, I started calling back direct to MIT to work on the archives now and then and in 1994 sometime began using my nwu.edu account to telnet into MIT to work on the Digest from that original (for me) location. As ISPs (Internet Service Providers) became more common at that same time, I experimented with using services like Randy Suess offered in Chicago (chinet) to do telnet to Boston. Then came 32 and 56 K modems and I thought I had it made. Those Editor Notes began flying out of the keyboard all the time. Just as HUMAN NETS was responsible for our birth, this Digest has been responsible for several new newsgroups and Digests over the years. These were (and I hope I don't miss any): Computer Underground Digest and related newsgroup. CuD was started during a particularly nasty scandal on the net at the time about computer/telephone fraud. The professor who maintained it was employed at Northeastern Illinois State University in the Chicago area. He ran it for several years; now I believe it is defunct. I was literally up to my neck in messages on the scandal. He agreed to take them and use them in a new Digest. Computer Privacy Digest (NOT to be confused with the product of Lauren Weinstein several years later) was started at the time Caller-ID became common in the early nineties. Caller-ID had all the privacy advocates up in arms, and the messages pro and con were flooding my inbox. The fellow who started comp.privacy was equally gracious. I let him take several hundred inbox messages and set them up Digest-style at his site. Then there was alt.dcom.telecom which was a group of users who felt they could better handle some messages that I was not printing. They chose to go into the alt hierarchy which has always been unmoderated and anyone could start a group on anything. The difference between Usenet (in those days, highly respected) and Altnet was that starting a Usenet newsgroup was a group process. It had to be voted on and approved by the community, but once this approval was granted, there was a gentlemen's agreement that *all sites would carry all newsgroups.* If your site carried Usenet, you carried that newsgroup, no matter the personal sensibilites of the local sysadmin. Altnet on the other hand, required no approval of any kind; anyone could start a group on anything. However the catch was *no sysadmin had to carry it. Your first task as a moderator/booster of an alt newsgroup was to convince a sysadmin to carry it on his spool.* Consequently Usenet groups (once approved) had a huge default circulation and readership. Altnet groups on the other hand had spotty and irregular circulation; some major sites such as AT&T dumped them all; would not agree to take any alt groups. Then came comp.dcom.telecom.tech. This was a sort of bitter thing where a number of readers chose to pull out of comp.dcom.telecom when they were advised by the 'Usenet heirarchy' that I could not be legally deposed as moderator here; that the Digest and newsgroup are 'my property' because they were originally (1980's) ported to Usenet from the old Arpanet system. Rather than begin alt.anything and take the risk of poor circulation alt.dcom.telecom suffered, they solicited for votes to become Usenet and after two votes were taken became comp.dcom.telecom.tech . It was a messy, bitter thing, no one (least of all me) was happy with it, but they, and the alt counterpart exist to this day. I think ...tech has or had a Digest version also; if it still operates maybe one of the Digest editors/ managers there will tell us about it. These two last 'children' of mine (alt.dcom.telecom and comp.dcom. telecom.tech) were born with some bitterness; as the old song goes, "What is too painful to remember we simply choose to forget" and I guess I have forgotten a lot of the details. You are obviously hearing my side of the story. There was also rec.radio.broadcasting which I inspired Bill Pfeiffer to start in 1990. Then he inspired me to begin my web site in 1994-95. Then he met an untimely death in September, 1999 in a car crash in Minnesota. I temporarily took over his newsgroup moderation duties (AIRWAVES RADIO Digest) and his web site (airwaves.com) until someone else could be found to handle it. Then I had my brain aneurysm on November 29, 1999, and you all know the history there. Anyway, now we reach age 22 and the second-oldest Digest/newsgroup combo on this internet, still around from the old days. I think the sci-fi group is still around; it is a bit older than this one. Lauren Weinstein can fill in this history on newsgroups. I never thought we would be around *this* long; its been a real blast. Because I was not around last year (2001) for reasons I will go into when my book 'Genesis 39' is published here on the net someday, we did not have a Volume 21 of this Digest. For the sake of continuity this single message will comprise 'Volume 21' and we will then go on to Volume 22 with the next and subsequent issues. Let's conclude this issue of the Digest with the (in)famous song of Lauren Weinstein which has become sort of by default the reason for the existence of this TELECOM Digest on the net. ======================= (DO NOT USE ANY OF THESE OLD EMAIL ADDRESSES AND PATHS! THEY ARE ONLY SHOWN HERE AS CURIOSITY ITEMS!!!) 12-Jul-83 09:14:32-PDT,4930;000000000001 Return-path: <@LBL-CSAM:vortex!lauren@LBL-CSAM> Received: from LBL-CSAM by USC-ECLB; Tue 12 Jul 83 09:12:46-PDT Date: Tuesday, 12-Jul-83 01:18:19-PDT From: Lauren Weinstein Subject: "The Day Bell System Died" Return-Path: Message-Id: <8307121614.AA17341@LBL-CSAM.ARPA> Received: by LBL-CSAM.ARPA (3.327/3.21) id AA17341; 12 Jul 83 09:14:35 PDT (Tue) To: TELECOM@ECLB Greetings. With the massive changes now taking place in the telecommunications industry, we're all being inundated with seemingly endless news items and points of information regarding the various effects now beginning to take place. However, one important element has been missing: a song! Since the great Tom Lehrer has retired from the composing world, I will now attempt to fill this void with my own light-hearted, non-serious look at a possible future of telecommunications. This work is entirely satirical, and none of its lyrics are meant to be interpreted in a non-satirical manner. The song should be sung to the tune of Don Mclean's classic "American Pie". I call my version "The Day Bell System Died"... --Lauren-- ************************************************************************** *==================================* * Notice: This is a satirical work * *==================================* "The Day Bell System Died" Lyrics Copyright (C) 1983 by Lauren Weinstein (To the tune of "American Pie") (With apologies to Don McLean) ARPA: vortex!lauren@LBL-CSAM UUCP: {decvax, ihnp4, harpo, ucbvax!lbl-csam, randvax}!vortex!lauren ************************************************************************** Long, long, time ago, I can still remember, When the local calls were "free". And I knew if I paid my bill, And never wished them any ill, That the phone company would let me be... But Uncle Sam said he knew better, Split 'em up, for all and ever! We'll foster competition: It's good capital-ism! I can't remember if I cried, When my phone bill first tripled in size. But something touched me deep inside, The day... Bell System... died. And we were singing... Bye, bye, Ma Bell, why did you die? We get static from Sprint and echo from MCI, "Our local calls have us in hock!" we all cry. Oh Ma Bell why did you have to die? Ma Bell why did you have to die? Is your office Step by Step, Or have you gotten some Crossbar yet? Everybody used to ask... Oh, is TSPS coming soon? IDDD will be a boon! And, I hope to get a Touch-Tone phone, real soon... The color phones are really neat, And direct dialing can't be beat! My area code is "low": The prestige way to go! Oh, they just raised phone booths to a dime! Well, I suppose it's about time. I remember how the payphones chimed, The day... Bell System... died. And we were singing... Bye, bye, Ma Bell, why did you die? We get static from Sprint and echo from MCI, "Our local calls have us in hock!" we all cry. Oh Ma Bell why did you have to die? Ma Bell why did you have to die? Back then we were all at one rate, Phone installs didn't cause debate, About who'd put which wire where... Installers came right out to you, No "phone stores" with their ballyhoo, And 411 was free, seemed very fair! But FCC wanted it seems, To let others skim long-distance creams, No matter 'bout the locals, They're mostly all just yokels! And so one day it came to pass, That the great Bell System did collapse, In rubble now, we all do mass, The day... Bell System... died. So bye, bye, Ma Bell, why did you die? We get static from Sprint and echo from MCI, "Our local calls have us in hock!" we all cry. Oh Ma Bell why did you have to die? Ma Bell why did you have to die? I drove on out to Murray Hill, To see Bell Labs, some time to kill, But the sign there said the Labs were gone. I went back to my old CO, Where I'd had my phone lines, years ago, But it was empty, dark, and ever so forlorn... No relays pulsed, No data crooned, No MF tones did play their tunes, There wasn't a word spoken, All carrier paths were broken... And so that's how it all occurred, Microwave horns just nests for birds, Everything became so absurd, The day... Bell System... died. So bye, bye, Ma Bell, why did you die? We get static from Sprint and echo from MCI, "Our local calls have us in hock!" we all cry. Oh Ma Bell why did you have to die? Ma Bell why did you have to die? We were singing: Bye, bye, Ma Bell, why did you die? We get static from Sprint and echo from MCI, "Our local calls have us in hock!" we all cry. Oh Ma Bell why did you have to die? ================================ Thank you Lauren! And thanks to those of you who have been readers here for however long; in some cases years and years and years, in a few other cases a month or two. I'll see you tomorrow to start Volume 22 of the Digest. Patrick Townson TELECOM Digest Editor ------------------------------ End of TELECOM Digest V21 #001 ****************************** From editor@telecom-digest.org Thu Aug 22 17:59:51 2002 Received: from localhost (localhost [[UNIX: localhost]]) by massis.lcs.mit.edu (8.11.3nb1/8.11.3) id g7MLxpQ02482; Thu, 22 Aug 2002 17:59:51 -0400 (EDT) Date: Thu, 22 Aug 2002 17:59:51 -0400 (EDT) From: editor@telecom-digest.org Message-Id: <200208222159.g7MLxpQ02482@massis.lcs.mit.edu> X-Authentication-Warning: massis.lcs.mit.edu: ptownson set sender to editor@telecom-digest.org using -f To: ptownson Approved: patsnewlist Subject: TELECOM Digest V22 #1 TELECOM Digest Thu, 22 Aug 2002 18:00:00 EDT Volume 22 : Issue 1 Inside This Issue: Editor: Patrick A. Townson Re: Record Labels Sue Internet Providers Over Site (Steve Brack) Re: Cable Channel 1 (Not to be Confused With B'cast Channel 1) (Roberts) Banning Cell Phone Use in Theaters (was News Headlines) (John David Galt) A Problem About SS7 Protocol Stack (Lotto) Re: Sprint History (Alan Burkitt-Gray) The Mysterious Cable Channel 70 (Neal McLain) BeSeen Shutdown Notice (BeSeen) Re: Record Labels Sue Internet Providers Over Site (Geoffrey Welsh) Re: Any Open Wire Carrier Left? (Dave Garland) Re: Fried Modem: Telco Responsibility (Dave Garland) Re: Fried Modem: Telco Responsibility (John Higdon) Re: Canadian CO (Prefix) Assignment Database? (unspammable-4719) Sale of Qwest Directory Business Could Affect Phone Rates (Marcus Jervis) AT&T Didn't Honor Their Rates (Mr. Knowitall) DSL Pacbell/Sbc VPN Palmdale Calif (David Green) Re: Sprint History (was Re: Any Open Wire Carrier Left?) (Russell Blau) 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. WE DO NOT PERMIT NAME/EMAIL ADDRESS HARVESTING FROM THIS JOURNAL. 'SALTED' EMAIL ADDRESSES APPEAR HEREIN TO VERIFY THIS. YOU GET SUED IN SMALL CLAIMS COURT IF YOU GET CAUGHT SPAMMING OR SENDING VIRUSES. DON'T DO IT. See the bottom of this issue for subscription and archive details and the name of our lawyer; other stuff of interest. ---------------------------------------------------------------------- From: Steve Brack Subject: Re: Record Labels Sue Internet Providers Over Site Organization: Society for the Preservation of Steve Brack Date: Wed, 21 Aug 2002 03:13:38 GMT Considering that this is comp.dcom.telecom, it surprises me that this point hasn't been made yet: The backbone providers are common carriers. They carry traffic without discrimination as to the meaning of its content. If they can be sued for merely carrying listen4ever.net then what's to stop me from suing SBC/Ameritech over telemarketing calls that they carry? Do we really want our common carriers policing our use of their facilities, monitoring our communications, and acting on the information they observe? Steve Brack Internet Observer wrote in message news:telecom20.364.2@telecom-digest.org: > Has Listen4Ever.com ceased operation? > The site that seems to be up is http://www.Listen4Ever.net > Anyone know the latest? > Thank you! ------------------------------ From: markrobt@hotmail.com (Mark Roberts) Subject: Re: Cable Channel 1 (Not to be Confused With B'cast Channel 1) Date: Wed, 21 Aug 2002 03:14:36 -0000 Organization: 1.94 meters Ed Ellers had written: > That's common in areas with poor over-the-air reception, but in places > close to VHF stations it's common to put those stations on different > channels -- to avoid ghosting caused by those stations' strong signals > leaking into the cable -- and use their "normal" channels for > lesser-used stuff such as access channels. Here's what I have seen over the years: Columbia, Mo.: KOMU/8 placed on cable 7; cable 8 used for weather radar for a long time, now blank; KRCG/13 on cable 12; cable 13 used for municipal access. Ingress a MAJOR problem on 8; relatively minor on 13 but the builders of the system took no chances and that's been carried down through the successor companies. Kansas City: WDAF/4 on cable 6; KCTV/5 on cable 3; KMBC/9 on cable 12. Kansas City has most of its TV towers in the center city area. Ingress is a major problem and the Kansas City cable system was old and creaking (couldn't go up past cable 37) until about 1997. Oddly enough, then-KYFC/50 was shunted off to cable 9 where it suffered interference from KMBC if you lived in the urban core (as I did, just five miles from most of the sites). Cable 4 became a leased-access channel. Cable 5 has been used for various things over the years. Chicago: The TCI/AT&T system put WBBM/2 on cable 3 (cable 2 was blank) but left the other channels alone. The quality of the system varied tremendously. At my first Chicago location, ingress and ghosting were a big problem on the other V's. Then I moved five blocks away to the other side of Broadway. The quality suddenly became much better. I suspect that, at my first location near Sheridan Road, there may have been quite a bit of leakage due to theft of service. The 21st Century (now RCN) system was brand-new, did not move any channels, and there was no ingress or ghosting. San Francisco: No changes. Likewise in Oakland, a problem for us because we live at a location whose elevation is above the elevation of the main antenna on Mt. Sutro. -- the house is as line-of-sight as it can be! We can't use our cable upstairs -- I've tried several strategies for shielding and and attentuating -- and none has worked. This was true even after AT&T installed new lines with better signal strength in our neighborhood. Yet downstairs there are no problems. Either there's something in the house wiring or we have enough natural shielding from the hillside to make it work there. We do see some minor interference, I believe from UHF 26, on cable 71 (the Travel Channel, woohoo). I haven't compared the two sets of frequency to see what the precise overlap is. There's something similar on our cable 77 which is used as a preview channel for AT&T to flog its digital-cable channels. Of course, upstairs, rabbit ears are sufficient for the channels transmitting from Sutro and San Bruno -- the two U's from San Bruno hardly even need that. Mark Roberts | "This is local television. Get off your high horse!" Oakland, Cal.| -- Gary Radnich to Wendy Tokuda on KRON-TV's NO HTML MAIL | 9 pm newscast (said in jest), August 9, 2002 ------------------------------ From: John David Galt Subject: Banning Cell Phone Use in Theaters (was News Headlines of Interest) Date: Wed, 21 Aug 2002 01:13:18 -0700 Organization: Diogenes The Cynic Hot-Tubbing Society > As much as New Yorkers love to talk, they appear to be inclined to > support legislation that prohibits people from using their cell phones > in public. > http://www.wired.com/news/business/0,1367,54608,00.html Why is a law needed for this? Why don't the affected theaters just show their rude patrons the door? If that's too expensive because it requires hiring human beings, maybe they should consider installing Faraday cages in the walls. That's certainly legal even if active jamming isn't. ------------------------------ From: wllee@21cn.com (Lotto) Subject: A Problem About SS7 Protocol Stack Date: 21 Aug 2002 02:12:36 -0700 Organization: http://groups.google.com/ I don't know how to design it . Who can tell me where can I download it free? Or mail me the source code. Any advice on how to get them will be greatly appreciated. Thank U! Lotto ------------------------------ From: Alan Burkitt-Gray Subject: Re: Sprint History Date: Wed, 21 Aug 2002 11:50:53 +0100 Steven Lichter wrote: > Qwest was formed out of US West a few years ago. No, Qwest, the long-distance operation that was formed out of Southern Pacific's network (following SP's earlier creation of Sprint), bought US West in 2000 and dropped the RBOC's old name, so it all became Qwest. The old long-distance Qwest operation is called "Classic Qwest" by some people in the company. Incidentally this isn't the first time a utility has spun off more than one telco. Williams Pipe Line, the oil network, built an optical fibre telecoms infrastructure in the 1980s, called it WilTel, and then sold it to, er, Bernie Ebbers of WorldCom for $2.5 billion. Then in 1998 they started another, now independent but in chapter 11. Jeremy Beal wrote: > Anschutz also bought up as many old/outdated/unused railroad rights > of way as he could, with more interest in the right-of-way access to > lay new fiber than existing wiring." The guy obviously has a liking for clapped out infrastructure. Here in London he's the main force behind a group that's taken over the Millennium Dome, site of a poorly attended, loss-making, year-long exhibition in 2000. Empty since Dec 31 2000 and destined to be a sports stadium, so they say. Picked it up from the government for virtually nothing, but promises a share of the profits -- but I expect he has good accountants. Alan B-G Alan Burkitt-Gray Editor, Global Telecoms Business Euromoney Institutional Investor plc, Nestor House, Playhouse Yard, London EC4V 5EX, UK tel +44 20 7779 8518 fax +44 20 7779 8492 e-mail aburkitt@euromoneyplc.com www.globaltelecomsbusiness.com ------------------------------ Date: Wed, 21 Aug 2002 06:10:08 -0600 From: Neal McLain Subject: The Mysterious Cable Channel 70 PAT Wrote: > [TELECOM Digest Editor's Note: Something weird about our cable here. > We get channels 2 through 62 (channel 4 is skipped) and from 63 > upward, I get a blue (no signal) blank screen the rest of the way > up to channel 125 on my television. Except 'channel' (or position) > 70 on the VCR/TV combo I have. Channel 70 was picked up in the auto- > tuning process and is still there with a *black* (in use) screen. > Something somewhere is leaking through a bit I guess. Channel 70 > never has anything on it, just that dark and occasional flickering > screen. I was hoping that maybe fine tuning of the set would get me > some hint of programming there, but no go ....] And then later (in the same issue of TD) PAT wrote: > [TELECOM Digest Editor's Note: After skipping over 1, we use 2 and 3 > then skip 4 and use 5 through 62. The premium channels require special > converters, etc and are numbered such as '307', '425' etc. PAT] My guess: Cable Channel 70 is the digital data stream for the premium channels. One of those "special converters" would demodulate/demux/decode the data stream into separate video signals and present them to you on virtual "channels" labeled 307, 425, etc. If this guess is correct, there's indeed a signal on Channel 70, but no amount of fiddling with your NTSC fine-tuning control will ever detect anything recognizable. Neal McLain nmclain@annsgarden.com ------------------------------ Date: Wed, 21 Aug 2002 09:16:27 -0400 From: BeSeen Subject: BeSeen Shutdown Notice Dear BeSeen User: We have some unfortunate news to share with you. As you may have noticed on our Web Site, we'll be discontinuing all services offered by BeSeen. The cost of maintaining this free service is just too high for us to support its continued operation. The shutdown will take place on August 26, 2002. Be aware that access to all user accounts and data will also be disabled on August 26, 2002. Please take appropriate steps to retrieve any information you wish to save prior to this date. We plan to keep your email address on file in order to send you webmaster news, information, and offers. If you'd prefer not to receive these email messages from us, please follow the instructions below to unsubscribe. Questions? Please refer to the Frequently Asked Questions page on our site. http://pull.xmr3.com/p/283056-0370/44533157/pull-faq.html Thank you for using our services, and for being part of the BeSeen community. We hope you've enjoyed the experience as much as we have. Sincerely, The BeSeen Team ------------------------------ From: Geoffrey Welsh Subject: Re: Record Labels Sue Internet Providers Over Site Date: Wed, 21 Aug 2002 08:14:27 -0400 Organization: Bell Sympatico Steve Brack wrote: > The backbone providers are common carriers. In many cases, the backbone operators are also common carriers, but I have never seen a definitive statement on whether internet and other data services -- sometimes referred to as "the unregulated services" -- qualified for common carrier treatment. > Do we really want our common carriers policing our use of their > facilities, monitoring our communications, and acting on the > information they observe? Didn't a French court require this (more or less) in a ruling about a year ago? ------------------------------ From: Dave Garland Subject: Re: Any Open Wire Carrier Left? Organization: Wizard Information Date: Wed, 21 Aug 2002 09:27:05 -0500 It was a dark and stormy night when stevenl11@aol.com (Steven Lichter) wrote: > Qwest was formed out of US West a few years ago. Qwest was originally a LDC, and their initial IPO was in 1995. Qwest bought USWest in 1999. ------------------------------ From: Dave Garland Subject: Re: Fried Modem: Telco Responsibility Organization: Wizard Information Date: Wed, 21 Aug 2002 09:38:00 -0500 It was a dark and stormy night when Bob K. wrote: > I'm wondering what kind of liability lies with Verizon, my local > telco. Probably none. The susceptibility of phone lines to lightning (and lightning-induced surges) is well known, telephone line surge protectors are available in many places that sell powerline surge protectors. And I know people who unplug everything when a thunderstorm is coming (which is the only 100% protection ... in the event of a direct hit, any spark that can jump a quarter mile isn't likely to be stopped by some dinky surge protector). You were lucky. Last time that happened to me, not only did the modem get fried, but the port driver chips in the computer as well. ------------------------------ Date: Wed, 21 Aug 2002 11:19:12 -0700 Subject: Re: Fried Modem: Telco Responsibility From: John Higdon Organization: Green Hills and Cows In article telecom20.365.7@telecom-digest.org, Bob K. wrote: > I'm wondering what kind of liability lies with Verizon, my local > telco. To me, it looks like they didn't have enough lightning > protection on the lines to my apartment building. But getting money > out of them might be like getting blood out of a stone. Yes, it will. I had thousands of dollars worth of damage from lightning that entered through a Verizon 25-pair service entrance. It took a solid year to get Verizon to make permanent repairs to its own entrance facility, much less compensate me for the destroyed terminal equipment. > What do you think? (I hear they make surge protectors that cover the > phone line. I'll have to get one.) You have just answered your own question. If there is something YOU can do to mitigate potential damage, then YOU are expected to do it. John Higdon | Email Address Valid | SF: +1 415 428-COWS +1 408 264 4115 | Anytown, USA | FAX: +1 408 264 4407 ------------------------------ Date: Wed, 21 Aug 2002 16:18:51 -0400 From: unspammable-4719@workbench.net Subject: Re: Canadian CO (Prefix) Assignment Database? On Tue, 20 Aug 2002 14:58:35 -0700, David wrote: > I have been searching in vain for hours now trying to find a link to a > database, website or other downloadable resource that will reveal the > current exchange assignments by company or corporation for CANADA. > Various links lead back to NANPA.com but exhaustive browsing there > only returns the complete information for the USA & Territories, which > I have previously downloaded. In some cases you can use this site: http://www.telcodata.us/telco.html (Try a "Lookup by Areacode/Exchange") But the problem is that while there seems to be a lot of info on CLEC's, most of the older Bell Canada exchanges return "Unknown - No data" for the company. If you see this for an Ontario area code, more than likely it's Bell Canada, or at least an ILEC. I would imagine it works better on CLEC exchanges. Jack The e-mail address in the "From" line of this message disappears when the spammers abuse it. ------------------------------ From: Marcus Jervis Subject: Sale of Qwest Directory Business Could Affect Phone Rates Date: Wed, 21 Aug 2002 15:16:09 +0000 http://seattletimes.nwsource.com/html/businesstechnology/134518264_qwestdex21.html By Nancy Gohring Seattle Times business reporter 8/21/2002 Foundering telephone giant Qwest has agreed to a $7 billion sale of its phone-book business that could help it avert bankruptcy. But there is a risk the deal could lead to higher phone bills for Washington residents. The Washington Utilities and Transportation Commission has calculated that revenue from the QwestDex directory keeps phone bills in the state down by $3 per month. If Qwest sells QwestDex, the commission will have to decide if the company must continue with that $3 subsidy even though it will have lower revenue. Qwest, which serves 14 states and 30 million customers around the world and operates 2.5 million access lines in Washington, is under investigation by the Securities and Exchange Commission, Congress and the U.S. Attorney's Office in Denver for alleged improper accounting. The Denver-based telecommunications company is also carrying $25 billion of debt, so it is desperately looking for ways to raise cash to avoid default. Analysts said the QwestDex sale is a step in the right direction. However, there could be regulatory challenges that could slow down the deal. While the regulations are murky, half the states in Qwest's local-phone territory may have the authority to block the sale of QwestDex. Instead of challenging it, however, commissions will most likely make deals with the company. In the mid-1980s, Washington and six other local utilities commissions allowed US West, the local phone company later bought by Qwest, to move its directory unit into an unregulated part of its business. But the company had to subsidize rates to reflect the value of the directory business. "The commission has always waved a flag saying we were concerned about moving this asset out of the local phone company, when it was the local phone company and the local phone customers who built that asset," said Tim Sweeney, spokesman for the Washington Utilities and Transportation Commission. The Washington commission determined Qwest should subsidize $3 per bill to reflect the revenues generated by QwestDex. That works out to about $100 million per year. Qwest would have to apply to the commission for a rate change if it wants to discontinue the subsidy. "Then you'd have the staff and public counsel on record saying you had an asset change without benefiting the customer. You got X benefit, and some of that belongs to the customer," said Sweeney. Before applying for a rate change or waiting for a challenge from state regulators, Qwest could approach the state commissions and try to make a deal. Colorado said it wouldn't challenge the sale of QwestDex if Qwest continues its $40 million yearly subsidy that it agreed to in the 1980s. If Qwest applies for a rate increase in that state, however, it must then increase the subsidy to $91.7 million, according to the deal. Qwest hasn't approached this state yet for approval to sell QwestDex. Richard Notebaert, chairman and CEO of Qwest, was in Seattle this week but returned to Denver early. State regulators may have reason to go easy on Qwest. There's a clause in the QwestDex sales agreement that allows the buyers private equity firms The Carlyle Group and Welsh, Carson, Anderson & Stowe to set a limit of $500 million for how much Qwest can pay in total to regulatory bodies, said Chris King, an associate analyst with Legg Mason. If that limit were exceeded, the deal would have to be renegotiated. A Qwest spokesman couldn't confirm that clause. King thinks such a limit will encourage states not to penalize Qwest too much. "It clearly doesn't do them any good to see Qwest in financial difficulty," he said. The Washington commission is keeping Qwest's stability in mind. "You could probably argue that all of Washington's assets sold as part of the publishing business need to flow back to the local phone company. But does that help Qwest get the money to pay down its debt?" Sweeney said. Analysts say the sale of the directory business doesn't guarantee Qwest can avoid filing for bankruptcy protection, but it's the best shot. But the directory business was a stable revenue generator that will be tough to lose. King estimated QwestDex has brought in more than $500 million in cash per year. "It impedes Qwest's ability to remain free cash-flow positive after the Dex business is sold," he said. But other Qwest businesses have the potential for greater growth, so the directory unit is the best option for raising cash, King said. ------------------------------ From: Mr. Knowitall Subject: AT&T Didn't Honor Their Rates Date: Wed, 21 Aug 2002 10:36:26 -0500 Organization: Ach! Reply-To: knowitall@ev1.net I just finished listening to AT&T trying to sell me their long distance -- the benefit they offered is a reduction on a bill I had no idea was going to be so big. You see, they sold me a plan (all verbal) and then didn't honor the rates they quoted. I can't comment on exactly what the rates they charged me were, other than I bought a plan that was supposed to allow me to call my friends in Mexico for .20 / minute -- because: 1) I never got a call detail -- only a Past Due notice. I suspect the reason no call detail with bill was ever provided is because the original bill would have had the rates they originally quoted to me - .20/minute instead of whatever they decided to do to me. They decided to put it to me because I didn't stay with their service long enough - they did not honor their word! I think they just skipped the part about sending me a bill just so thy could put it to me, out of revenge for leaving them! 2) It was all verbal -- no accountability on their part. 3) At the very LEAST -- if they were not going to honor the rates they promised, they should have informed me immediately instead of after the fact! The company I worked for put an ISDN line in my home because the local service was always substandard for data. When I lost my job due to the economy, I noticed they had a few months left on the contract, so I asked that the line be switched over to my name. I am an individual. About a month after I made the switch, I got a bill from SWBell which was much larger than I thought - it was 144.32. I paid it immediately (July 5th), but the next day called to ask an explanation as to why it was so high. Answer - it's a business line. I told them I'm not a business, and after being shuttled from one person to another, someone in Service finally knew enough to explain to me that the only way ISDN is offered is as a business. In the meantime, I knew I was going to have to make some long distance calls, so I had called AT&T and ordered a couple long distance plans - one to give me a good rate in Texas and the US, another to give me a good rate internationally, as I have a girlfriend in Mexico, who I was calling, confident I wouldn't pay more than .27/minute. Later on I switched to IDT, because they offer .19/minute to Mexico. Imagine my shock when I opened my mail and got a bill for $776.34 from AT&T. It seems neither of the plans went through because this line is classed as a business line, and I am not a business, I am an individual - an unemployed individual. So, I called AT&T and spent 83 minutes on the phone with three people -- I called the number marked 'For Billing Inquiries' - 800-847-3595. After listening to many commercials, I finally got a guy on the phone -- listened to the problem and told me he would transfer me to a 'billing specialist', who actually seems to be a salesman -- this took a half hour. David 'Billing Specialist' (would not give a last name or any way to identify him -- decided the only way he could help me is by selling me a 'business' long distance rate and back-rating me, which would give me a much higher rate than the residential plan I thought I had. He would credit me only if I switched, otherwise I am stuck with a 765.34 bill which said I was overdue, and never had received a call detail for. This overdue notice for $765.34 is the first bill I got from AT&T. I tried to get names and/or employee numbers from everyone I spoke with at AT&T. None of this was provided, I suppose they don't want to be on record as Blackmailers. Incidentally, the service I switched to - IDT - is honoring it's quoted rates. My bill with them is the expected .20/minute, and they do correctly have me in their records as an individual -- not a business. This is the company AT&T is trying to get me to switch from in this deceitful, deceptive manner. The resolution I seek -- I want AT&T to honor the original rates they quoted so I can pay the bill as I planned, with rates commensurate with what I was led to believe I would get. Can anyone offer some advice please? Thank you. Spammers Persecuted Relentlessly [TELECOM Digest Editor's Note: Same thing in Kansas. DSL is always a business service, even when installed in a residence. But SWB Com has a long-distance rate of 7 cents per minute domestically whether it is a business or residence line. PAT] ------------------------------ From: David Green Subject: DSL Pacbell/Sbc VPN Palmdale Calif Date: Wed, 21 Aug 2002 09:38:50 -0700 Hello List, I'm trying to hook up a VPN to my home server through my DSL. I keep getting a 721 error. I have my firewall letting port 1723 through but I read where I might need protocol 47 GRE. I don't have any settings in my firewall "Dlink DI-604" for this and read where SBC may not be letting them through anyway. I Called SBC and they heee hummed and said that they don't support VPN and the yes GRE is blocked (But they didn't sound to sure). I was wondering if anyone can confirm this or am I doing something wrong. I'm pretty sure that am getting thought the firewall because if I block 1723 I get different error messages not finding the server and I can see in the log where the packets are being dropped. Also am able to connect to the VPN just fine inside on the local network segment. Thanks for any help, I would really like getting VPN for home network. Thanks, David Green G & B Technologies www.gbtechnologies.com ------------------------------ Date: Wed, 21 Aug 2002 10:47:10 -0700 (PDT) From: Russell Blau Reply-To: russblau@hotmail.com Subject: Re: Sprint History (was Re: Any Open Wire Carrier Left?) Steven Lichter wrote in message news:telecom20.365.12@telecom-digest.org: > Charles G Gray wrote in message > news:: >> Has SP spun off _two_ major carriers -- one which was bought by the >> Brown Telephone Company and one which went on to buy USWorst? > Sprint was first part of GTE, later is was merged with United > Telephone which later took control of Sprint and changed its name. > Never heard Qwest had anything to do with it, Qwest was formed out of > US West a few years ago. Steven, I find you GUILTY of having insufficient gray hair. When I first became a Sprint customer in 1982, the name that appeared on the bills was "Southern Pacific Communications Company." A couple of years later, the railroad sold it to GTE, which changed the name to GTE Sprint. About 1990 or so (don't hold me to specific dates), GTE sold a 50% stake in the company to United Telephone, and they changed the name again to US Sprint. United bought out GTE's share around 1994-95. Qwest was not "formed out of US West". It was an independent company, formed out of SP Telecom, which merged with (acquired) US West in a stock deal a couple of years ago. ------------------------------ TELECOM Digest is an electronic journal devoted mostly but not exclusively to telecommunications topics. It is circulated anywhere there is email, in addition to various telecom forums on a variety of networks such as Compuserve and America On Line, 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: 620-870-9697 Fax 1: 775-255-9970 Fax 2: 775-306-8390 Fax 3: 530-309-7234 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 second 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) Email <==> FTP: telecom-archives@telecom-digest.org Send a simple, one line note to that automated address for a help file on how to use the automatic retrieval system for archives files. You can get desired files in email. ************************************************************************* * 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. Access to Premium (P) links requires upgrade to a paid subscription. One click a day feeds a person a meal. Go to http://www.thehungersite.com Only subscribers or registered users of ICB Toll Free News web site will be able to access all or some of the full text of URLs provided. LEGAL STUFF: TELECOM Digest (sm) is owned by Patrick Townson. Copyright 2002 ICB, Inc. and TELECOM Digest. All rights reserved. Our attorney is Bill Levant, of Blue Bell, PA. --------------------------------------------------------------- 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 twenty 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 V22 #1 **************************** From editor@telecom-digest.org Thu Aug 22 20:37:48 2002 Received: from localhost (localhost [[UNIX: localhost]]) by massis.lcs.mit.edu (8.11.3nb1/8.11.3) id g7N0bmS05078; Thu, 22 Aug 2002 20:37:48 -0400 (EDT) Date: Thu, 22 Aug 2002 20:37:48 -0400 (EDT) From: editor@telecom-digest.org Message-Id: <200208230037.g7N0bmS05078@massis.lcs.mit.edu> X-Authentication-Warning: massis.lcs.mit.edu: ptownson set sender to editor@telecom-digest.org using -f To: ptownson Approved: patsnewlist Subject: TELECOM Digest V22 #2 TELECOM Digest Thu, 22 Aug 2002 20:37:00 EDT Volume 22 : Issue 2 Inside This Issue: Editor: Patrick A. Townson Broadcast Channel 1 (continued) (Neal McLain) Re: Cable Channel 1 (Not to be Confused W/ B'cast Channel 1) (M. Roberts) The U.S. Recording Industry Drops Effort to block Chinese Site (Observer) Almon B. Strowger Gravesite (Neal McLain) News Headlines of Interest 8/22/02 (Monty Solomon) Re: Sprint History (was Re: Any Open Wire Carrier Left?) (Russell Blau) Re: Fried Modem: Telco Responsibility (w_tom) Re: Four-Prong Telephone Jacks (s falke) Re: Record Labels Sue Internet Providers Over Site (Barry Margolin) 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. WE DO NOT PERMIT NAME/EMAIL ADDRESS HARVESTING FROM THIS JOURNAL. 'SALTED' EMAIL ADDRESSES APPEAR HEREIN TO VERIFY THIS. YOU GET SUED IN SMALL CLAIMS COURT IF YOU GET CAUGHT SPAMMING OR SENDING VIRUSES. DON'T DO IT. See the bottom of this issue for subscription and archive details and the name of our lawyer; other stuff of interest. ---------------------------------------------------------------------- Date: Thu, 22 Aug 2002 00:30:08 -0600 From: Neal McLain Subject: Broadcast Channel 1 (continued) I wrote: > Television Channel 1 (50-56 MHz) was removed from the television > service for a technical reason: the second harmonic of the visual > carrier of a TV transmitter operating on Channel 1 (51.1 MHz) > would have fallen at 102.2 MHz, right in the middle of the new > FM broadcast band (88-108 MHz) that the FCC was creating at the > same it deleted TV Channel 1. [...] Whereupon Ed Ellers wrote: > Nope, nope, nope. Channel 1 after the war was to have been > 44-50 MHz; it wasn't immediately available since FM stations > had to be cleared out of the old 42-50 MHz band first, so it > was reserved for low-power community stations in smaller towns > (which probably made it easier to avoid the harmonic at 90.5 > MHz). By the time the FM stations were gone, in 1948, the > need for more land mobile spectrum was apparent and the demand > for small-town TV stations, so channel 1 was deleted for that > reason. The record is clear on this. Ed is right. After reading his comments, I did some further research, and found an article "What Ever Happened to Channel 1" by David A. Ferre, from the March 1982 issue of _Radio-Electronics_ magazine (posted at ). According to this article, Channel 1 frequency assignments were: 1938-1940 44-50 MHz 1940-1946 50-56 MHz 1946-1948 44-50 MHz 1948-present - So it appears that Channel 1 was, for six years, at 50-56 MHz, but it was moved back to 44-50 in 1946, two years before the FM band was moved to 88-108. I also wrote: > Postscript: So-called superstations (broadcast stations that are > "secondarily transmitted" to cable systems by satellite) are the > exception here: their revenue is exclusively from advertising, and, > because of an old FCC rule, they can't charge license fees. And Ed wrote: > It's not an old FCC rule -- it's a relatively recent clause in > Federal law, initially in the Cable Act of 1992. Any commercial > TV station can demand compensation from cable operators (and now, > satellite providers), but superstations were exempted if (A) they > were being distributed by satellite to cable operators on a > certain date (thus freezing the group of stations to which it > applies) and (B) the cable system gets the station by satellite, > or for DBS, the viewers are outside the station's market [...]. I guess my statement was misleading. My statement " ... because of an old FCC rule, they [superstations] can't charge license fees" was intended to contrast superstations against producers of non-broadcast satellite-delivered cable programming. Apparently Ed thought I was contrasting superstations against other commercial television stations. Before Congress passed the Cable Television Consumer Protection and Competition Act of 1992 (overriding the first President Bush's veto), no broadcast station, superstation or otherwise, could demand license fees, or any other form of compensation, from any cable company carrying its signal. The FCC's signal-carriage rules, dating as far back as 1976 (and probably earlier, but I don't have copies of older rules at hand), specified the conditions under which cable systems could carry the signals of television broadcast stations. These rules covered, in excruciating detail, the rights of cable systems to carry broadcast stations, and the rights of broadcast stations to demand mandatory ("must carry") carriage. But nowhere in these rules is there any mention of any form of financial compensation by either party. And that's the "old FCC rule" I was referring to. Admittedly, these rules didn't specifically prohibit compensation; they simply omitted any reference to it. But the net effect was the same. That said, Ed is quite correct is stating that the Cable Act of 1992 gave broadcast stations the right to demand compensation, and that superstations were specifically excluded from this provision. But that's a different (and long) story. Neal McLain nmclain@annsgarden.com ------------------------------ From: markrobt@hotmail.com (Mark Roberts) Subject: Re: Cable Channel 1 (Not to be Confused With B'cast Channel 1) Date: Thu, 22 Aug 2002 02:52:41 -0000 Organization: 1.94 meters Mr. Townson had written: > Except 'channel' (or position) > 70 on the VCR/TV combo I have. Channel 70 was picked up in the auto- > tuning process and is still there with a *black* (in use) screen. > Something somewhere is leaking through a bit I guess. Channel 70 > never has anything on it, just that dark and occasional flickering > screen. I was hoping that maybe fine tuning of the set would get me > some hint of programming there, but no go. FCC's TV database shows a CP for a translator (K20HJ) on channel 20 in Independence, owned by "Tulsa Channel 19 LLP". Is this on the air? (Hmmm ... these guys also have a CP for K59HS. What's up there?) Alteratively, I suppose it could be an image from K54GC, your local Trinity Biblebangin' Network teapot (to move to channel 43). Aside from the LPTV on channel 4 in Coffeyville, there are no other TV stations on the air within 50 km of Independence. Mark Roberts | "This is local television. Get off your high horse!" Oakland, Cal.| -- Gary Radnich to Wendy Tokuda on KRON-TV's NO HTML MAIL | 9 pm newscast (said in jest), August 9, 2002 [TELECOM Digest Editor's Note: I was curious about this so I took my little portable black/white TV out in the back yard and tested it without the cable connection but WITH the antenna attached. It normally has a chintzy little box the cableco gave me for free which by pressing a button sequentially moves it up or down through the 60 availale channels. You plug it in where the 'external antenna' would go, and leave it on channel or 4 all the time (the box set to either 3/4 as well. All I could get in the backyard with the little telecoping antenna piece was channel 12 out of Joplin, MO (faint and snowy pic) and the station out of Pittsburg, KS (poorly) also. Channel 4 out of Coffeyville (LPTV) came in the same way, poorly, but Coffeyville is about 15 miles away. Channel 20 did not appear to be on the air at all. Note all I had was the little telescoping piece on the back of the TV. I do however see a few really huge (high off the ground) antennas around here, mostly in the rural areas outside of town where cable does not reach. Maybe with a *good, high* antenna or one of those amplified antennas I could do better. The Trinity people are on Cable Channel 20 and part of the free offering on the original basic package. Are they also on LPTV here? I did not know that. The original package only went up to 22. There was an LPTV in Chicago on Channel 54 which carried Eternal Word all the time, like a satellator (TV version of translator). They were in one of the south suburbs but you got a ghost picture in the north suburbs. I don't know why I can't get Coffeyville here; only 15 miles. Maybe its the little antenna and the real cheap portable TV. Trinity was/is on the original basic here; Eternal Word (the Catholic cable offering) is on the 'extended basic' side here. My TV/VCR combo I mentioned here a couple days ago is actually a 'cable ready' VCR for fifty dollars from Walmart which plays video tapes and has a modulator in it that 'transmits' a picture to an old computer monitor I have which has a button on it to make it be a computer monitor or whatever. If I press a button I get an all-green picture on it; press the button the other way and get color/black/white. It was originally in use with an old computer of mine from years ago. You use RCA plugs on the back of it to get TV pictures from the VCR. It is a 12 or 13 inch picture, as you would use on an older type computer. The remote control for the VCR changes channels (on the VCR) which are consequently reflected on the old monitor, which has no channel controls. The remote control does not adjust the sound or on/off on the monitor part however. I was not going to unhook all that and drag it out to the back yard. Maybe I will try to figure out an antenna I can plug in the VCR and use it for 'over-air' TV also. My other 'cable outlet' goes to the chintzy converter box and the littl(er) (actual) TV in my bedroom. PAT] ------------------------------ From: baboulas@subdimension.com (Internet Observer) Subject: The U.S. Recording Industry Drops Efforts to Block a Chinese Site Date: 21 Aug 2002 21:56:12 -0700 Organization: http://groups.google.com Get the latest news including the actual Press Release by the RIAA at http://www.Listen4Ever.net After the original announcement and since about 3 days ago the site conducted a user poll on SIte blocking by backbone ISP's. Here are the poll results: Is SIte Blocking by backbone ISPs: A good thing, great law enforcement or remedial measure 45 (6%) Bad thing, an infringement on liberties or freedom of speech 602 (74%) Site blocking only as last resort 52 (6%) Never heard of site blocking 18 (2%) It depends on what is being blocked 71 (9%) Undecided on this one 23 (3%) Total votes: 811 I imagine listen4ever.net was monitored closely by the RIAA. ------------------------------ Date: Thu, 22 Aug 2002 00:42:37 -0600 From: Neal McLain Subject: Almon B. Strowger Gravesite Forwarded message (cross-posted from the Strowger list): > http://www.roserpark.net/greenwood/strowger.html > We're working feverishly to return the cemtery in which Mr. almon B. > Strowger and his wife Susan are interred. > If someone has biographical information regarding Mr. Strowger, I'd be > eager to read up. > Chris Kelly > Roser Park Neighborhood Association > www.roserpark.net Neal McLain nmclain@annsgarden.com ------------------------------ Date: Thu, 22 Aug 2002 01:57:00 -0400 From: Monty Solomon Subject: News Headlines of Interest (8/22/02) August 22, 2002 Sprint's PCS Vision Network Is Fast, but Also Quite Pricey By WALTER S. MOSSBERG After years of delays and false promises, the cellular-phone carriers in the U.S. are finally rolling out higher-speed data networks that allow users to get onto the Internet wirelessly. These new cellphone systems, which also carry voice calls, aren't really "high speed," despite some claims. In fact, they are only about as fast as a dial-up home modem. But the new networks are three or four times as fast as previous Internet connections possible via cellphone. This month, Sprint introduced nationwide its higher-speed network, called PCS Vision, and I've been testing it for several weeks using a variety of devices, including a souped-up Samsung voice phone that can take pictures and transmit them to the Web, a new Sprint version of Handspring's Treo combination phone/PDA, and a card you plug into a laptop to connect it to the Internet wirelessly. ... http://ptech.wsj.com/archive/ptech-20020822.html Wireless Web comes to Starbucks shops - Aug 21, 2002 07:00 AM (Reuters) SAN FRANCISCO, Aug 21 (Reuters) - Starbucks Corp. (NASDAQ:SBUX) on Wednesday said it has launched customers into cyberspace at some 1,200 of its coffee shops via a new wireless Internet access system it is now offering to enhance its services. The Seattle-based coffee shop operator has surrounded the shops with a local area network supplied by partners T-Mobile, the wireless division of Germany's Deutsche Telekom AG , and computer maker Hewlett-Packard Co. (NYSE:HPQ), the three companies said in a joint statement. ... - http://finance.lycos.com/home/news/story.asp?story=28379525 Globalstar cuts satellite phone call rates - Aug 21, 2002 09:30 AM (Reuters) SAN JOSE, Calif., Aug 21 (Reuters) - Bankrupt satellite communications company Globalstar Telecommunications Ltd. (BB:GSTRF) said on Wednesday it cut its prices for satellite telephone service in the United States by about 80 percent in a bid to attract more customers. Globalstar said customers can now sign up for service plans ranging from $34.95 for 30 minutes of talk time to $499.95 for 3000 minutes. ... - http://finance.lycos.com/home/news/story.asp?story=28382610 New Salvo in Piracy, Privacy War By Brad King 10:50 a.m. Aug. 21, 2002 PDT The music industry's trade association is asking a federal district court to force an Internet service provider to turn over private information for a subscriber, heating up the legal war between technology and entertainment companies. The Recording Industry Association of America wants Verizon Internet Services to turn over information on one of its subscribers, who the RIAA suspects of offering a large collection of MP3s for download. Wednesday's legal filing with the Federal District Court for the District of Columbia came after Verizon refused to comply with a July 24 subpoena issued by the same court, saying the legal merits of the order were wrong. A spokesman said the company would continue to fight the matter. ... http://www.wired.com/news/mp3/0,1285,54678,00.html How Much Info Is Too Much Info? Associated Press 2:05 p.m. Aug. 21, 2002 PDT WASHINGTON -- States have made significant progress in putting their court records online, allowing the public to examine criminal cases, lawsuits and divorces. However, all are struggling to develop privacy standards that keep pace with the technology, says a report released Wednesday. The Washington-based Center for Democracy and Technology said states are trying to figure out how to balance the right to access public records with the risks of putting a battered wife's address on the Internet or posting uncorroborated child abuse allegations for all to see. http://www.wired.com/news/privacy/0,1848,54683,00.html ------------------------------ Date: Wed, 21 Aug 2002 10:47:10 -0700 (PDT) From: Russell Blau Reply-To: russblau@hotmail.com Subject: Sprint history (was Re: Any Open Wire Carrier Left?) Steven Lichter wrote in message news:telecom20.365.12@telecom-digest.org... > Charles G Gray wrote in message > news:: >> Has SP spun off _two_ major carriers -- one which was bought by the >> Brown Telephone Company and one which went on to buy USWorst? > Sprint was first part of GTE, later is was merged with United > Telephone which later took control of Sprint and changed its name. > Never heard Qwest had anything to do with it, Qwest was formed out of > US West a few years ago. Steven, I find you GUILTY of having insufficient gray hair. When I first became a Sprint customer in 1982, the name that appeared on the bills was "Southern Pacific Communications Company." A couple of years later, the railroad sold it to GTE, which changed the name to GTE Sprint. About 1990 or so (don't hold me to specific dates), GTE sold a 50% stake in the company to United Telephone, and they changed the name again to US Sprint. United bought out GTE's share around 1994-95. Qwest was not "formed out of US West". It was an independent company, formed out of SP Telecom, which merged with (acquired) US West in a stock deal a couple of years ago. I don't actually have a hotmail account; but I do have one on excite.com if you really want to get in touch with me. ------------------------------ From: w_tom Subject: Re: Fried Modem: Telco Responsibility Date: Wed, 21 Aug 2002 19:02:08 -0400 Organization: Posted via Supernews, http://www.supernews.com Go out to your premises interface. Do you have a grey box labeled NID or Network Interface Device? Then you have 'whole house' phone line surge protection. But is that box earthed less than 10 feet, using 10 AWG wire, to central earth ground -- the same earth ground shared by AC electric, CATV, etc? Verizon has provided the surge protector. You must provide the surge protection -- central earth ground. Bob K. wrote: > The other day while I was away, we had a terrible thunderstorm. The > electricity was out for 4 hours, and my computer modem was > fried. There must have been a big jolt over the phone lines because > the numbers I'd programmed into the speed-dial buttons on my phone > were wiped out, too. The phone itself and my answering machine were > otherwise OK. > I'm wondering what kind of liability lies with Verizon, my local > telco. To me, it looks like they didn't have enough lightning > protection on the lines to my apartment building. But getting money > out of them might be like getting blood out of a stone. > What do you think? (I hear they make surge protectors that cover the > phone line. I'll have to get one.) ------------------------------ From: s falke Subject: Re: Four-Prong Telephone Jacks Organization: Prodigy Internet http://www.prodigy.com Date: Wed, 21 Aug 2002 23:06:53 GMT Also listed at: http://www.phonecoinc.com/category.asp?rpage=search&category=Acc#01019 ....p/n 002J and 002P It has a Western Electric/Bell designation [but not 258A :/ ] Do readers know of an online reference? s falke > Thanks to all who responded with the pin-out. > It looks as though Winston will fit the bill for supply as they carry > both plug and wall jack. > http://www.winstonele.com/04-%20Wall%20Plates%20&%20Adapters.htm ------------------------------ From: Barry Margolin Subject: Re: Record Labels Sue Internet Providers Over Site Organization: Genuity, Woburn, MA Date: Thu, 22 Aug 2002 22:27:22 GMT In article , Geoffrey Welsh wrote: > Steve Brack wrote: >> The backbone providers are common carriers. > In many cases, the backbone operators are also common carriers, but I > have never seen a definitive statement on whether internet and other > data services -- sometimes referred to as "the unregulated services" > -- qualified for common carrier treatment. I don't think we are officially categorized as common carriers, but our status is very similar. I think there was a court case earlier this year that decided that we aren't responsible for content that we don't actually produce. I think the only Internet provider that was ever required to exercise control was the old Prodigy system. They advertised their service as family-friendly, and moderated all their discussion groups, so they were treated like a newspaper publisher rather than just a provider of raw communications facilities. Barry Margolin, barmar@genuity.net Genuity, Woburn, MA *** DON'T SEND TECHNICAL QUESTIONS DIRECTLY TO ME, post them to newsgroups. Please DON'T copy followups to me; I'll assume it wasn't posted to the group. ------------------------------ TELECOM Digest is an electronic journal devoted mostly but not exclusively to telecommunications topics. It is circulated anywhere there is email, in addition to various telecom forums on a variety of networks such as Compuserve and America On Line, 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: 620-870-9697 Fax 1: 775-255-9970 Fax 2: 775-306-8390 Fax 3: 530-309-7234 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 second 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) Email <==> FTP: telecom-archives@telecom-digest.org Send a simple, one line note to that automated address for a help file on how to use the automatic retrieval system for archives files. You can get desired files in email. ************************************************************************* * 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. Access to Premium (P) links requires upgrade to a paid subscription. One click a day feeds a person a meal. Go to http://www.thehungersite.com Only subscribers or registered users of ICB Toll Free News web site will be able to access all or some of the full text of URLs provided. LEGAL STUFF: TELECOM Digest (sm) is owned by Patrick Townson. Copyright 2002 ICB, Inc. and TELECOM Digest. All rights reserved. Our attorney is Bill Levant, of Blue Bell, PA. --------------------------------------------------------------- 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 twenty 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 V22 #2 **************************** From editor@telecom-digest.org Fri Aug 23 13:56:54 2002 Received: from localhost (localhost [[UNIX: localhost]]) by massis.lcs.mit.edu (8.11.3nb1/8.11.3) id g7NHusP09996; Fri, 23 Aug 2002 13:56:54 -0400 (EDT) Date: Fri, 23 Aug 2002 13:56:54 -0400 (EDT) From: editor@telecom-digest.org Message-Id: <200208231756.g7NHusP09996@massis.lcs.mit.edu> X-Authentication-Warning: massis.lcs.mit.edu: ptownson set sender to editor@telecom-digest.org using -f To: ptownson Approved: patsnewlist Subject: TELECOM Digest V22 #3 TELECOM Digest Fri, 23 Aug 2002 13:54:00 EDT Volume 22 : Issue 3 Inside This Issue: Editor: Patrick A. Townson Big Lawsuit Filed Against Spam Faxers (Danny Burstein) Re: Banning Cell Phone Use in Theaters (was News Headlines) (Ed Ellers) Re: Banning Cell Phone Use in Theaters (was News Headlines) (David Esan) Re: A Problem About SS7 Protocol Stack (William Warren) News Headlines of Interest 8/23/02 (Monty Solomon) Re: Sprint history (was Re: Any Open Wire Carrier Left?) (Steven Lichter) Re: Broadcast Channel 1 (continued) (Garrett Wollman) For Sale: Bell System and AT&T Tech Journals (Jason Timmons) Re: Cellular - Caller Pays in Cincinnati (Jeffrey James Bryan Carpenter) Re: Any Open Wire Carrier Left? (Sprint) (Marcus Didius Falco) 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. WE DO NOT PERMIT NAME/EMAIL ADDRESS HARVESTING FROM THIS JOURNAL. 'SALTED' EMAIL ADDRESSES APPEAR HEREIN TO VERIFY THIS. YOU GET SUED IN SMALL CLAIMS COURT IF YOU GET CAUGHT SPAMMING OR SENDING VIRUSES. DON'T DO IT. See the bottom of this issue for subscription and archive details and the name of our lawyer; other stuff of interest. ---------------------------------------------------------------------- From: Danny Burstein Subject: Big Lawsuit Filed Against Spam Faxers Date: Fri, 23 Aug 2002 09:23:19 -0400 Organization: PANIX Public Access Internet and UNIX, NYC Lawsuits Seek $2.2 Trillion Over 'Junk' Faxes By REUTERS Filed at 8:56 p.m. ET SAN FRANCISCO (Reuters) - A coalition of California activists filed a jaw-dropping $2.2 trillion set of lawsuits against facsimile marketer Fax.com Thursday, saying millions of 'junk faxes' are clogging the nation's fax machines, jamming communications and possibly endangering lives. The suits, filed in both California state and federal court, seek class action status and punitive damages against privately held Fax.com, its telecommunications provider, Cox Business Services, a division of Cox Communications Inc., as well as Fax.com's advertisers. [snip] but ... look what he says in response ... "He (the owner of fax.com) also said the suits ignored the public service Fax.com performs by mass faxing missing children alerts" http://www.nytimes.com/reuters/technology/tech-tech-spam-fax.html Knowledge may be power, but communications is the key dannyb@panix.com [to foil spammers, my address has been double rot-13 encoded] [TELECOM Digest Editor's Note: An editorial in the Independence Reporter yesterday applauded this lawsuit but did point out the missing children alerts are quite important also. Personally I feel he should be able to fax community announcments like the missing children things without getting approval, but he should be required to use an 'opt-in' system on the other stuff. PAT] ------------------------------ From: Ed Ellers Subject: Re: Banning Cell Phone Use in Theaters (was News Headlines) Date: Thu, 22 Aug 2002 19:53:19 -0400 John David Galt wrote: > Why is a law needed for this? Why don't the affected theaters just show > their rude patrons the door? Maybe they're afraid of violent reactions from some patrons? ------------------------------ From: davidesan@att.net (David Esan) Subject: Re: Banning Cell Phone Use in Theaters (was News Headlines) Date: 23 Aug 2002 06:49:14 -0700 Organization: http://groups.google.com/ John David Galt wrote in message news:: > Why is a law needed for this? Why don't the affected theaters just > show their rude patrons the door? > If that's too expensive because it requires hiring human beings, maybe > they should consider installing Faraday cages in the walls. That's > certainly legal even if active jamming isn't. I wish I was a lawyer, because the lawsuits that the Faraday cage is going to create would buy me that house on Maui. Can you imagine an emergency in a theater (fire, health, violence) and someone whips out their cellphone to call 911 and can't because its blocked by the theater? Huge lawsuit. It is sad, however, that we need a law to enforce what is simple common courtesy. ------------------------------ Reply-To: William Warren From: William Warren Subject: Re: A Problem About SS7 Protocol Stack Organization: Church of the Swimming Bullfrog Date: Fri, 23 Aug 2002 16:15:38 GMT Lotto wrote in message news:telecom22.1.4@telecom-digest.org... > I don't know how to design it . Who can tell me where can I download > it free? Or mail me the source code. Any advice on how to get them > will be greatly appreciated. Dear Lotto, Since you're posting from a domain in China, I assume you're trying to design an SS7 stack for use in that country. The Chinese version of SS7 is fundamentally different from that used in the U.S., so I suggest you get information on it from the Chinese Telecommunications Authority. HTH. HAND. William ------------------------------ Date: Thu, 22 Aug 2002 18:56:07 -0400 From: Monty Solomon Subject: News Headlines of Interest 8/23/02 Court Awards Akamai Broad Permanent Injunction Against Cable & Wireless; Cable & Wireless Ordered to Immediately and Permanently Shut Down Digital Island Footprint 2.0 Service - Aug 22, 2002 06:15 PM (BusinessWire) CAMBRIDGE, Mass.--(BUSINESS WIRE)--Aug. 22, 2002--Akamai Technologies, Inc. (NASDAQ:AKAM) today announced that the Federal District Court in Boston has enjoined Cable & Wireless Internet Services, Inc. from making, using, selling, offering for sale, or importing into the United States, the patented inventions of Claims 1, 3, 5, and 9 of U.S. Patent No. 6,108,703, and from active inducement of infringement of these claims. The Court's Order requires Cable & Wireless to shut down Digital Island's Footprint 2.0 service as configured and described at trial. That service was recently rebranded under the Exodus name. - http://finance.lycos.com/home/news/story.asp?story=28408107 How to Make Yourself Reachable in 5 Places at Once By LARRY MAGID IN the quest to be always within reach, many people have resorted to carrying a cellphone at all times. But a cellphone isn't a perfect solution: for one thing, unless people know to call you on it, they may miss you by calling a land-line number instead. Even eliminating the land line at home won't necessarily help; callers may still miss you by dialing only your office phone. But there are other ways to ensure that you are never out of touch no matter what phones you use. A variety of services are available that make it easy for callers to find you. These services can be particularly useful for families in which one member travels a lot, the children are away at school or elderly relatives need to stay in touch. Setting up a personal toll-free number, for example, can give family members and friends a single, easy-to-remember number to call in an emergency, or for regular calls home from school or college. Those who think getting an 800 number is a big (and expensive) deal - something only appropriate for businesses - might be surprised at how cost-effective they can be, even for a family. Having your own 800 (or 888, 877, 866 or 855, the other current toll-free area codes) number means that people can call you on your nickel, or maybe even for less than a nickel. Just about all long-distance carriers offer toll-free numbers but rates vary greatly. Some charge a monthly fee, some have a minimum usage. The cost per minute ranges from less than a nickel to more than a quarter. http://www.nytimes.com/2002/08/22/technology/circuits/22BASI.html Bracing for the Digital Crackdown By Brad King 2:00 a.m. Aug. 22, 2002 PDT The government is preparing a national crackdown on file traders that would crush the rogue swapping networks in the same manner hackers were pushed underground 12 years ago. File trading has enraged music labels and movie studios since the release of Napster in 1999. The once-popular network was shuttered a year later, but entertainment executives have been struggling to contain the swapping phenomenon since. In less than three years, 70 million people have downloaded applications, such as Kazaa, that sprang up in Napster's stead. Washington lawmakers have been crafting bills that would give the entertainment industry the go-ahead to identify individual users, disrupt file-trading services and prosecute anyone suspected of digital piracy. The fear and loathing focused at the file-trading community is reminiscent of 1990, just before the Secret Service and the FBI conducted raids in order to smash the loosely affiliated hacker organizations around the country, as chronicled by Bruce Sterling in The Hacker Crackdown. http://www.wired.com/news/politics/0,1283,54681,00.html ------------------------------ From: stevenl11@aol.com (Steven Lichter) Date: 23 Aug 2002 01:35:09 GMT Organization: AOL http://www.aol.com Subject: Re: Sprint history (was Re: Any Open Wire Carrier Left?) Russell Blau wrote: > Steven, > I find you GUILTY of having insufficient gray hair. > When I first became a Sprint customer in 1982, the name that appeared > on the bills was "Southern Pacific Communications Company." A couple > of years later, the railroad sold it to GTE, which changed the name to > GTE Sprint. About 1990 or so (don't hold me to specific dates), GTE > sold a 50% stake in the company to United Telephone, and they changed > the name again to US Sprint. United bought out GTE's share around > 1994-95. > Qwest was not "formed out of US West". It was an independent company, > formed out of SP Telecom, which merged with (acquired) US West in a > stock deal a couple of years ago. > I don't actually have a hotmail account; but I do have one on > excite.com if you really want to get in touch with me. I posted wrong about how Qwest was formed. I knew that US West was bought by the Qwest LD Company. I was contracting in Arizona when that change took place. I have gray hair, what is left of it. I spend 30 years with GTE and lost most of it there. I used the ons SP Sprint as a dial around, real pain. I later used PC Pursuit, and was there when they stuck it to all of us. I worked on a project for Sprint in Las Vegas for 11 months and found out the the local operating company there ran pretty good and the people know their jobs. But then Sprint bought the company so they were like many of us were when GTE bought California Water and Telephone. Not much work now, my last telecom job was up in Beaverton, OR. On a Verizon site, they cut the jobs out letting the contractors go. I was one of the last since even though I was contacting they considered me GTE/Verizon since I retired from the company here in Calif. Met a lot of people who moved there from down here. Apple Elite II 909-359-5338. Home of GBBS/LLUCE, support for the Apple II 24 hours 2400/14.4. An OggNet Server. The only good spammer is a dead one!!! Have you hunted one down today? (c) Kill Spammers, Inc. A Hope You Roast In Hell Company. ------------------------------ From: wollman@khavrinen.lcs.mit.edu (Garrett Wollman) Subject: Re: Broadcast Channel 1 (continued) Date: 23 Aug 2002 02:09:12 GMT Organization: MIT Laboratory for Computer Science In article , Neal McLain wrote: > The FCC's signal-carriage rules, [...] specified the conditions under > which cable systems could carry the signals of television broadcast > stations. [...] > But nowhere in these rules is there any mention of any form of > financial compensation by either party. However, cable systems were still required to pay license fees -- just not to the stations themselves. The fees were (still are?) paid directly to a department of the U.S. Copyright Office, which was responsible for distributing the revenue received among the copyright owners (mostly Hollywood studios). These days, most major-market station operators use the 'retrans consent' process as a way to extort more money from cable ratepayers, by requiring cable systems to carry affiliated non-broadcast services in their standard tier of service, as a condition of carrying the broadcast signal. Thus, if you have a Disney-owned station in your market, chances are pretty good that you are paying for all of the Disney cable channels as a part of your basic cable package. -GAWollman -- Garrett A. Wollman | [G]enes make enzymes, and enzymes control the rates of wollman@lcs.mit.edu | chemical processes. Genes do not make ``novelty- Opinions not those of| seeking'' or any other complex and overt behavior. MIT, LCS, CRS, or NSA| - Stephen Jay Gould (1941-2002) ------------------------------ From: Jason Timmons Subject: For Sale: Bell System and AT&T Tech Journals Organization: Quasi-Unified Unter-Church of the Über-Delegator Date: Fri, 23 Aug 2002 00:37:29 GMT This is it: I'm unloading my small collection of Bell System and AT&T Tech Journals. Most are in excellent shape - a couple of the old ones are showing their age but they'll hold up. There's a lot of history here, and tons of hardcore tech info. The link below has my list, which I'll update as they go away. Make whatever deals or offers you want. Want the whole stack? Cool. One issue to fill in your collection? That's fine too. I'm hoping to recover some of the bucks I put into collecting them, but one way or another they have to go. I'm hoping a tech library, computer museum, or some hardcore geeks will give them a home. My email is on the web page, or take the DOT out of the one in the message's headers to email me. I am in Palatine, IL (NW Suburbs of Chicago.) We can pick up local, or ship 'em off wherever you are, if you want to pay for it. Thanks! -j http://home.attbi.com/~jht50/bstj/bstj.html ------------------------------ Date: Thu, 22 Aug 2002 23:30:32 -0000 From: Jeffrey James Bryan Carpenter Subject: Re: Cellular - Caller Pays in Cincinnati > I heard at one time that Cincinnati had "Cellular - Caller Pays" > (landline user pays instead of the wireless phone user). > Does this still exist? If so, is it by certain prefixes? And if so, > does anyone know which ones? And which company or companies? I remember hearing about two trials. The first was one that AT&T did in Minnesota. They assigned area 500 numbers to the cell phones, and collected the "caller pays" fees by setting the cost of the 500 call. See the telecom archives for the numerous articles in the past on what 500 numbers are/were, and the problems with them. The other one was one that a wireless company affiliated with a landline company was doing where local callers would hear a recorded message stating that the call would cost more than the normal call. The fact that the ILEC and wireless company were the same company is what enabled that kind of billing. I think that calls from out of the area had to be charged to a credit card, but I cannot remember. After the announcement of the trial, I do not recall ever hearing anything about it again. jeff ------------------------------ Date: Fri, 23 Aug 2002 01:24:09 -0400 From: Marcus Didius Falco Subject: Re: Any Open Wire Carrier Left? (Sprint) TELECOM Digest Editor noted in response to a message: >> [TELECOM Digest Editor's Note: I guess you know that's largely how >> SPRINT got started in the late sixties/early seventies. The outhern >>

acific ailroad likewise had a lot of wires/poles along their >> tracks. They wanted to upgrade their nternal etwork elecom- >> unications and in the process of doing so, they wound up with so >> much excess capacity they decided to sell the excess space on their >> network to other businesses. Eventually, by the time SPRINT changed >> to serve all the public (not just businesses) they had been spun >> off. The Southern Pacific Railroad Telecommunications office became >> a separate company, first owned by the railroad, then eventually by >> others. Now this multi-billion dollar corporation has a multi-billion >> dollar heaquarters 'campus' on several dozen acres in Shawnee Mission, >> Kansas, where they remain as independent and arogant as ever. > Wasn't the story about Sprint being an acronym debunked here in > Telecom Digest years ago? I've seen PAT repeat this a number of > times, but I thought that at one time someone pointed out that Sprint > was never an acronym. Sorry I don't have a reference. Sprint was originally called SPCC (Southern Pacific Communications Corporation). MCI was the first of the "Other Common Carriers" as they were then called. I think Datran, which went bankrupt in the mid-70s, was the second. I think SPCC was the third to be formed (possibly they preceded Datran). They were active by the mid-70s, but were much smaller than MCI at the time. (Come to think of it, they still are, though it remains to be seen how the MCI bankruptcy will work itself out. > Also, the multi-billion dollar corporation which owns the campus in > Kansas calls itself Sprint, but actually bought Sprint the long > distance carrier and renamed itself from the much larger United > Telephone because the much smaller Sprint was better known to the > public. They were formerly called United Telecom, and were, before the Bell divestiture and the following industry realignments, the fourth largest holding company: Bell General Continental United They did have some manufacturing capabilities and subsidiaries back in those days before 1982. > [TELECOM Digest Editor's Note: Whether or not SPRINT was an acronym > for Southern Pacific Railroad's Internal Network Telecommunications > Department has been debated here in the past. It seems highly odd to > me that the railroad revamped and expanded its telecom facilities > about that time, *was* the original owner of Sprint, decided to sell > its expanded telecom facilities to business users yet did not think > of that acronym for a name. I've heard the 'mere coincidence' argument > many times also, but I don't buy it, and it never has been proven > either way that I know of. > And yes, the multi-billion dollar mega-corporation which has the > campus in Shawnee Mission, KS was the combined Sprint/United Tel > thing. As to *who* bought *who*, I am not sure. They go by the name or > d/b/a Sprint at this present time. PAT] Sprint was previously jointly owned, I think by General (GTE) and United. Then, IIRC, General sold its interest to United. Direct replies are unlikely to be read. To reply use the address below: falco_marcus_didius yahoo.co.uk ------------------------------ TELECOM Digest is an electronic journal devoted mostly but not exclusively to telecommunications topics. It is circulated anywhere there is email, in addition to various telecom forums on a variety of networks such as Compuserve and America On Line, 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: 620-870-9697 Fax 1: 775-255-9970 Fax 2: 775-306-8390 Fax 3: 530-309-7234 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 second 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) Email <==> FTP: telecom-archives@telecom-digest.org Send a simple, one line note to that automated address for a help file on how to use the automatic retrieval system for archives files. You can get desired files in email. ************************************************************************* * 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. Access to Premium (P) links requires upgrade to a paid subscription. One click a day feeds a person a meal. Go to http://www.thehungersite.com Only subscribers or registered users of ICB Toll Free News web site will be able to access all or some of the full text of URLs provided. LEGAL STUFF: TELECOM Digest (sm) is owned by Patrick Townson. Copyright 2000 ICB, Inc. and TELECOM Digest. All rights reserved. Our attorney is Bill Levant, of Blue Bell, PA. --------------------------------------------------------------- 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 twenty 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 V22 #3 **************************** From editor@telecom-digest.org Sat Aug 24 00:16:26 2002 Received: from localhost (localhost [[UNIX: localhost]]) by massis.lcs.mit.edu (8.11.3nb1/8.11.3) id g7O4GQM13817; Sat, 24 Aug 2002 00:16:26 -0400 (EDT) Date: Sat, 24 Aug 2002 00:16:26 -0400 (EDT) From: editor@telecom-digest.org Message-Id: <200208240416.g7O4GQM13817@massis.lcs.mit.edu> X-Authentication-Warning: massis.lcs.mit.edu: ptownson set sender to editor@telecom-digest.org using -f To: ptownson Approved: patsnewlist Subject: TELECOM Digest V22 #4 TELECOM Digest Sat, 24 Aug 2002 00:14:00 EDT Volume 22 : Issue 4 Inside This Issue: Editor: Patrick A. Townson Re: Record Labels Sue Internet Providers Over Site (John R Levine) Re: A Problem About SS7 Protocol Stack (Ken Abrams) Does Such at Technology Exist? (Tony Kondaks) More About TD History Over the Past 20+ Years (William Van Hefner) Not Mine! (was: Cable Channel 1/etc) (Mark Roberts) Re: Another MCI Complaint (John R. Levine) Re: Banning Cell Phone Use in Theatres (Christopher Wolf) Re: Cellular - Caller Pays in Cincinnati (Stanley Cline) Re: Banning Cell Phone Use in Theaters (Paul A Lee) Re: Any Open Wire Carrier Left? (s falke) Re: Any Open Wire Carrier Left? (Steven Lichter) Re: Big Lawsuit Filed Against Spam Faxers (Steven Lichter) Re: Big Lawsuit Filed Against Spam Faxers (Paul A Lee) Re: Big Lawsuit Filed Against Spam Faxers (Paul Wallich) Re: Sprint History (was Re: Any Open Wire Carrier Left?) (Chuck Till) 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. WE DO NOT PERMIT NAME/EMAIL ADDRESS HARVESTING FROM THIS JOURNAL. 'SALTED' EMAIL ADDRESSES APPEAR HEREIN TO VERIFY THIS. YOU GET SUED IN SMALL CLAIMS COURT IF YOU GET CAUGHT SPAMMING OR SENDING VIRUSES. DON'T DO IT. See the bottom of this issue for subscription and archive details and the name of our lawyer; other stuff of interest. ---------------------------------------------------------------------- From: johnl@iecc.com (John R Levine) Subject: Re: Record Labels Sue Internet Providers Over Site Date: 23 Aug 2002 13:16:52 -0400 Organization: I.E.C.C., Trumansburg NY USA > I don't think we are officially categorized as common carriers, but > our status is very similar. I think there was a court case earlier > this year that decided that we aren't responsible for content that we > don't actually produce. ISPs are not common carriers, they're value added networks or enhanced service providers or something like that, even if the ISP is a subsidiary of a phone company. That's the reason the "modem tax" never anywhere, since the access charge the telcos wanted to charge applies only to common carriers. Section 230(c)(1) of the reviled Communication Decency Act says: Treatment of publisher or speaker. No provider or user of an interactive computer service shall be treated as the publisher or speaker of any information provided by another information content provider. It's in with stuff about porn filtering, but it means what it says, you can't be sued for libel for something your users say. The legal challenge to the CDA wasn't about that part, so it's fully in effect. I don't know whether it's been used in court yet. > I think the only Internet provider that was ever required to exercise > control was the old Prodigy system. That's the Stratton-Oakmont case. The CDA section was specifically to reverse that. John R. Levine, IECC, POB 727, Trumansburg NY 14886 +1 607 387 6869 Village Trustee and Sewer Commissioner http://iecc.com/johnl Member, Provisional board, Coalition Against Unsolicited Commercial E-mail ------------------------------ From: Ken Abrams Subject: Re: A Problem About SS7 Protocol Stack Date: Fri, 23 Aug 2002 12:40:04 -0500 Organization: None > I don't know how to design it . Who can tell me where can I download > it free? Or mail me the source code. Any advice on how to get them > will be greatly appreciated. If you actually work in the industry, you should already have access to this information. If you DON'T actually work in the industry, why are you asking?? ;-) ------------------------------ From: tkondaks@primenet.com (Tony Kondaks) Subject: Does Such a Technology Exist? Date: 23 Aug 2002 10:37:41 -0700 Organization: http://groups.google.com/ Can anyone tell me if such a technology already exist and, if so, what is the product name ... 3 requirements: 1)I need a telephone answering machine that can answer many in-coming calls at once ON THE SAME LINE (SAME TELEPHONE NUMBER) so that all the callers get serviced and can leave their messages without getting a busy signal. Indeed, if the technology can handle an UNLIMITED number of calls all at once, so much the better! 2) I want to hook up such technology to a toll-free number. 3) The actual machine/technology does NOT have to be located on my premises just so long as I can access the messages remotely (just as we all can with those voice messaging systems local telephone companies offer residential customers). I thank you in advance to your attention to these questions. [TELECOM Digest Editor's Note: The technology you want is telco voice mail in a business application with a business phone number. Tell telco to install voice mail on your business line. Have telco give you as many internal mailboxes on that voicemail as you need. Get a toll free number and have it tied onto that number. Voice mail can take an infinite number of incoming calls. Be sure to tell the telco service rep to add 'operator escape' to the voicemail. Then after you in the opening menu announce your various boxes (i.e. press one to hear about X; press two, etc) you can then conclude your opening announcement by telling the caller, 'press zero to be transferred to a live person who can help you'. That's what operator escape does on a BUSINESS voicemail system/account. Anyone who the presses zero gets transferred to whatever line you tell telco you want those calls to go to. PAT] ------------------------------ Date: 23 Aug 2002 10:35:27 -0700 From: William Van Hefner Subject: More About TD History over the Last 20+ Years Pat, Enjoyed your history lesson on Telecom Digest. Happy anniversary! Just wanted to add my own newsletter to the list of "Digests" you have spawned. Discount Long Distance Digest started strictly as an offshoot of TELECOM Digest readers interested in the long distance industry. I believe that our first mailing went out in December of 1993. Back then it was strictly e-mail based, and the mailing list eventually grew to about 5,000 subscribers. In 1994 WilTel (which was later sold to WorldCom) began republishing some of our content on their new-fangled "web site". I knew nothing about HTML, and basically stole their code and edited it in Notepad in order to start self-publishing DLD Digest in December of 1995. After that, I gradually phased-out the mailing list and put everything on the web. Some time after that, I made a large investment (for me, at the time) and paid Network Solutions for the domain name thedigest.com. We now get about 1,200 visitors a day to our website, and eventually expanded to cover local phone news and similar telecom stuff. I know that we have spawned our own offshoot websites as well, so TELECOM Digest is really a Grandfather of sorts. Without you, none of those websites (including my own) would exist. In fact, I think it is safe to say that without your excellent moderation and input in TELECOM Digest, I would not even (still) be involved in the telecom industry. Congratulations on your anniversary, and thanks for your years of tireless work. It will never be forgotten. William Van Hefner Publisher Discount Long Distance Digest The Internet Journal of the Long Distance Industry http://www.thedigest.com [TELECOM Digest Editor's Note: And thank you, Mr. Van Hefner, for your kindness in sending this message. Every now and then, I get notes like yours, and in these post-aneurysm days when there are times I feel so down in the dumps because of my inability to do all I used to do, a reader from the distant past comes along and tells me 'thank you' for whatever I did, now long forgotten by myself. Then I think about what I did and realize the truth behind the old saying that 'no man is an island unto himself'. I did not realize I was a Grandfather around here but I guess its so. PAT] ------------------------------ From: markrobt@hotmail.com (Mark Roberts) Subject: Not Mine! (was: Cable Channel 1/etc) Date: Fri, 23 Aug 2002 18:19:13 -0000 Organization: 1.94 meters Mark Roberts had written: > After the original announcement and since about 3 days ago the site > conducted a user poll on SIte blocking by backbone ISP's. Here are the > poll results: [snip] Minor point: I didn't post this. I don't know who did and it is of a bit of interest, so I hope whoever did post it gets credit for it. -- Mark Roberts | "This is local television. Get off your high horse!" Oakland, Cal.| -- Gary Radnich to Wendy Tokuda on KRON-TV's NO HTML MAIL | 9 pm newscast (said in jest), August 9, 2002 [TELECOM Digest Editor's Note: Someone impersonated you; forged your name. How odd. I wonder why. 'Mark Roberts' is a common enough name that I guess there is more than one, but still ... oh well, will the real writer of the message please speak up? PAT] ------------------------------ From: John R. Levine Date: Thu, 22 Aug 2002 12:35 PM Subject: Re: Another MCI Complaint > How can this happen, from a technical perspective?? The number on my > screen shows the local San Jose and the bill is for a long distance > Compuserve access number. Any ideas?? The Compuserve access number is probably handled by a CLEC, a competitive local phone company. MCI is also acting as a CLEC when they provide your local phone service. Usually CLECs only make interconnection arrangements with the dominant "incumbent" local phone company known as the ILEC. So what's happening here is the MCI connects to Pac Bell, Pac Bell connects to Compuserve's CLEC, but the two CLECs don't connect directly to each other. Lacking better routing information, the call is sent out to long distance trunks, then probably right back to Pac Bell where it's connected to the right place, but by then it's billed as a toll call. A friend of mine has a similar problem calling a dial-around service. The dial-around service is a CLEC with an Ithaca NY phone number, the friend lives in a small town served by a small telco that's a local call to Ithaca but in a different LATA. The small telco doesn't have an arrangement with the CLEC, so even though calls are to an Ithaca number and Ithaca is supposed to be local, they go over toll trunks, are billed as inter-LATA toll calls which are quite expensive around here, and the small telco won't budge. I'd call up the state regulators and find out how to file a formal complaint against MCI, because telcos hate those. Back when I was foolish enough to do business with MCI, that was the only thing that got them to stop billing me for $100 of bogus calls. -- John R. Levine, IECC, POB 727, Trumansburg NY 14886 +1 607 387 6869 johnl@iecc.com Village Trustee and Sewer Commissioner http://iecc.com/johnl Member, Provisional board, Coalition Against Unsolicited Commercial E-mail ------------------------------ Date: Fri, 23 Aug 2002 13:39:43 -0500 From: Christopher Wolf Organization: Texas Instruments Subject: Re: Banning Cell Phone Use in Theatres davidesan@att.net (David Esan) wrote: > John David Galt wrote in > message news:: >> Why is a law needed for this? Why don't the affected theaters just >> show their rude patrons the door? >> If that's too expensive because it requires hiring human beings, maybe >> they should consider installing Faraday cages in the walls. > That's certainly legal even if active jamming isn't. > I wish I was a lawyer, because the lawsuits that the Faraday > cage is going to create would buy me that house on Maui. > Can you imagine an emergency in a theater (fire, health, > violence) and someone whips out their cellphone to call 911 and > can't because its blocked by the theater? Huge lawsuit. > It is sad, however, that we need a law to enforce what is > simple common courtesy. Fine, then instead of using a specific Faraday cage, they just use slightly larger steel beams. I fail to believe that this could result in any real (i.e. winnable) lawsuit, as there are already enough buildings in my area within which my cell phone can't find an antenna (stores, restaurants), and they're not even trying. Besides, one disclaimer sign, and they're covered. -W ------------------------------ From: Stanley Cline Subject: Re: Cellular - Caller Pays in Cincinnati Date: Fri, 23 Aug 2002 19:22:02 +0000 (UTC) Organization: Roamer1 Communications - Dunwoody, GA, USA Reply-To: sc1-news@roamer1.org In article , Jeffrey James Bryan Carpenter wrote: > The other one was one that a wireless company affiliated with a > landline company was doing where local callers would hear a recorded > message stating that the call would cost more than the normal call. IIRC, AirTouch offered CPP in a handful of their markets (not here in Atlanta, though); intraLATA callers got a recording and were charged something like 40c/min for the airtime. Because of a lack of billing arrangements between IXCs (and other wireless carriers!) and AirTouch, interLATA callers and callers using other wireless carriers weren't billed the airtime surcharge. This, like all other CPP trials and offerings in the US, died a quiet death once Verizon Wireless came into being. The simple fact is that in the US, most people do not pay anything or pay only 2-4c/min for local calls and not much more for domestic and even some international LD, and are VERY reluctant to call ANY number that carries any sort of surcharge (look at what's happened to 900, 976, 500, etc.) -- therefore, IMO, CPP will NEVER work here. -- Stanley Cline -- sc1 at roamer1 dot org -- http://www.roamer1.org/ "Never put off until tomorrow what you can do today. There might be a law against it by that time." -/usr/games/fortune ------------------------------ From: Paul A Lee Subject: Re: Banning Cell Phone Use in Theaters Date: Fri, 23 Aug 2002 18:14:47 -0400 David Esan wrote (in part): > John David Galt wrote in message > news:: >> Why is a law needed for this? Why don't the affected theaters just >> show their rude patrons the door? >> If that's too expensive because it requires hiring human beings, maybe >> they should consider installing Faraday cages in the walls. That's >> certainly legal even if active jamming isn't. > I wish I was a lawyer, because the lawsuits that the Faraday cage is > going to create would buy me that house on Maui. > Can you imagine an emergency in a theater (fire, health, violence) and > someone whips out their cellphone to call 911 and can't because its > blocked by the theater? Huge lawsuit. > It is sad, however, that we need a law to enforce what is simple > common courtesy. "For every complex problem, there is a solution that is simple, neat, and wrong." - H.L. Mencken Some people are inconsiderate and thoughtless. Some people do not pay enough attention to their driving. Some people try to do complex, unrelated activities while they are driving. Some people are loud and self-important in social settings. Some people conspire together to flout the law or victimize others. But now, we can blame those transgressions on wireless technology, and once again prove Mencken right. Education is preferable to legislation. People's behavior and attitudes should be the primary targets, rather than the technology. People aren't rude or stupid because they are talking on a cell phone in situations where they shouldn't be. They're using the phone in that place and manner because they're already rude and stupid. A lot of the self-appointed "phone police" are just as bad as some of the phone users they confront or complain about -- self-important, rude, and belligerent (even without a phone). I have personally witnessed one of these "phone police" individuals confronting a person who was discreetly taking a call in public park. The tirade against the phone user was far more loud and conspicuous than the phone conversation. The issue is -- or should be -- about human behavior, and not the device or the technology. Paul A Lee Voice: +1 717 730-8355 Sr Telecom Engineer [Voice & Transmission] Fax: +1 717 975-3789 Rite Aid Corporation, Telecomm, 30 Hunter Lane, Camp Hill, PA 17011-2410 ------------------------------ From: s falke Subject: Re: Any Open Wire Carrier Left? Organization: Prodigy Internet http://www.prodigy.com Date: Sat, 24 Aug 2002 00:24:09 GMT Different system but maybe still on topic ... http://beehive.net/lw-1999-05.html s falke ------------------------------ From: stevenl11@aol.com (Steven Lichter) Subject: Re: Any Open Wire Carrier Left? (Spr Date: 23 Aug 2002 19:46:44 -0700 Organization: http://groups.google.com/ Marcus Didius Falco wrote in message: > They did have some manufacturing capabilities and subsidiaries back in > those days before 1982. North Electric was the company that they owned or controlled. Now it is called Sprint North Supply. I bought a dial from them years ago. Paid with a check and got a million copies of the billing invoices. I guess they thought I was a large company. Still have the phone. It was North Electrics version of a Western Electric 202. Apple Elite II 909-359-5338. Home of GBBS/LLUCE,support for the Apple II and Macintosh 24 hours 2400/14.4. OggNet Server. The only good spammer is a dead one! Have you hunted one down today? (c) I Kill Spammers, Inc. A Rot In Hell Company. ------------------------------ From: stevenl11@aol.com (Steven Lichter) Subject: Re: Big Lawsuit Filed Against Spam Faxers Date: 23 Aug 2002 19:52:06 -0700 Organization: http://groups.google.com/ Danny Burstein wrote in message: > but ... look what he says in response ... > "He (the owner of fax.com) also said the suits ignored the public > service Fax.com performs by mass faxing missing children alerts" > http://www.nytimes.com/reuters/technology/tech-tech-spam-fax.html The only way to realy stop them is burn them at the stake. They will just move outside the U.S. as some of the major e-mail spammers have. Apple Elite II 909-359-5338. Home of GBBS/LLUCE,support for the Apple II and Macintosh 24 hours 2400/14.4. OggNet Server. The only good spammer is a dead one! Have you hunted one down today? (c) I Kill Spammers, Inc. A Rot In Hell Company. ------------------------------ From: Paul A Lee Subject: Re: Big Lawsuit Filed Against Spam Faxers Date: Fri, 23 Aug 2002 15:01:15 -0400 Danny Burstein wrote (in part): > "He (the owner of fax.com) also said the suits ignored the public > service Fax.com performs by mass faxing missing children alerts" And the editor responded: > [TELECOM Digest Editor's Note: An editorial in the Independence > Reporter yesterday applauded this lawsuit but did point out the > missing children alerts are quite important also. Personally I > feel he should be able to fax community announcments like the > missing children things without getting approval, but he should > be required to use an 'opt-in' system on the other stuff. PAT] Personally (note disclaimer below), I find the defense of fax.com on the basis of the missing children alerts to be quite ironic. It seems a little like defending a pedophile priest based on the good he has done for his parishioners. Apparently not content to do only junk faxing, fax.com has also been marching through a couple thousand of our numbers, in sequence, delivering recorded advertising messages. I have contacted them, given them number lists in several formats to use to add our numbers to their block list, and complained politely but firmly. We still seem to be getting the same calls. I identified fax.com as the source of these calls by contacting two of the companies being advertised, both of whom were apologetic and told me they were ending their dealings with fax.com, specifically because of the calling tactics used. I, for one, won't miss fax.com if they get sued into oblivion. If they can be made to pay monetary damages, perhaps the funds could be used to set up a trust to finance a responsible, nonprofit missing child alert service. Paul A Lee Voice: +1 717 730-8355 Sr Telecom Engineer [Voice & Transmission] Fax: +1 717 975-3789 Rite Aid Corporation, Telecomm, 30 Hunter Lane, Camp Hill, PA 17011-2410 ------------------------------ From: Paul Wallich Subject: Re: Big Lawsuit Filed Against Spam Faxers Date: Fri, 23 Aug 2002 14:33:29 -0400 Organization: PANIX Public Access Internet and UNIX, NYC In article , Danny Burstein wrote: > Lawsuits Seek $2.2 Trillion Over 'Junk' Faxes By REUTERS > SAN FRANCISCO (Reuters) - A coalition of California activists filed a > jaw-dropping $2.2 trillion set of lawsuits against facsimile marketer > Fax.com Thursday, saying millions of 'junk faxes' are clogging the > nation's fax machines, jamming communications and possibly endangering > lives. ... >[snip] > but ... look what he says in response ... > > "He (the owner of fax.com) also said the suits ignored the public > service Fax.com performs by mass faxing missing children alerts" > [TELECOM Digest Editor's Note: An editorial in the Independence > Reporter yesterday applauded this lawsuit but did point out the > missing children alerts are quite important also. Personally I > feel he should be able to fax community announcments like the > missing children things without getting approval, but he should > be required to use an 'opt-in' system on the other stuff. PAT] I'm not even sure he should be able to fax community announcements without getting approval -- that's actually a perfect example of a case where opt-in would be important. There are lots of fax machines where other, equally vital services may be disrupted by blast-faxing (think hospitals and police -- the police will already be notified by other means) and zillions more where a missing child announcement will do absolutely no good. It sounds much more like an attempt to claim, "If you try to enforce the law against junk faxes, you're a child molester." paul ------------------------------ From: ctill@nc.rr.com (Chuck Till) Subject: Re: Sprint history (was Re: Any Open Wire Carrier Left?) Date: Sat, 24 Aug 2002 01:53:16 GMT Organization: Road Runner - NC > About 1990 or so (don't hold me to specific dates), GTE > sold a 50% stake in the company to United Telephone, and they changed > the name again to US Sprint. United bought out GTE's share around > 1994-95. Close. United Telecom began its play in long distance by acquiring two resellers, ISACOMM in 1982 and US Telephone in 1984. The fiber network build was also announced that year. In 1985, United consolidated its long distance operations into a single entity, US Telecom. In 1986, United Telecom and GTE contributed US Telecom and GTE Sprint respectively to form a new company, US Sprint, that was 50-50 between GTE and United Telecom. In 1989 United raised its stake to 80%, and in 1992 United Telecom bought the whole thing and renamed itself Sprint. ------------------------------ TELECOM Digest is an electronic journal devoted mostly but not exclusively to telecommunications topics. It is circulated anywhere there is email, in addition to various telecom forums on a variety of networks such as Compuserve and America On Line, 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: 620-870-9697 Fax 1: 775-255-9970 Fax 2: 775-306-8390 Fax 3: 530-309-7234 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 second 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) Email <==> FTP: telecom-archives@telecom-digest.org Send a simple, one line note to that automated address for a help file on how to use the automatic retrieval system for archives files. You can get desired files in email. ************************************************************************* * 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. Access to Premium (P) links requires upgrade to a paid subscription. One click a day feeds a person a meal. Go to http://www.thehungersite.com Only subscribers or registered users of ICB Toll Free News web site will be able to access all or some of the full text of URLs provided. LEGAL STUFF: TELECOM Digest (sm) is owned by Patrick Townson. Copyright 2002 ICB, Inc. and TELECOM Digest. All rights reserved. Our attorney is Bill Levant, of Blue Bell, PA. --------------------------------------------------------------- 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 twenty 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 V22 #4 **************************** From editor@telecom-digest.org Sat Aug 24 22:49:41 2002 Received: from localhost (localhost [[UNIX: localhost]]) by massis.lcs.mit.edu (8.11.3nb1/8.11.3) id g7P2nfa19710; Sat, 24 Aug 2002 22:49:41 -0400 (EDT) Date: Sat, 24 Aug 2002 22:49:41 -0400 (EDT) From: editor@telecom-digest.org Message-Id: <200208250249.g7P2nfa19710@massis.lcs.mit.edu> X-Authentication-Warning: massis.lcs.mit.edu: ptownson set sender to editor@telecom-digest.org using -f To: ptownson Approved: patsnewlist Subject: TELECOM Digest V22 #5 TELECOM Digest Sat, 24 Aug 2002 22:50:00 EDT Volume 22 : Issue 5 Inside This Issue: Editor: Patrick A. Townson Decoding CLLI (Robert Johnson) MCI Worldcom's 555 PIC Code: Arbitrary Rates Over $3 per Minute (Frank) Re: Does Such a Technology Exist? (Dave Phelps) Re: Does Such a Technology Exist? (Scott Dorsey) Re: Sprint History (was Re: Any Open Wire Carrier Left?) (Wes Leatherock) Exchange Information (Steven Lichter) Verizon Wireless #777 Internet Access - News Group Server? (John Stahl) Re: News Headlines of Interest 8/23/02 (Linc Madison) Re: So You've Got Your HDTV. Now What's There to See? (Steve Elias) Re: Banning Cell Phone Use in Theaters (William Warren) Re: AT&T Didn't Honor Their Rates (J on the phone) 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. WE DO NOT PERMIT NAME/EMAIL ADDRESS HARVESTING FROM THIS JOURNAL. 'SALTED' EMAIL ADDRESSES APPEAR HEREIN TO VERIFY THIS. YOU GET SUED IN SMALL CLAIMS COURT IF YOU GET CAUGHT SPAMMING OR SENDING VIRUSES. DON'T DO IT. See the bottom of this issue for subscription and archive details and the name of our lawyer; other stuff of interest. ---------------------------------------------------------------------- From: Robert Johnson Subject: Decoding CLLI Date: Sat, 24 Aug 2002 21:43:35 GMT Organization: RoadRunner - West I have a question that perhaps the list could answer; is there a listing out there that will allow me to decode what equipment a particular CLLI identifies, IE, figure out what switch someone is on by looking at their CLLI. Robert K. Johnson Jr, KF6ECP Qyouth101@socal.rr.com ------------------------------ From: coolwebgeek@yahoo.com (Frank) Subject: MCI Worldcom's 555 Pic Code: Arbitrary Rates Over $3 per Minute Date: 24 Aug 2002 18:50:11 -0700 Organization: http://groups.google.com/ First, I was a GTC Telecom (MCI Worldcom reseller) customer. I recently dropped them due to this problem. A couple of months ago I changed my phone number because I was getting too many telemarketing phone calls. I told Pacific Bell to keep everything the same for Intralata and long distance calling. OK, so they setup the changed phone number to have the 555 code. Now I probably know rates, tariffs ... as well as almost anyone, and I've been helping consumers get the best deals on phone rates for years, but I forgot to call GTC Telecom and tell them that I had a new phone number, I figured it would get magically tranmitted for me. OK ... that is my mistake :( When I got my first phone bill after this change, I had phone calls that were almost $2 per minute for Intralata calls, and even more for some state-to-state calls. When I called GTC Telecom, they told me I had to go talk to MCI WorldCom. MCI WorldCom said that people make this mistake all the time, but that it is your problem because I was on their network without being tied to a 555 reseller such as GTC Telecom. Well, after I did enough calls, they offered to rerate all of the calls at 30 cents a minute. THE DEBATE: As part of these calls, MCI Worldcom indicated that they did not have any fixed rates for these types of calls and they dynamically changed rates to be whatever, and that the rates could even be as high as $3 per minute for in-state or state-to-state calls. Question: What do you guys think? I know I made an error here, but MCI Worldcom knows that this is a common problem and they make a fortune when it happens. I could see them setting the default rate to be 40 cents a minute for any call not tied to a reseller. For these calls, MCI Worldcom's reseller service does not have any rates that they can tell consumers other than we charged you whatever we wanted to charge you. ------------------------------ From: Dave Phelps Subject: Re: Does Such a Technology Exist? Date: Sat, 24 Aug 2002 10:48:37 -0500 Organization: Posted via Supernews, http://www.supernews.com You are looking for a service bureau. Most LEC's provide this service. SWB calls it call notes, Ameritech calls it Ameritech voicemail. There are also many private service bureaus that would probably be cheaper and more versatile than a LEC. I used to work for a company that ran a service bureau, and sometimes we would have requests to do some strange stuff with menus & mailboxes. As far as 'unlimited' concurrent calls, no one can do that, but the limit is defined by the number of incoming trunks to the system. In article , tkondaks@primenet.com says: > Can anyone tell me if such a technology already exist and, if so, what > is the product name ... > 3 requirements: > 1)I need a telephone answering machine that can answer many in-coming > calls at once ON THE SAME LINE (SAME TELEPHONE NUMBER) so that all the > callers get serviced and can leave their messages without getting a > busy signal. Indeed, if the technology can handle an UNLIMITED number > of calls all at once, so much the better! > 2) I want to hook up such technology to a toll-free number. > 3) The actual machine/technology does NOT have to be located on my > premises just so long as I can access the messages remotely (just as > we all can with those voice messaging systems local telephone > companies offer residential customers). > I thank you in advance to your attention to these questions. > [TELECOM Digest Editor's Note: The technology you want is telco voice > mail in a business application with a business phone number. Tell > telco to install voice mail on your business line. Have telco give > you as many internal mailboxes on that voicemail as you need. Get a > toll free number and have it tied onto that number. Voice mail can > take an infinite number of incoming calls. Be sure to tell the telco > service rep to add 'operator escape' to the voicemail. Then after you > in the opening menu announce your various boxes (i.e. press one to > hear about X; press two, etc) you can then conclude your opening > announcement by telling the caller, 'press zero to be transferred to > a live person who can help you'. That's what operator escape does on > a BUSINESS voicemail system/account. Anyone who the presses zero > gets transferred to whatever line you tell telco you want those calls > to go to. PAT] Dave Phelps Phone Masters Ltd. deadspam=tippenring ------------------------------ From: kludge@panix.com (Scott Dorsey) Subject: Re: Does Such a Technology Exist? Date: 24 Aug 2002 16:53:57 -0400 Organization: Former users of Netcom shell (1989-2000) Tony Kondaks wrote: > Can anyone tell me if such a technology already exist and, if so, what > is the product name ... > 3 requirements: > 1)I need a telephone answering machine that can answer many in-coming > calls at once ON THE SAME LINE (SAME TELEPHONE NUMBER) so that all the > callers get serviced and can leave their messages without getting a > busy signal. Indeed, if the technology can handle an UNLIMITED number > of calls all at once, so much the better! You cannot have more than one call on a given line. You need a rotary of several telephone lines, each with an answering machine set up, so that when one line busies out, the call is transferred to the next one. This is a standard telco service. I don't think the size is unlimited but you can get at least a couple hundred lines on a rotary. > 2) I want to hook up such technology to a toll-free number. This is also a standard telco service. Toll free number forwards to the lowest number on the rotary. > 3) The actual machine/technology does NOT have to be located on my > premises just so long as I can access the messages remotely (just as > we all can with those voice messaging systems local telephone > companies offer residential customers). For remote access, you might be better off with a rotary going into a multiline voice mail box rather than individual machines. --scott "C'est un Nagra. C'est suisse, et tres, tres precis." ------------------------------ From: wesrock@aol.com (Wes Leatherock) Date: 24 Aug 2002 13:38:17 GMT Organization: AOL http://www.aol.com Subject: Re: Sprint history (was Re: Any Open Wire Carrier Left?) On Sat, 24 Aug 2002 01:53:16 GMT ctill@nc.rr.com (Chuck Till) wrote: > In 1989 United raised its stake to 80%, and in > 1992 United Telecom bought the whole thing and renamed itself Sprint. Talking about renaming yourself after the company you acquired: Phil Anschutz, mentioned previously in this thread, owned the Denver and Rio Grande Western Railroad ("Rio Grande") with headquarters in Denver, his usual base of operations. In 1989. following regulatory approval, Anschutz and his Rio Grande Railroad acquired the Southern Pacific Railroad. The Southern Pacific headquarters (in San Francisco) were consolidated into the Rio Grande headquarters in Denver...and Anschutz changed the name of the Rio Grande company, now the parent, to Southern Pacific. Later he sold the Southern Pacific to the Union Pacific Railroad, reserving the right to lay communications cables along the right-of-way (not just abandoned right of way). (Incidentally, Anschutz is now the largest stockholder in the Union Pacific.) This also led to the curious situation of railroad cable-laying trains and equipment owned by the Southern Pacific Construction Company, which was no longer owned by any railroad. The Southern Pacific Construction Company eventually changed its named to Qwest Construction, or something like that, which made it much less confusing. Qwest, and the Union Pacific Railroad, are only a few among Phil Anschutz's many business interests. Wes Leatherock wesrock@aol.com wleathus@yahoo.com ------------------------------ From: stevenl11@aol.com (Steven Lichter) Subject: Exchange Information Date: 24 Aug 2002 06:53:54 -0700 Organization: http://groups.google.com/ Is there a site that lists what companies operate exchanges? I know with the new FCC rules some may be split. I'm interested in who operates in the Brownsville, Calif area, East of Sacramento. Apple Elite II 909-359-5338. Home of GBBS/LLUCE,support for the Apple II and Macintosh 24 hours 2400/14.4. OggNet Server. The only good spammer is a dead one! Have you hunted one down today? (c) I Kill Spammers, Inc. A Rot In Hell Company. ------------------------------ Date: Sat, 24 Aug 2002 13:04:31 -0400 From: John Stahl Subject: Verizon Wireless #777 Internet Access - News Group Server? My new cell phone service from Verizon Wireless (VW) offers Internet access both directly through the phone (a Motorola v120c phone) with a service called "Mobile Web" and with a special cable assembly (and dialing software both from Motorola) through either a computer or a Palm OS type device, with a service called "Mobile Office". With the "Mobile Office" connection, you get a nice (though a little slow!) access point at no additional cost (eliminates an ISP) to the Internet. In addition, there are a whole bunch of programs available for the Palm OS from various sources which give you a Browsers, email clients and a News Group Readers. The browser connection is neat as you can "surf the Net" with few limitations. With the News Reader program you get just about everything which a PC based news reader (like Free Agent) give you. But here I have a problem: The VW connection to the Internet through the #777 connection is just that, a connection to the Internet. VW does not offer any of the typical Internet servers as most ISP's would give you for such things as, email and the news groups access. Does anyone know of any news group type server Internet address which is available for access by an anonymous Internet connection? An example would be: URL: 192.23.xxx.... plus any ID and password necessary to connect to it. Typically most ISP's have their servers located behind firewalls which are only accessible by their members. Thanks, in advance, for any help with this. John Stahl Aljon Enterprises Telecom/Data Consultant ------------------------------ From: Linc Madison Subject: Re: News Headlines of Interest 8/23/02 Date: Sat, 24 Aug 2002 11:37:48 -0700 Organization: LincMad.com Consulting Reply-To: Telecom@LincMad.com In article , Monty Solomon wrote: > Court Awards Akamai Broad Permanent Injunction Against Cable & > Wireless; Cable & Wireless Ordered to Immediately and Permanently > Shut Down Digital Island Footprint 2.0 Service > - Aug 22, 2002 06:15 PM (BusinessWire) > CAMBRIDGE, Mass.--(BUSINESS WIRE)--Aug. 22, 2002-- [abridging] Akamai > announced that the Court has enjoined Cable & Wireless ... Claims 1, > 3, 5, and 9 of U.S. Patent No. 6,108,703 ... requires C&W to shut > down Digital Island's Footprint 2.0 (recently rebranded as Exodus) > - http://finance.lycos.com/home/news/story.asp?story=28408107 That's all fine and well, but the press blurb doesn't say a thing about what Footprint/Exodus is or does, or what Patent 6,108,703 claims 1, 3, 5, or 9 is about. Akamai won an injunction, but they certainly don't know how to write a coherent press release. It reminds me of the ads for various medications where they exhort you to ask your doctor if Aljsfkjhqwrtyhflkasdryewryl is right for you, but they don't tell you if it's a contraceptive or an allergy medication. I know they don't want to be sued if someone self-medicates without proper medical oversight, but they could at least give some general clue as to what sorts of problems the product might address. www dot LincMad dot com / Telecom at LincMad dot com Linc Madison * San Francisco, California ------------------------------ Subject: Re: So You've Got Your HDTV. Now What's There to See? From: Steve Elias Date: 24 Aug 2002 16:32:13 -0400 John Higdon writes: > To each his own. I'm afraid that I'm going to need far more than the > novelty of HD. It might be fun to watch the usual insipid fare once or > twice in HD, but to spend real money to have it full-time? Maybe you could just try a settop box for a 30-days and then return it to the store? Does Frye's allow that? (Tweeter etc does.) I'd like to hear your comments on the technology, independent of the fact that the content bores you. Broadcast TV is not all insipid fare. For example, the US Open in 1080i ought to be fantastic. The masters golf tournament in HD looked outstanding in 1080i, as did the NCAA final basketball tournament. maybe we'll get some NFL games in HD next season. (None this season.) But maybe sports bores you too ...? > I don't think so. I, like you, have pretty much abandoned NTSC, but > it isn't the lack of resolution or the color variability that turned > me off; it was the content. For the interesting content, I find it worthwhile to be able to view it in native HD or upconverted NTSC->HD, but not worthwhile to view NTSC. >> [about recording DTV/HDTV] > I can't even imagine on what you would find worthy of wasting the > time, money, or the recording media. I won't bother to list all of my favorite tv shows since surely you would/could/should deride them. To each his own taste ... there are many nights when I find that both a commercial DTV station and PBS are broadcasting something interesting at the same time. imho, there is *plenty* of decent free content. > For now, I have a very impressive home theater in which I watch DVDs > and (if unavailable on DVD) laserdiscs. Since I purchase the > programming on a title by title basis, I obviously find it worth > watching. The 120" forward-projection system is HD-capable, but I > doubt that I will ever connect it to a DTV receiver. Why would I? > There is nothing there worth the expense or the effort. The expense could be practically zero if you just got the equipment on 30-day-evaluation. As a broadcaster and techie, aren't you interested in the simple technical facts about how the technology works? Perhaps you are too busy. > For the sake of the industry (in which I happen to work), I hope there > are more people out there like you who actually enjoy the broadcast > drek, or at least are so jazzed by the technology that they would sit > in rapture watching the intellectual equivalent of color bars. I suppose life is happier when one is easily amused. Lucky me! I plan to keep buying DTV equipment. HDTV is simply fantastic. Perhaps the linedoubler in your setup is so good that DVDs look almost as good as HDTV but I would be interested to hear your comments about how well HDTV works in your area technically. Perhaps 'enraptured' describes myself and the two or three other DTV viewers in the USA. But my color-blind eyes do not find rapture in viewing static color bars. Instead I find rapture in viewing the ntscvictoria's secret commercials upconverted to 1080i, sports in HD, and the 1080i-sourced desert/cityscape shots of las Vegas in the CBS show CSI, for a couple of examples. Tonight's little league world series (upconverted ntsc->1080i) broadcast will be far more enjoyable than it would be if I watched the awful cable tv picture. Play ball! /eli, actual DTV viewer ------------------------------ Reply-To: William Warren From: William Warren Subject: Re: Banning Cell Phone Use in Theaters Organization: Church of the Swimming Bullfrog Date: Sat, 24 Aug 2002 20:54:06 GMT Paul A Lee wrote in message news:telecom22.4.9@telecom-digest.org: > "For every complex problem, there is a solution that is simple, neat, > and wrong." - H.L. Mencken > Some people are inconsiderate and thoughtless. [snip] > But now, we can blame those transgressions on wireless technology, and > once again prove Mencken right. > Education is preferable to legislation. People's behavior and attitudes > should be the primary targets, rather than the technology. > People aren't rude or stupid because they are talking on a cell phone in > situations where they shouldn't be. They're using the phone in that > place and manner because they're already rude and stupid. [snip] > The issue is -- or should be -- about human behavior, and not the device > or the technology. "You have attributed conditions to villainy that simply result from stupidity." - Robert A. Heinlein The issue *IS* human behavior, and humans screw up *a lot*. They forget they have their pagers and/or cell phones on, they sit in a (probably) new and (likely) unfamiliar surrounding, and the rest is inevitable. The *use* of the device, at least by those whom choose to do so after interrupting a performance, is clearly boorish, but its activation is, IMNSHO, almost always an accident. Ergo, the need for countermeasures such as a Faraday cage. William ------------------------------ From: 617@volcanomail.com (J on the phone) Subject: Re: AT&T Didn't Honor Their Rates Date: 24 Aug 2002 14:03:48 -0700 Organization: http://groups.google.com/ Mr. Knowitall wrote: > The resolution I seek -- I want AT&T to honor the original rates they > quoted so I can pay the bill as I planned, with rates commensurate > with what I was led to believe I would get. > Can anyone offer some advice please? Thank you. Throughout handling the provisioning of thousands of phone lines, POTS, ISDN and up, I've never seen any ILEC allow an installed business service to be changed to residential service, even if the same service is allowed as residential at the location affected. The service would have to be disconnected and re-setup. You stated that the ISDN line in your home was originally ordered by your employer. Just changing the billing info for the line would not change it to a residential account. When you talked to the sales department, you likely called the number for residential sales, since that's what you assumed you had. They quoted the rates for residential service, assuming you had called the correct department. Through a misunderstanding, you had not. The order for the residential rate plans was kicked out when order processing found that you were trying to put the rate on a business line. While that was inadvertant, it was rejected, just as a order would be rejected if your credit card was refused for a purchase. It is unfortunate that you were not contacted with the information that the rate could not apply to you, but not really an ethical (certainly not a legal) problem. I'm sure that in the future, you'll confirm your being accepted on a rate plan before making those calls. Sadly, your experience -- somewhat modified -- has happened to millions. Hopefully, you can get some relief from AT&T, but no guarantee. However, given the information gap in your situation, you may wish to modify your Internet moniker. ------------------------------ TELECOM Digest is an electronic journal devoted mostly but not exclusively to telecommunications topics. It is circulated anywhere there is email, in addition to various telecom forums on a variety of networks such as Compuserve and America On Line, 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: 620-870-9697 Fax 1: 775-255-9970 Fax 2: 775-306-8390 Fax 3: 530-309-7234 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 second 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) Email <==> FTP: telecom-archives@telecom-digest.org Send a simple, one line note to that automated address for a help file on how to use the automatic retrieval system for archives files. You can get desired files in email. ************************************************************************* * 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. Access to Premium (P) links requires upgrade to a paid subscription. One click a day feeds a person a meal. Go to http://www.thehungersite.com Only subscribers or registered users of ICB Toll Free News web site will be able to access all or some of the full text of URLs provided. LEGAL STUFF: TELECOM Digest (sm) is owned by Patrick Townson. Copyright 2000 ICB, Inc. and TELECOM Digest. All rights reserved. Our attorney is Bill Levant, of Blue Bell, PA. --------------------------------------------------------------- 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 twenty 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 V22 #5 **************************** From editor@telecom-digest.org Sun Aug 25 14:30:55 2002 Received: from localhost (localhost [[UNIX: localhost]]) by massis.lcs.mit.edu (8.11.3nb1/8.11.3) id g7PIUtM24632; Sun, 25 Aug 2002 14:30:55 -0400 (EDT) Date: Sun, 25 Aug 2002 14:30:55 -0400 (EDT) From: editor@telecom-digest.org Message-Id: <200208251830.g7PIUtM24632@massis.lcs.mit.edu> X-Authentication-Warning: massis.lcs.mit.edu: ptownson set sender to editor@telecom-digest.org using -f To: ptownson Approved: patsnewlist Subject: TELECOM Digest V22 #6 TELECOM Digest Sun, 25 Aug 2002 14:30:00 EDT Volume 22 : Issue 6 Inside This Issue: Editor: Patrick A. Townson Cable TV Copyright (Neal McLain) Re: AT&T Didn't Honor Their Rates (Ed Ellers) Nokia Unlocking, Repairs, Upgrades and Modifications (no.email.address) Re: Decoding CLLI (Jack Adams) Re: Decoding CLLI (Arthur Kamlet) Re: Banning Cell Phone Use in Theaters (Ed Ellers) Re: Banning Cell Phone Use in Theaters (John Higdon) Re: Sprint history (was Re: Any Open Wire Carrier Left?) (Ed Ellers) Payphones (Robert Johnson) Telephone Surge Suppressor (Leonard Erickson) Re: Verizon Wireless #777 Internet Access - News Group Serv (Stan Cline) Re: Exchange Information (Carl Navarro) Re: Verizon Wireless #777 Internet Access - News Group Serv (Schnittman) Re: MCI Worldcom's 555 Pic Code: Arbitrary Rates Over $3 per Min (W. Tom) Re: So You've Got Your HDTV. Now What's There to See? (John Higdon) 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. WE DO NOT PERMIT NAME/EMAIL ADDRESS HARVESTING FROM THIS JOURNAL. 'SALTED' EMAIL ADDRESSES APPEAR HEREIN TO VERIFY THIS. YOU GET SUED IN SMALL CLAIMS COURT IF YOU GET CAUGHT SPAMMING OR SENDING VIRUSES. DON'T DO IT. See the bottom of this issue for subscription and archive details and the name of our lawyer; other stuff of interest. ---------------------------------------------------------------------- Date: Sun, 25 Aug 2002 04:02:18 -0600 From: Neal McLain Subject: Cable TV Copyright I wrote: > The FCC's signal-carriage rules, [...] specified the > conditions under which cable systems could carry the > signals of television broadcast stations. [...] But > nowhere in these rules is there any mention > of any form of financial compensation by either party. Whereupon Garrett Wollman wrote: > However, cable systems were still required to pay license > fees -- just not to the stations themselves. The fees > were (still are?) paid directly to a department of the > U.S. Copyright Office, which was responsible for > distributing the revenue received among the copyright > owners (mostly Hollywood studios). True: they were, and still are. But that's copyright law, not telecommunications law. The payments made by cable TV operators are called "copyright royalty fees"; they are defined by statute, and they are not subject to free-market negotiation. The whole process is administered by the U.S. Copyright Office. Some history: Throughout the early years of the cable television industry, a number of broadcast entities and program suppliers had attempted to impose copyright liability on cable systems on grounds that they were "performing" their copyrighted works without permission. Some had sued, but the courts were divided on the issue because the then-current copyright law (The Copyright Act of 1909) did not address it. This issue eventually made its way to the United States Supreme Court [Fortnightly Corp. v. United Artists (1968)]. In this case, United Artists Television, owner of the copyright on several motion pictures, had sued Fortnightly Corporation, a cable television operator, alleging that Fortnightly had "performed" several of United Artists' motion pictures without permission. United Artists won the first round in District Court. Fortnightly appealed; United Artists won again in the Court of Appeals. Finally, Fortnightly appealed to the United States Supreme Court; in a divided opinion, the Supreme Court reversed the Court of Appeals and ruled for Fortnightly. But the Court made it clear that is was not ruling on the merits of the case; instead, it was merely refusing to write new laws. Justice Potter Stewart delivered the opinion of the Court as follows: "We have been invited ... to render a compromise decision in this case that would, it is said, accommodate various competing considerations of copyright, communications, and antitrust policy. We decline the invitation. That job is for Congress. We take the Copyright Act of 1909 as we find it. With due regard to changing technology, we hold that the petitioner did not under that law `perform' the respondent's copyrighted works. The judgment of the Court of Appeals is reversed." At the behest of broadcasters and program suppliers -- as well as the cable industry, which wanted to get the issue resolved once and for all -- Congress eventually revised the copyright law. The new law, the Copyright Act of 1976, created a legal construct known as the "compulsory license." The compulsory license did two things: It guaranteed that cable systems had the right to "secondarily transmit" broadcast stations without having to obtain copyright clearance from the individual stations or from any program supplier. It established a system for collecting royalties from cable operators and disbursing them to "claimants" -- the various program suppliers, music producers, sports interests, and others who claimed a piece of the pie. Two government agencies were charged with the responsibility for collecting and disbursing royalties: The U.S. Copyright Office, a unit of the Library of Congress, was assigned the job of collecting the royalty fees and depositing them into a trust fund in the United States Treasury. An independent federal agency known as the Copyright Royalty Tribunal (CRT) received two assignments: establishing the fee schedule and allocating the proceeds among the claimants. This procedure worked reasonably well, although the CRT had more than its share of political trouble (at one point, it received Senator Proxmire's Golden Fleece Award in recognition of the amount of money it had spent on plants for its offices). Yet in spite of its political problems, the CRT did manage to establish a royalty fee schedule for cable television companies. Royalty fees were based on several factors including each separate cable system's gross revenues and the number of distant non-network broadcast stations it carried. Royalty fees were to be calculated and paid semiannually. During the Clinton Administration, the CRT was abolished as part of the "Reinventing Government" effort, and was replaced by a system that utilized a three-member Copyright Arbitration Royalty Panel (CARP). CARPs are convened on an ad-hoc basis when needed to set royalty fees and/or distribute royalties to claimants. This procedure is still in place today. CARPs are also used to set copyright royalty fees for other distribution methods (e.g. satellite television, digital audio recordings, jukeboxes, webcasting), and to distribute the proceeds. The current altercation over webcasting of sound recordings centers on a CARP recommendation. Related links: - Copyright Office website: http://www.copyright.gov/ - Copyright Law of the United States: http://www.copyright.gov/title17/ - CARPs generally: http://www.copyright.gov/carp/ - Full text of Fortnightly Corp. v. United Artists: http://caselaw.lp.findlaw.com/cgi-bin/getcase.pl?court=US&vol=392&invol=390 Garrett also wrote: > These days, most major-market station operators use the > 'retrans consent' process as a way to extort more money > from cable ratepayers, by requiring cable systems to carry > affiliated non-broadcast services in their standard tier > of service, as a condition of carrying the broadcast > signal. Thus, if you have a Disney-owned station in your > market, chances are pretty good that you are paying for > all of the Disney cable channels as a part of your basic > cable package. But cable operators still have to pay those copyright royalty fees to the Copyright Office no matter what their "Retrans[mission] Consent" agreements stipulate. And you know who ends up paying for it all. This is what your elected representatives call "Consumer Protection." Neal McLain nmclain@annsgarden.com ------------------------------ From: Ed Ellers Subject: Re: AT&T Didn't Honor Their Rates Date: Sat, 24 Aug 2002 23:37:54 -0400 J on the phone <617@volcanomail.com> wrote: Throughout handling the provisioning of thousands of phone lines, POTS, ISDN and up, I've never seen any ILEC allow an installed business service to be changed to residential service, even if the same service is allowed as residential at the location affected. The service would have to be disconnected and re-setup." AIUI, this is to prevent someone from changing business service to residential and continuing to take business calls on an established number. ------------------------------ From: no.email.address.entered@none444.yet Subject: Nokia Unlocking, Repairs, Upgrades and Modifications Date: Sun, 25 Aug 2002 04:54:07 +0000 (UTC) Organization: Here is a great new site for Nokia Unlocking, Upgrading, Repairs and Modifications at very competitive prices. Blootoon Nokia Resources http://b-n-r.port5.com ------------------------------ From: Jack Adams Reply-To: jack.adams@ieee.org Subject: Re: Decoding CLLI Date: Sun, 25 Aug 2002 13:38:08 GMT Organization: AT&T Worldnet While the following link is not a database, it is a good starting point, since Telcordia (nee Bellcore, nee Bell Labs) developed Common Language Location codes (CLLI). The Telcordia CLLI page should be a good start. (Just in case the the embedded link doesn't work ...) http://www.telcordia.com/resources/commonlang/productshowroom/product/clli_tech/index.html Robert Johnson wrote: > I have a question that perhaps the list could answer; is there a listing > out there that will allow me to decode what equipment a particular CLLI > identifies, IE, figure out what switch someone is on by looking at their > CLLI. > Robert K. Johnson Jr, KF6ECP > Qyouth101@socal.rr.com -- John "Jack" Adams, IEEE Fellow jack.adams@ieee.org "God's job is to pass judgment on Bin Laden and company. The USMC's job is to make that meeting happen!" Tom Friedman (NYTimes 1/4/2002) ------------------------------ From: kamlet@panix.com (Arthur Kamlet) Subject: Re: Decoding CLLI Date: 24 Aug 2002 23:26:42 -0400 Organization: PANIX -- Public Access Networks Corp. Reply-To: ArtKamlet@aol.REMOVE.com In article , Robert Johnson wrote: > I have a question that perhaps the list could answer; is there a listing > out there that will allow me to decode what equipment a particular CLLI > identifies, IE, figure out what switch someone is on by looking at their > CLLI. CLLI doesn't guarantee identification down to the switch. If you must know the switch ID use CLEI. First 4 are locality, next two are state and the last 5 usually identify street address and floor and/or location on the floor, but this is local convention, and there's no guarantee that CLLI can identify the specific switch. Telcordia might be the best source for CLLIs, but CLEIs are set by individual Telcos. -- Art Kamlet ArtKamlet @ AOL.com Columbus OH K2PZH ------------------------------ From: Ed Ellers Subject: Re: Banning Cell Phone Use in Theaters Date: Sat, 24 Aug 2002 23:43:26 -0400 William Warren wrote: > The issue *IS* human behavior, and humans screw up *a lot*. They > forget they have their pagers and/or cell phones on, they sit in a > (probably) new and (likely) unfamiliar surrounding, and the rest is > inevitable. The *use* of the device, at least by those whom choose > to do so after interrupting a performance, is clearly boorish, but > its activation is, IMNSHO, almost always an accident. Ergo, the need > for countermeasures such as a Faraday cage. Which, however, punishes those who do use their phones responsibly -- meaning by using a vibrating ringer or turning the ringer off. In my case, if I carry the phone with the ringer off, when I check the phone after the performance I will still see whether anyone called (and their numbers) or left a text message. If I switch it off, if the signal is blocked as you seem to advocate, or if I leave it in the trunk of my car, not only do I not get the Caller IDs but I won't know for some time -- possibly two hours later! -- whether anyone has sent me a text message, as VoiceStream seems to take forever to discover that one of their customers' phones is back in range. ------------------------------ Date: Sun, 25 Aug 2002 10:21:21 -0700 Subject: Re: Banning Cell Phone Use in Theaters From: John Higdon Organization: Green Hills and Cows In article telecom22.5.10@telecom-digest.org, William Warren wrote: > The issue *IS* human behavior, and humans screw up *a lot*. They > forget they have their pagers and/or cell phones on, they sit in a > (probably) new and (likely) unfamiliar surrounding, and the rest is > inevitable. The *use* of the device, at least by those whom choose to > do so after interrupting a performance, is clearly boorish, but its > activation is, IMNSHO, almost always an accident. Ergo, the need for > countermeasures such as a Faraday cage. I, and a group of my friends, are in a business that requires us to be on call 24/7. Occasionally, we as a group attend a movie, play, concert or whatever. Half jokingly, someone invariably mutters "pagers on stun" as we enter the venue, meaning that we put cellphones, pagers, and other devices in "vibrate" mode. If that emergency call comes, we are expected to return it within minutes ... that's why we carry all the gadgetry. The person so contacted quietly gets up and leaves the room to make the call. If performance venues began interfering with this communication method, there are some of us who would be unable to ever again casually attend entertainment. Virtually the same arrangements would have to be made as though we were leaving the country. Until we, as a society, get over the idea that modern communications are nothing more than toys that inflict irritation on those who see no real need for them, we will remain immature in how we utilize these important tools. Penalizing those who use these tools responsibly and with consideration for others is in itself a ham-handed and immature response to a simple behavioral problem. -- John Higdon | Email Address Valid | SF: +1 415 428-COWS +1 408 264 4115 | Anytown, USA | FAX: +1 408 264 4407 ------------------------------ From: Ed Ellers Subject: Re: Sprint History (was Re: Any Open Wire Carrier Left?) Date: Sat, 24 Aug 2002 23:47:56 -0400 Wes Leatherock wrote: > Talking about renaming yourself after the company you acquired: A couple more examples are Westinghouse Electric Corporation, which -- some time after it took over CBS Incorporated -- renamed itself CBS Corporation when it decided to divest all its non-media holdings, and GEC in Britain, which took over Marconi in the late 1960s and changed its name to Marconi plc in 1999. (The fact that GEC was formally the General Electric Company plc -- though they were not connected to the more famous GE -- no doubt played a role in that decision.) ------------------------------ From: Robert Johnson Subject: Payphones Date: Sun, 25 Aug 2002 05:37:08 GMT Organization: RoadRunner - West Are payphones required to to allow access to 800 numbers ... and specificly the 800 access number for Long distance companys? -- Robert K. Johnson Jr, KF6ECP Qyouth101@socal.rr.com [TELECOM Digest Editor's Note: They're supposed to, yes. Privately owned payphones (often times referred to as COCOTS [Customer-Owned Coin-Operated Telephones] usually require that 25-50 cents be dep- osited to make up for the 'loss' the owner has by not collecting on the calls otherwise. This does not come up on telco-owned and operated phones, since telco receives revenue for the calls through a process similar to the old 'Separations and Settlements' procedure. Telcos get paid on the 800 calls they handle. The private phone owner does not. The COCOT owner can however register his phone as such and then a surcharge is added to the cost of the call which the recipient pays, and eventually it is given to the COCOT owner. That surcharge was specifically enacted to protect the private pay phone operators. Between that surcharge and the fact that most private opertors require the user to deposit some coins anyway on 800 calls means there is no reason to ban calls like that. If you know of such phones (which lock out toll-free calls) you really should file a complaint. PAT] ------------------------------ From: Leonard Erickson Subject: Telephone Surge Suppressor Date: Sat, 24 Aug 2002 22:50:03 -0700 Organization: Shadownet I'm looking for a standalone surge suppressor (or I'll even settle for one in a power strip) that'll work with RJ-14 (2 line) wired cables. It's a real pain splitting things to two lines, running them thru *two* separate suppressors, then recombining them again. And since I live in an apartment, I can't wire something in at the demarc. Oh, as long as I'm asking, are there any for RJ-25 (3 line) cables. I don't need one of those, but it'd be nice to know, just in case. -- Leonard Erickson (aka shadow{G}) shadow@krypton.rain.com <--preferred leonard@qiclab.scn.rain.com <--last resort ------------------------------ From: Stanley Cline Subject: Re: Verizon Wireless #777 Internet Access - News Group Server? Date: Sun, 25 Aug 2002 04:36:27 -0400 Organization: Roamer1 Communications - Dunwoody, GA, USA Reply-To: sc1-news@roamer1.org On Sat, 24 Aug 2002 13:04:31 -0400, John Stahl wrote: > Does anyone know of any news group type server Internet address which > is available for access by an anonymous Internet connection? An - Free: http://news.cs.dfn.de/ (you must sign up for a login first, but it's free) - Pay: Any "pay" news server (usenetserver.com, Altopia, Airnews, etc.), or a shell account which allows remote NNTP access (e.g., Panix) Or ... just dial your regular ISP using the phone and skip the #777 (you're charged the same either way.) -- Stanley Cline -- sc1 at roamer1 dot org -- http://www.roamer1.org/ ... "Never put off until tomorrow what you can do today. There might be a law against it by that time." -/usr/games/fortune ------------------------------ From: Carl Navarro Subject: Re: Exchange Information Date: Sun, 25 Aug 2002 06:17:39 -0400 Reply-To: cnavarro@wcnet.org Organization: http://www.1usenet.com On 24 Aug 2002 06:53:54 -0700, stevenl11@aol.com (Steven Lichter) wrote: > Is there a site that lists what companies operate exchanges? I know > with the new FCC rules some may be split. I'm interested in who > operates in the Brownsville, Calif area, East of Sacramento. Try www.nanpa.com. It's hard to say because I'm not familiar with the area, but it looks like 530/916 area codes are very close to Brownsville. The Brownsville airport is in Oroville so does that make the Oroville airport in Brownsville? :-) Anyway, you can d/l the western states exchange list or the entire database by following the links to central office codes/download assignment records and then look for your region or the Access database of ALL CODES. Carl Navarro ------------------------------ From: Alan Schnittman Subject: Re: Verizon Wireless #777 Internet Access - News Group Server? Date: Sun, 25 Aug 2002 06:10:37 -0500 Organization: MindSpring Enterprises John Stahl wrote: > Does anyone know of any news group type server Internet address which > is available for access by an anonymous Internet connection? An Check out: http://news.cis.dfn.de/ Alan Schnittman | Brainchild Evolution, Inc | schnitt@mindspring.com prototype design & development | computer interface embedded control | analog & digital circuits | software development ------------------------------ From: w_tom Subject: Re: MCI Worldcom's 555 Pic Code: Arbitrary Rates Over $3 per Minute Date: Sun, 25 Aug 2002 08:12:15 -0400 Organization: Posted via Supernews, http://www.supernews.com Why do we never get to know the cost of a phone call until a month after we have made it? We don't buy anything else without first (being able to) knowing the price. Why can we not know, in advance, what the price of a call will be before we complete it? After all, the phone company has all kinds of other equipment that tells us the number for someone (directory assistance), dialing problems, etc. So why are they not required to make pricing available at the time of purchase? Frank wrote: > First, I was a GTC Telecom (MCI Worldcom reseller) customer. I > recently dropped them due to this problem. > A couple of months ago I changed my phone number because I was getting > too many telemarketing phone calls. I told Pacific Bell to keep > everything the same for Intralata and long distance calling. > OK, so they setup the changed phone number to have the 555 code. > Now I probably know rates, tariffs ... as well as almost anyone, and > I've been helping consumers get the best deals on phone rates for > years, but I forgot to call GTC Telecom and tell them that I had a new > phone number, I figured it would get magically tranmitted for me. OK > ... that is my mistake :( > When I got my first phone bill after this change, I had phone calls > that were almost $2 per minute for Intralata calls, and even more for > some state-to-state calls. > When I called GTC Telecom, they told me I had to go talk to MCI > WorldCom. MCI WorldCom said that people make this mistake all the > time, but that it is your problem because I was on their network > without being tied to a 555 reseller such as GTC Telecom. > Well, after I did enough calls, they offered to rerate all of the > calls at 30 cents a minute. > THE DEBATE: As part of these calls, MCI Worldcom indicated that they > did not have any fixed rates for these types of calls and they > dynamically changed rates to be whatever, and that the rates could > even be as high as $3 per minute for in-state or state-to-state calls. > Question: What do you guys think? > I know I made an error here, but MCI Worldcom knows that this is a > common problem and they make a fortune when it happens. I could see > them setting the default rate to be 40 cents a minute for any call not > tied to a reseller. > For these calls, MCI Worldcom's reseller service does not have any > rates that they can tell consumers other than we charged you whatever > we wanted to charge you. ------------------------------ Date: Sun, 25 Aug 2002 10:31:40 -0700 Subject: Re: So You've Got Your HDTV. Now What's There to See? From: John Higdon Organization: Green Hills and Cows In article telecom22.5.9@telecom-digest.org, Steve Elias wrote: > I suppose life is happier when one is easily amused. Lucky me! I plan > to keep buying DTV equipment. HDTV is simply fantastic. Perhaps the > linedoubler in your setup is so good that DVDs look almost as good as > HDTV but I would be interested to hear your comments about how well > HDTV works in your area technically. As a matter of fact, DVDs look VERY good on the system, having an overall look of projected 35mm film. I'm told by others who own similar components that viewing HDTV on it "blows you away" by comparison ... and these people are not easily impressed. But right now, all I can get over the air is our local NBC affiliate (which is drek) and DirecTV (if I buy a new dish and receiver) showing a demo channel and a premium channel in 1080i. The San Francisco stations (which are quite weak here) would require more receiving effort than I care to expend. And, of course, cable has no plans to carry any DTV signals. It would seem that for now, HDTV (or even DTV) is not in my future. -- John Higdon | Email Address Valid | SF: +1 415 428-COWS +1 408 264 4115 | Anytown, USA | FAX: +1 408 264 4407 ------------------------------ TELECOM Digest is an electronic journal devoted mostly but not exclusively to telecommunications topics. It is circulated anywhere there is email, in addition to various telecom forums on a variety of networks such as Compuserve and America On Line, 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: 620-870-9697 Fax 1: 775-255-9970 Fax 2: 775-306-8390 Fax 3: 530-309-7234 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 second 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) Email <==> FTP: telecom-archives@telecom-digest.org Send a simple, one line note to that automated address for a help file on how to use the automatic retrieval system for archives files. You can get desired files in email. ************************************************************************* * 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. Access to Premium (P) links requires upgrade to a paid subscription. One click a day feeds a person a meal. Go to http://www.thehungersite.com Only subscribers or registered users of ICB Toll Free News web site will be able to access all or some of the full text of URLs provided. LEGAL STUFF: TELECOM Digest (sm) is owned by Patrick Townson. Copyright 2000 ICB, Inc. and TELECOM Digest. All rights reserved. Our attorney is Bill Levant, of Blue Bell, PA. --------------------------------------------------------------- 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 twenty 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 V22 #6 **************************** From editor@telecom-digest.org Mon Aug 26 13:26:09 2002 Received: from localhost (localhost [[UNIX: localhost]]) by massis.lcs.mit.edu (8.11.3nb1/8.11.3) id g7QHQ9o01757; Mon, 26 Aug 2002 13:26:09 -0400 (EDT) Date: Mon, 26 Aug 2002 13:26:09 -0400 (EDT) From: editor@telecom-digest.org Message-Id: <200208261726.g7QHQ9o01757@massis.lcs.mit.edu> X-Authentication-Warning: massis.lcs.mit.edu: ptownson set sender to editor@telecom-digest.org using -f To: ptownson Approved: patsnewlist Subject: TELECOM Digest V22 #7 TELECOM Digest Mon, 26 Aug 2002 13:25:00 EDT Volume 22 : Issue 7 Inside This Issue: Editor: Patrick A. Townson Re: Does Such a Technology Exist? (Wes Leatherock) Re: AT&T Didn't Honor Their Rates (Tom Brown) Medicine Ads (was Re: News Headlines of Interest) (Bill Levant) Re: Exchange Information (Clarence Dold) Re: Payphones (John Higdon) Re: Payphones (Stanley Cline) Re: Payphones (Dave Levenson) 1010/800 Number Dialing With no LD Carrier? (David L) Re: Telephone Surge Suppressor (w_tom) Strowger Gravesite (Continued) (Neal McLain) Verizon Call Reject?? (Dave Hauss) Re: Banning Cell Phone Use in Theaters (Paul Wallich) Re: So You've Got Your HDTV. Now What's There to See? (Kim Brennan) Re: MCI Worldcom's 555 Pic Code: Arbitrary Rates Over $3 (Kim Brennan) For the Business Directory (David B. Horvath, CCP) 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. WE DO NOT PERMIT NAME/EMAIL ADDRESS HARVESTING FROM THIS JOURNAL. 'SALTED' EMAIL ADDRESSES APPEAR HEREIN TO VERIFY THIS. YOU GET SUED IN SMALL CLAIMS COURT IF YOU GET CAUGHT SPAMMING OR SENDING VIRUSES. DON'T DO IT. See the bottom of this issue for subscription and archive details and the name of our lawyer; other stuff of interest. ---------------------------------------------------------------------- From: wesrock@aol.com (Wes Leatherock) Date: 25 Aug 2002 17:54:05 GMT Organization: AOL http://www.aol.com Subject: Re: Does Such a Technology Exist? On 24 Aug 2002 16:53:57 -0400 kludge@panix.com (Scott Dorsey) wrote: > You cannot have more than one call on a given line. You need a rotary > of several telephone lines, each with an answering machine set up, so > that when one line busies out, the call is transferred to the next > one. This is a standard telco service. I don't think the size is > unlimited but you can get at least a couple hundred lines on a rotary. Many rotary groups are far more than 200 lines -- quite a few are in the thousands. When 5XB came out a generation or two ago, one of its advantages was that you could have an additional unnumbered group of 2,500 lines that could be used for rollover numbers -- all from the same number if desired. Wes Leatherock wesrock@aol.com wleathus@yahoo.com [TELECOM Digest Editor's Note: How many rollover lines are there connected or associated with telco voicemail systems? I mean to say, once a call has been forwarded from your premises to telco's voicemail system, isn't the number of calls which can be thus forwarded (or handled by voicemail) virtually infinite, or as 'unlimited' as any reasonable person would want? Granted, there is that one or two second period when someone is attaching to your line and ringing it that other calls cannot get in, but once the first call has moved out of the way (to voicemail) then another call can get in. When I was working at the bus station in Skokie, Illinois several years ago, we had two lines in a 'hunt group' which would hunt in either direction (line one to two or two back to one) and one telco voice mail. The first number was 'aliased' to the second line for the purposes of voice mail. We had a third actual line which was not in the hunt group and frequently used for fax and it had an answering machine attached to it. 'Operator Escape' on the voicemail ("press zero for immediate help") transferred the callers to the Greyhound National Information Line at 800-231-2222. On the voicemail, the front end announcement told people press one for northbound schedules and Milwaukee/Green Bay connections, press two for downtown Chicago and east/west connections, press three for location of station and hours of operation information, or press zero for help now. We deliberatly tried to make it go busy, but the only time it ever did was when two or three other phones went off hook and dialed into us at *immediatly* the same time. But let one of the calls get out of the way for an instant and another one could get in. So for all intents and purposes business line voicemail might be a good solution for the reader. PAT] ------------------------------ From: kibri@eudoramail.com (Tom Brown) Subject: Re: AT&T Didn't Honor Their Rates Date: 25 Aug 2002 11:09:41 -0700 Organization: http://groups.google.com/ Mr. Knowitall wrote in message news:: > I just finished listening to AT&T trying to sell me their long > distance -- the benefit they offered is a reduction on a bill I had no > idea was going to be so big. You see, they sold me a plan (all > verbal) and then didn't honor the rates they quoted. I can't comment > on exactly what the rates they charged me were, other than I bought a > plan that was supposed to allow me to call my friends in Mexico for > .20 / minute -- because: Hi, I don't know much about Texas State Government, but in California you could submit this to the State Public Utilities Comission for redress. I assume that Texas has a similar commission with review rights over AT&T. It seems pretty clear that although miscommunication was noted, AT&T is apparently taking you on a rough ride. I have been with AT&T 30+ years, but I intend to go with SBC for LD when it becomes available here. Between Cable AT&T and the crappy LD service and nickle and dime pricing I won't be with them much longer (Note SBC ain't great either but I am not as mad at them). Go to the Government for help on this one, a lot was missrepresented to you, yet they want every dime. Tom (Please no spam) ------------------------------ From: Wlevant@aol.com Date: Sun, 25 Aug 2002 14:32:39 EDT Subject: Medicine Ads (was Re: News Headlines of Interest) > It reminds me of the ads for various medications where they exhort you > to ask your doctor if Aljsfkjhqwrtyhflkasdryewryl is right for you, > but they don't tell you if it's a contraceptive or an allergy > medication. I know they don't want to be sued if someone > self-medicates without proper medical oversight, but they could at > least give some general clue as to what sorts of problems the product > might address. Until recently (i.e. sometime within the past few years ... I forget exactly when), FDA rules said that if an advertisement mentioned BOTH the name of the drug AND the condition it was supposed to treat, then the ad was REQUIRED to contain the "basic information" box-o-fine-print, which is usually found on a nearby page in magazine advertising. By ONLY mentioning the name of the drug, advertisers could avoid this rule, which was necessary because of the time and space limitations of radio and TV advertising. Now, the FDA will let the drug makers mention both name and use, provided that the ad also contains (a) a list of major risks and side effects of the drug, and (b) a means by which additional information can be obtained, such as a toll-free number, a web address or a referral to current print advertising. Bill ------------------------------ From: dold@61.usenet.us.com Subject: Re: Exchange Information Date: 25 Aug 2002 18:44:43 GMT Organization: Wintercreek Data Carl Navarro wrote: > On 24 Aug 2002 06:53:54 -0700, stevenl11@aol.com (Steven Lichter) > wrote: >> Is there a site that lists what companies operate exchanges? I know >> with the new FCC rules some may be split. I'm interested in who >> operates in the Brownsville, Calif area, East of Sacramento. > Try www.nanpa.com. It's hard to say because I'm not familiar with the > area, but it looks like 530/916 area codes are very close to > Brownsville. The Brownsville airport is in Oroville so does that make > the Oroville airport in Brownsville? :-) > Anyway, you can d/l the western states exchange list or the entire > database by following the links to central office codes/download > assignment records and then look for your region or the Access > database of ALL CODES. Brownsville doesn't appear on it's own, nor do any of the nearby areas. If you knew the Area Code (530) and prefix, you could find the owning company in the tables that Carl mentioned. They are available as flat ASCII, or I could look it up if you gave me the prefix. If you have Access, the whole thing is in the Allcodes.zip http://www.nanpa.com/number_resource_info/co_code_assignments.html http://www.nanpa.com/nanp1/AllCodes.zip ALLCODES.MDB Clarence A Dold - dold@email.rahul.net - Hidden Valley (Lake County) CA. ------------------------------ Date: Sun, 25 Aug 2002 11:50:54 -0700 Subject: Re: Payphones From: John Higdon Organization: Green Hills and Cows In article telecom22.6.9@telecom-digest.org, Robert Johnson wrote: > Are payphones required to to allow access to 800 numbers ... and > specificly the 800 access number for Long distance companys? IXCs are now required to compensate all payphone owners (including private pay phones) for each inward toll-free call made. To effect this, a surcharge is levied to the toll-free customer for each call made from a payphone. That is why pre-paid calling cards now charge (debit the balance) more for calls made from payphones and why some toll-free customers block calls from payphones. I believe the per-call surcharge is on the order of twenty-eight cents ... but it has been awhile since I checked. It would be to the payphone owner's advantage to allow access to 800-numbers and hence be compensated by the 800-number carrier. -- John Higdon | Email Address Valid | SF: +1 415 428-COWS +1 408 264 4115 | Anytown, USA | FAX: +1 408 264 4407 ------------------------------ From: Stanley Cline Subject: Re: Payphones Date: Sun, 25 Aug 2002 15:04:54 -0400 Organization: Roamer1 Communications - Dunwoody, GA, USA Reply-To: sc1-news@roamer1.org On Sun, 25 Aug 2002 05:37:08 GMT, Robert Johnson wrote: > Are payphones required to to allow access to 800 numbers ... and > specifically the 800 access number for Long distance companys? Yes. And PAT wrote: > [TELECOM Digest Editor's Note: They're supposed to, yes. Privately > owned payphones (often times referred to as COCOTS [Customer-Owned > Coin-Operated Telephones] usually require that 25-50 cents be dep- > osited to make up for the 'loss' the owner has by not collecting > on the calls otherwise. This does not come up on telco-owned and Requiring coins for toll-free is against state regulations everywhere I know of. Payphones may do it, but they aren't supposed to -- that's what payphone compensation is for. Then again, there are still phones I know of that can't handle 888, 877 or 866 or various combinations thereof; misrate 8xx-555-xxxx; reroute 800-CALL-ATT to 1010288-0 (which screws up rates for many AT&T calling card customers); etc. Most of these messed-up phones are owned by payphone owners, often very small one-person COCOT companies or stores/restaurants/malls/etc. that own their own phones instead of having a third-party COCOT company run them, who don't have a clue about the telecom side of the business, or are still using obsolete, unsupported [e.g., "AT&T"/Lucent -- who dropped support for their private payphone products a year or two ago -- and most older, cheap "desktop"] phones. > Telcos get paid on the 800 calls they handle. The private phone owner > does not. The COCOT owner can however register his phone as such and > then a surcharge is added to the cost of the call which the recipient Technically, any COCOT line should have the correct translations applied to ensure the correct ANI II digits (those identifying the line as a COCOT line) are sent to IXCs. As for getting the money: a division of the APCC (the payphone industry's trade group) handles distribution of the payphone compensation money to individual payphone owners that don't want to work with the LD carriers themselves (as many larger payphone companies do.) -- Stanley Cline -- sc1 at roamer1 dot org -- http://www.roamer1.org/ ... "Never put off until tomorrow what you can do today. There might be a law against it by that time." -/usr/games/fortune ------------------------------ Date: Sun, 25 Aug 2002 15:37:25 EDT From: Dave Levenson Subject: Re: Payphones Robert K. Johnson asks: > Are payphones required to to allow access to 800 numbers ... and > specificly the 800 access number for Long distance companys? Pat responds (in part): > [TELECOM Digest Editor's Note: They're supposed to, yes. Privately > owned payphones (often times referred to as COCOTS [Customer-Owned > Coin-Operated Telephones] usually require that 25-50 cents be dep- > osited ... Yes, payphones are required, by the FCC, to allow their users to call all toll-free numbers. No, Pat, they are not permitted, by FCC, to require a coin deposit for such calls. It does not matter who owns the payphone. The Telco or the independent payphone service provider are required to allow coinless access to all toll-free numbers. The carriers who accept calls to toll-free numbers from payphones are required, by the FCC, to pay for the use of the payphone. The amount is $0.24 per completed call. Payments from carriers to payphone service providers are made via a National Payphone Clearinghouse. The FCC has no specific requirement regarding how the carriers recover this cost. Most carriers do it by marking it up and passing it along to the billed party - i.e. the recipient of the toll-free call. Some businesses (and some government agencies) who have toll-free numbers refuse to accept calls from payphones. They are permitted to do this. If a particular toll-free number cannot be called from a payphone, it may be blocked by the recipient. These numbers should reach a recording that says: "The number you have called cannot be reached from a payphone" or words to that effect. The payphone service provider, however, is not permitted to block any toll-free calls. Dave Levenson Westmark, Inc. Voice: 908 647 0900 Email: dave@westmark.com Stirling, NJ, USA Fax: 908 647 6857 Web: http://www.westmark.com ------------------------------ From: davidlind@my-deja.com (David L) Subject: 1010/800 # Dialing With no LD Carrier? Date: 26 Aug 2002 05:00:40 -0700 Organization: http://groups.google.com/ Hi all, Can someone tell me if 1010 dialarounds or 800 numbers can be dialed from an ordinary telephone line with no LD carrier? Any info about consistancy across carriers or other details would be appreciated. Always thought that a LD carrier of NONE would only allow 1010 dialarounds and no 800 number dialing. I'm researching this for misc.consumers.frugal-living where others are reporting just the opposite case. Thanks, David DavNOLindiSPAM(at)hotmail(dot)com [TELECOM Digest Editor's Note: YES, those calls can be made from phones with 'none' as their carrier of choice. The reason is, in the case of toll-free (or 800 numbers) the choice is being made by the recipient of the call, who is the person paying for it. You are not paying for the call; they are, so they choose the carrier they wish to use. In the case of ten-tens, you should really not use that phrase in the same sentence as 'frugal living'. Dial-arounds are notoriously expensive to use. All you are doing is making your finger work harder for the privilege of paying more for the call. If you want to be 'frugal' then get a carrier, like IDT as one example, which charges five cents per minute or less, has one-plus ability, or get a cell phone with thousands of minutes 'free' each month and long- distance calls included. Southwestern Bell (or SBC as it is called now) gets between 4 cents and 7 cents per minute on long-distance, depending if you don't mind paying $4.50 per month for the cheapest rate. It more or less amortizes at 5 cents per minute if you use at least 100 plus minutes of LD each month. PAT] ------------------------------ From: w_tom Subject: Re: Telephone Surge Suppressor Date: Sun, 25 Aug 2002 22:58:26 -0400 Organization: Posted via Supernews, http://www.supernews.com There has to be a ground connected to each line at the premise interface (demarc) with a necessary short connection to central earth ground. Surge protectors connect a surge to surge protection - earth ground. Therefore 'whole house' surge protector, installed free by the telco, is effective. But plug-in surge protectors can even contribute to damage of an adjacent appliance - no effective earth ground means no surge protection. That is the fact that plug-in surge protectors must forget to mention so that you will purchase their products. There is no such thing as a stand alone surge protector for common mode surges. Effective surge protectors only connect a surge to surge protection. Therefore that connection to surge protection - earth ground - must exist and be short. It is a problem with apartment living. You are at the mercy of a landlord who is not required to provide effective transistor safety protection - only to provide human safety protection. Shame since effective transistor protection for all appliances (especially for phone line appliances) costs only about $1 per protected appliance. Compare that $1 to ineffective plug-in protectors at about $20 or $50 per appliance. Leonard Erickson wrote: > I'm looking for a standalone surge suppressor (or I'll even settle for > one in a power strip) that'll work with RJ-14 (2 line) wired cables. > It's a real pain splitting things to two lines, running them thru *two* > separate suppressors, then recombining them again. > And since I live in an apartment, I can't wire something in at the > demarc. > Oh, as long as I'm asking, are there any for RJ-25 (3 line) cables. I > don't need one of those, but it'd be nice to know, just in case. ------------------------------ Date: Sun, 25 Aug 2002 21:08:16 -0600 From: Neal McLain Subject: Strowger Gravesite (Continued) Here's another forwarded message (crossposted from the Strowger list) about the Strowger gravesite. The link goes to the same website they referenced previously, but they've added a 1921 obit of Mrs. Strowger. ------------------- ORIGINAL MESSAGE ------------------- Subject: [strowger] MRS. STROWGER DIES IN TAMPA Date: Mon, 26 Aug 2002 02:18:26 -0000 From: "cpeterkelly2002" Reply-To: strowger@yahoogroups.com To: strowger@yahoogroups.com Greetings All, I have posted the obituary of Mrs. Strowger (circa 1921) on our neighborhood website. It took a fair amount of searching newspaper microfiche to uncover, but was worthwhile as it's quite a lengthy piece. See it here: http://www.roserpark.net/greenwood/strowger.html I would like to appeal to one of the collectors out there for a device which utilizes the Strowger Switch principle. We don't need a working model, and haven't much money to offer beyond shipping costs, but would greatly appreciate the donation of any item which could be used in various tours and displays. Chris Kelly www.roserpark.net ------------------------------ From: dahauss@unlimitedsounds.com (Dave Hauss) Subject: Verizon Call Reject?? Date: 25 Aug 2002 21:32:11 -0700 Organization: http://groups.google.com/ I have a big question. I live in NJ and am looking to find out if Verizon offers a service where I can put in a phone number and when the person calls it will reject the call ... is this possible?? I have one phone like with distinctive ring and someone keeps faxing me 50 pages a day of junk. I want to block his phone number. I have a fax switch that detects the distinctive ring but it wont pass the caller ID info to the fax machine which has junk number detect. Any help would be appreciated. ------------------------------ From: Paul Wallich Subject: Re: Banning Cell Phone Use in Theaters Date: Mon, 26 Aug 2002 10:40:03 -0400 Organization: PANIX Public Access Internet and UNIX, NYC In article , John Higdon wrote: > In article telecom22.5.10@telecom-digest.org, William Warren wrote: >> The issue *IS* human behavior, and humans screw up *a lot*. They >> forget they have their pagers and/or cell phones on, they sit in a >> (probably) new and (likely) unfamiliar surrounding, and the rest is >> inevitable. The *use* of the device, at least by those whom choose to >> do so after interrupting a performance, is clearly boorish, but its >> activation is, IMNSHO, almost always an accident. Ergo, the need for >> countermeasures such as a Faraday cage. > I, and a group of my friends, are in a business that requires us to be > on call 24/7. Occasionally, we as a group attend a movie, play, > concert or whatever. Half jokingly, someone invariably mutters "pagers > on stun" as we enter the venue, meaning that we put cellphones, > pagers, and other devices in "vibrate" mode. "Requires" is a strong word. It's easier for you and the people who employ you, but that's an economic decision (not having just that extra tiny bit of redundant coverage). And it's a decision made easier by the fact that you don't have to internalize the cost of your communications mistakes. [snip] > Until we, as a society, get over the idea that modern communications > are nothing more than toys that inflict irritation on those who see no > real need for them, we will remain immature in how we utilize these > important tools. Penalizing those who use these tools responsibly and > with consideration for others is in itself a ham-handed and immature > response to a simple behavioral problem. There's a tiny minority of people who actually need to be reachable, and a much larger group who _think_ they need to be reachable at all times, or who just don't think at all. But if people who really think their jobs require reachability should be willing to pay the price (or their employers should). I'm proposing a really simple measure: enter a theater or a concert hall with a cellphone or beeper, and automatically post a bond for the face value of every seat in the house, to be payable if your device goes off. It wouldn't cover the transportation, scheduling and other costs of the people whose evening was disrupted, but it would be a start. And it would make people and businesses think about the true costs of having someone reachable 24/7. paul ------------------------------ From: kimbrennan@aol.comfrtz.com (KimBrennan) Date: 26 Aug 2002 14:53:37 GMT Organization: AOL http://www.aol.com Subject: Re: So You've Got Your HDTV. Now What's There to See? > But right now, all I can get over the air is our local NBC affiliate > (which is drek) and DirecTV (if I buy a new dish and receiver) showing > a demo channel and a premium channel in 1080i. HD-Net is not a demo channel. While it is true that some of what it broadcasts is demo material, they also broadcast various sports events, and some other HD content that is not demo material. Examples would be, they carried the Salt Lake City Winter Olympics in HD. It was on a 24 hour delay for some odd reason (as was the local HD broadcast on NBC.) They've carried baseball games, live, in HD (usually the Colorado Rockies games.) They've had boxing (though who needs better clarity for that "sport" is another matter ... They've had some REALLY cool programs such as Canada from the air, Over Ireland, and a series of programs covering wildlife in Urban cities (I've caught the Tokyo, and New York ones, and missed most of the one on Toronto.) HD is a new media, and it takes a while for content in any new media to fully exploit the capabilities, but it also takes a while for regular content to blend into the new media. The easiest way for regular content to get into the digital TV bandwagon is to start filming in widescreen. A few programs do this now (cropping the widescreen image to fit into a regular 4:3 screen when broadcast on regular NTSC.) X-Files is one such. They don't film it in HD. "I'm sorry, all my money is tied up in currency." W.C.Fields ------------------------------ From: kimbrennan@aol.comfrtz.com (KimBrennan) Date: 26 Aug 2002 15:02:56 GMT Organization: AOL http://www.aol.com Subject: Re: MCI Worldcom's 555 Pic Code: Arbitrary Rates Over $3 per Minute > So why are they not required to make pricing available at the time > of purchase? I'm a little surprised that our moderator didn't reply on this. The reason that jumps out most in my mind, is that the exact price is unknown until finished. Many phone (most? all?) charge on the basis of how long the call was. This can be broken down by per minute or fractions of a minute basis, but in the end, until the call is finished, how much to charge you for the service is unknown. In addition, there are other possible charges that you may invoke during the call (900 calls for instance, or 800 calls that take you to areas where you authorize a purchase that is charged to your phone bill.) Convienence has a price and that price is in having to compute your charge AFTER the call is completed. Of course, in this era of modern electronics it would be nice to have the exact charge appear on a display on your phone the moment you hang up. This would undoubtably require an additional service (like the caller id service) that could be added to your monthly bill. Then there are the taxes, and surcharges which are prorated per usage. These can/could vary from state to state. So this proposed phone handset would have to be programmed by the end user to reflect all of those charges. AND the company manufacturing the handsets would have to have extra legal language to be sure you couldn't sue them for improperly calculating phone charges ... this might make the handsets prohibitively expensive. "I'm sorry, all my money is tied up in currency." W.C.Fields [TELECOM Digest Editor's Note: I think he said that phone service was the ONLY commodity where one does not know the cost before purchasing it. That isn't really true either. You buy electrical service each month, plus water and gas without knowing what the final bill for the month will be. I now sit here and cringe thinking about what the electric bill will be for August here in Independence considering the bake-oven weather conditions we have endured over the past two months. I am on the annual 'budget plan' meaning the bills from KG&E are averaged over twelve months, however KG&E reserves the right to 'adjust' the monthly payments as they see fit to keep you from having a large over/underpayment at the end of the year. I've had to run the air conditioner on high for the past month, although it cycles on and off from time to time. What would you do if the temperature was in the 95-105 degree range during the day? The Independence Water Works and Public Works is the most reasonable of all. $53 per month delivers all the water and sewer (based on a percentage of the water consumption) AND trash collection each month. They re-evaluate sewer and trash four times each year based on the water meter readings during the months of November and January. So I must be careful about using water in November. The people outside of the city limits get hit *very hard* on water. Rural water delivery is outrageous I am told. They get their water from the City of Independence but it costs them plenty, and they have to water their livestock as well. People buy a lot of things in a month's time they don't know exactly what it will cost before hand. PAT] ------------------------------ Date: Sun, 25 Aug 2002 18:38:04 -0400 From: dhorvath@cobs.com (David B. Horvath, CCP) Subject: Last Laugh! For the Business Directory Save on copier, fax, and printer supplies: > Click Here to ORDER NOW! > OR Call us Toll-Free at 1-800-758-8084! Want toll free phone service? > We are having a special promotion right now. > We will register your own TOLL FREE number for you or > your business and we have really cheap prices on hosting too... > Look below or call 1-877-820-8479 (24 Hour Recorded Message) > to request an agent (all calls are monitored.) - David [TELECOM Digest Editor's Note: What exactly do you do when you 'register' your toll-free number? Unlike 'regular' numbers where the default is directory listing at little or no charge, with toll-free numbers the default is non-pub. Readers may wish to call 877-820-8479 to inquire about this great offer. Don't hesitate; call them now, and call them often! :) PAT] ------------------------------ TELECOM Digest is an electronic journal devoted mostly but not exclusively to telecommunications topics. It is circulated anywhere there is email, in addition to various telecom forums on a variety of networks such as Compuserve and America On Line, 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: 620-870-9697 Fax 1: 775-255-9970 Fax 2: 775-306-8390 Fax 3: 530-309-7234 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 second 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) Email <==> FTP: telecom-archives@telecom-digest.org Send a simple, one line note to that automated address for a help file on how to use the automatic retrieval system for archives files. You can get desired files in email. ************************************************************************* * 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. Access to Premium (P) links requires upgrade to a paid subscription. One click a day feeds a person a meal. Go to http://www.thehungersite.com Only subscribers or registered users of ICB Toll Free News web site will be able to access all or some of the full text of URLs provided. LEGAL STUFF: TELECOM Digest (sm) is owned by Patrick Townson. Copyright 2000 ICB, Inc. and TELECOM Digest. All rights reserved. Our attorney is Bill Levant, of Blue Bell, PA. --------------------------------------------------------------- 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 twenty 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 V22 #7 **************************** From editor@telecom-digest.org Mon Aug 26 14:38:15 2002 Received: from localhost (localhost [[UNIX: localhost]]) by massis.lcs.mit.edu (8.11.3nb1/8.11.3) id g7QIcFE03117; Mon, 26 Aug 2002 14:38:15 -0400 (EDT) Date: Mon, 26 Aug 2002 14:38:15 -0400 (EDT) From: editor@telecom-digest.org Message-Id: <200208261838.g7QIcFE03117@massis.lcs.mit.edu> X-Authentication-Warning: massis.lcs.mit.edu: ptownson set sender to editor@telecom-digest.org using -f To: ptownson Approved: patsnewlist Subject: TELECOM Digest V22 #8 TELECOM Digest Mon, 26 Aug 2002 14:36:00 EDT Volume 22 : Issue 8 Inside This Issue: Editor: Patrick A. Townson ICANN: Fifteen Reasns Why Users Should Give a Shit (Judith Oppenheimer) Re: Banning Cell Phone Use in Theaters (was News Headlines) (Herb Stein) Re: Banning Cell Phone Use in Theaters (Robert Dover) Re: Canadian CO (Prefix) Assignment Database? (Anthony Sack) Telephone Surge Suppressor (Gary Novosielski) TeleZapper Disconnects Telemarketers (Joey Lindstrom) Re: Does Such a Technology Exist? (Denis L. Menezes) News Headlines of Interest 8/26/02 (Monty Solomon) Re: Where to Get a Bong Tone? (GlowingBlueMist) 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. WE DO NOT PERMIT NAME/EMAIL ADDRESS HARVESTING FROM THIS JOURNAL. 'SALTED' EMAIL ADDRESSES APPEAR HEREIN TO VERIFY THIS. YOU GET SUED IN SMALL CLAIMS COURT IF YOU GET CAUGHT SPAMMING OR SENDING VIRUSES. DON'T DO IT. See the bottom of this issue for subscription and archive details and the name of our lawyer; other stuff of interest. ---------------------------------------------------------------------- From: Judith Oppenheimer Subject: ICANN: Fifteen Reasons Why Users Should Give a Shit Date: Sun, 25 Aug 2002 20:16:35 -0400 [TELECOM Digest Editor's Note: Judith and I had an extended phone conversation Sunday night, and I made the mistake of saying (regards the antics of ICANN) that 'I wasn't sure any longer if I gave a shit about the mess things are in on the net.' Judith promptly fired off this missive, being a summary of ICANN antics in recent months. A lot of it *does* make good sense. She also recommended that users who *do* give a shit about things on the net read ICANN Watch (Usenet newsgroup) on a regular basis. I do think it is about time we take another look at ICANN and critically examine what it is about. The last time I took a look like this editorially here in the Digest, I wound up getting a nasty letter from Robert Shaw at ITU and my sponsorship by ITU cut off. Since I no longer get ITU financial assistance with this Digest, (as you all know, now I ask you for it) I think I can do this with a bit more clarity and purpose than previously. This issue and at least one issue to follow will look at ICANN in detail. PAT] Re "individual participation" in ICANN - So many reasons, so little time, so here are just a few (courtesy of ICB Toll Free News archives): Because "A major implication of the Internet model is that value is not created in the network, but at the edges, by users." Timothy Denton, with Francois Menard and David Isenberg, Netheads Versus Bellheads: Research into Emerging Policy Issues in the Development and Deployment of Internet Protocols Because "control of the root is being leveraged to control the Internet itself in such key areas as trademark and copyright protection, surveillance of users, content regulation, and regulation of the domain name supply industry." Milton Mueller, Ruling the Root: Internet Governance and the Taming of Cyberspace Because "ICANN has the potential to turn into the first world regulatory body. By beginning to associate top level domains with content usage, they are putting themselves into the position of being the defacto arbiter of content. This is in addition to what territory that they can grab in the intellectual property world along with WIPO. If all else fails, they can always play games with protocol standards and IP address allocation. I suspect that most people have no clue what this issue is all about, nor care. Remember that Mussolini started with the trains. There's an old adage about only giving power to those who don't want it. If we're going to have a world government, then I want a revolution first. Preferably with some historic event like throwing all the T-1s into Boston harbor. These people are enacting policy, cutting deals with large technology companies and signing things that look suspiciously like treaties with governments and quasi government groups (some of dubious legitimacy). I went to school with one of the students killed at Kent State, worked for an military/intelligence agency in my youth and watched as the last administration passed wind while leaving the white house. I never felt paranoia before. I do now." David Holtzman, Chairman and CEO of Opion Inc. and former Chief Technology Officer at Network Solutions, IF WE'RE GOING TO HAVE A WORLD GOVT, I WANT A REVOLUTION FIRST. Because "ICANN is more interested in, and totally focused on, arranging power rather than providing simple stewardship and service. ICANN is brilliant at rearranging the deck chairs on the Titanic. The problem is they have the internet on board." Randy Bush (characterized, for those who don't know him, by Dave Farber, as "brutally rational.") Because "The board of ICANN shouldn't consist of people with direct commercial interests such as registrar/registry function. ICANN needs to be able to make decisions in the interest of the internet users and the global information space, the internet. There needs to be a balance between commercial and public use of this infrastructure and the board must consist of people who think about the impact of the decisions for the communication culture and space, not only on their own business." Andy Mueller-Maguhn, elected ICANN Director Because "We're not so stupid that we don't see what ICANN is doing, which is establishing absolute power, free from any of the checks and balances of government." Brian Livingston, Contributing Editor of InfoWorld and CNET News.com Because "The UDRP walks and quacks like law. It sets out a rule for deciding between competing claims to possession of particular resources. It sets up a process to apply that rule on a case-by-case basis. And it is binding upon those in possession of the resource in question; in the event of an adverse ruling, the domain name holder will relinquish possession of the contested domain name." David G. Post, Associate Professor of Law at Temple University Law School, and Co-Founder and Co-Director of the Cyberspace Law Institute. Because "Someday we may look back and realize that this moment was critical in deciding who got to control this new form of global communication." Steven Hill, western regional director of the Center for Voting and Democracy Because "In my research of Internet policy over the years, I've had the pleasure of reading numerous court orders, FCC notices, and other official government documents. These works are impressive historic documents that exhaustively consider every point raised by all sides, bring in the background that applies to each point, and carefully lay out the reasoning that leads to a final decision. Nothing like this appears in ICANN public documents. They are terse bulletins that list decisions made and brief technical justifications. Many non-profit organizations let members vote on by-law changes, examine accounting books, and so forth. If ICANN members were allowed to elect its Board, they'd have the same rights." Andy Oram, an editor at O'Reilly & Associates Because "ICANN is establishing Internet policy. It becomes problematic if it makes policy judgments without adequate policy processes." Rep. Ed Markey, D-Mass Because "The most critical public policy issue affecting the Internet remains the same - namely, its governance. ICANN's legal authority for 'technical management of the Internet' (in ICANN's own words) remains in doubt. A connected issue is ICANN's ability to finance its operations." David W. Maher, Vice President - Public Policy, ISOC Because "When ICANN was in serious trouble in 1998 and 1999, they promised open elections for all. The Internet Community relied on their word. But once Congress and Commerce seemed satisfied and NSI was brought into the fold, ICANN began a full reversal of their original stance." Mikki Barry, President of the Domain Name Rights Coalition Because "The essence of ICANN's problem is the disproportionate attention which is being given inside the working groups, and, increasingly outside, in private conferences, to the pretensions of the IP community, on grounds that we and our Internet users consider to be dubious and, in some cases, in outright error ... as to policy as regards the future direction of the Internet. What we are actually observing in the saga of domain name expansion is a power-grab of major proportions over the architecture of the Internet, using ICANN not so much as a representative forum for IP interests as the embodimenet of IP lawyer's interests. That we are in fact are acceding to a takeover of the political processes of ICANN by a set of interests that oppose what the Internet stands for." Ross Wm. Rader, Tucows Because "Governments are instituted among Men, deriving their just Powers from the Consent of the Governed" >> From Ross Rader's byte.org blog: > I asked the question a week ago, but still don't "get" the > answers. A few people included me in a thread going on over on the > at-large discussion list regarding what the arguments for and > against individual participation in ICANN actually are. The > answers coming back weren't all that convincing - all I managed to > take away was that users are entitled to a seat because they use > the system. Not terribly convincing. Convince me. Judith Oppenheimer http://JudithOppenheimer.com http://ICBTollFreeNews.com http://WhoSells800.com 212 684-7210, 1 800 The Expert Visit 1-800 AFTA, http://www.1800afta.org ------------------------------ From: Herb Stein Subject: Re: Banning Cell Phone Use in Theaters (was News Headlines) Organization: Giganews.Com - Premium News Outsourcing Date: Mon, 26 Aug 2002 15:26:39 GMT David Esan wrote in message news:telecom22.3.3@telecom-digest.org: > John David Galt wrote in message > news:: >> Why is a law needed for this? Why don't the affected theaters just >> show their rude patrons the door? >> If that's too expensive because it requires hiring human beings, maybe >> they should consider installing Faraday cages in the walls. That's >> certainly legal even if active jamming isn't. > I wish I was a lawyer, because the lawsuits that the Faraday cage is > going to create would buy me that house on Maui. > Can you imagine an emergency in a theater (fire, health, violence) and > someone whips out their cellphone to call 911 and can't because its > blocked by the theater? Huge lawsuit. Phooey. I go into lots of places every day with spotty or nonexistent cell phone reception. I don't think that the fact that their construction techniques interfere with my cell phone use is cause for a lawsuit. For that matter, there are plenty of places outdoors around here (St. Louis) with "dead spots." But there is probably no gaurantee from Cingular either. > It is sad, however, that we need a law to enforce what is simple > common courtesy. This is the key problem. "You can't fix stupid" and "you apparently can't fix rude" either. Although it is amazing what a few snide remarks from other annoyed patrons can do about the problem. Herb Stein The Herb Stein Group www.herbstein.com herb@herbstein.com 314 952-4601 ------------------------------ From: Robert Dover Subject: Re: Banning Cell Phone Use in Theaters Date: Mon, 26 Aug 2002 10:15:55 -0500 Organization: Nortel William Warren wrote: > The issue *IS* human behavior, and humans screw up *a lot*. . > ... Ergo, the need for countermeasures such as a Faraday cage. How small can one of these be? Would've LOVED to have been able to jam the signal of the moron sitting next to us at dinner Friday night. We were able to "participate" in his planning the details of someone's funeral! ------------------------------ From: Anthony Sack Subject: Re: Canadian CO (Prefix) Assignment Database? Date: Mon, 26 Aug 2002 10:02:10 -0600 Organization: University of Alberta, Edmonton, Canada Hi David, The website for the Canadian Numbering Administrator is at http://www.cnac.ca/ - if they don't have what you're looking for, they could almost certainly tell you where to find it. Let us know what you find ... there are probably a few others here who would be interested in this too. :-) Anthony Sack Edmonton, Alberta, Canada David wrote in message news:telecom20.365.3@telecom-digest.org... > I have been searching in vain for hours now trying to find a link to a > database, website or other downloadable resource that will reveal the > current exchange assignments by company or corporation for CANADA. > Various links lead back to NANPA.com but exhaustive browsing there > only returns the complete information for the USA & Territories, which > I have previously downloaded. > The motivation for all this is to determine what specific companies > are providing telephone service for those ubiquitous and invariably > unlisted phone numbers that are the only "contact" in relentless > fraud/spam/scam emails, since the ISPs that host or relay this trash > are usually totally non-responsive to complaints and requests to cease > and desist polluting the net and stealing the resources of our private > and self-financed email accounts (and computers). This is almost > universally true of those servers located in Eastern Europe, Korea, > China, and So. America! > Any assistence in my personal war against spam will be appreciated! > David Ross > North Beach ------------------------------ Date: Mon, 26 Aug 2002 12:04:21 -0400 From: Gary Novosielski Subject: Telephone Surge Suppressor On Sat, 24 Aug 2002, Leonard Erickson wrote: > I'm looking for a standalone surge suppressor (or I'll even settle for > one in a power strip) that'll work with RJ-14 (2 line) wired cables. > ... > And since I live in an apartment, I can't wire something in at the > demarc. I think this has been discussed here in the past, but it was always my understanding (from professional phone "men") that: a) there should already BE an effective surge suppressor built into the demarc; and b) adding a cheap power-strip suppressor (or ANY phone line suppressor that plugs into an AC outlet, or uses the AC ground wire for surge dissipation) will ultimately do more harm than good, since it vastly increases the chances that an AC surge (far more common than phone line surges) will be back-fed INTO the phone line THROUGH the suppressor circuitry itself, on the wrong side of the phone demarc, thereby increasing the likelihood of damage to phone equipment where none would have occurred if the customer had simply kept his fingers in his pockets. It makes a lot of sense to me. From what little I know of surge suppression, it is important that the ground wire be tied back to a common earth ground point. Under heavy current conditions, such as during a surge-suppression discharge event, even the small resistances between the ground terminal of an electrical outlet and the actual earth ground (at the demarc) could cause voltage differentials high enough to fry sensitive phone circuitry. So my rule of thumb has always been to keep phone surge suppression and AC surge suppression strictly separate, for the most part leaving the former entirely up to the telco, and I have never had occasion to regret it. Can anyone else comment? Gary ------------------------------ From: Joey Lindstrom Date: Mon, 26 Aug 2002 10:31:20 -0600 Reply-To: Joey Lindstrom Subject: TeleZapper Disconnects Telemarketers It never fails. You come home, sit down for dinner, and the telephone rings. A telemarketer is trying to sell you something. Now, you can ask to be placed on a no-call list and hope you won't be bothered again, or you can try something else. http://www.cnn.com/2002/TECH/ptech/08/26/telezapper.cnna/index.html Joey Lindstrom - Laird's Flooring joey@lairdsflooring.com [TELECOM Digest Editor's Note: I have not looked at the particular telezapper device Joey recommends but I can tell you any such device which only puts out the first (of three) SIT tones is not as effecient as the one which puts out *all three tones* (dum-doo-dee) such as sold by our participant here Mike Sandman. Using his version, along with Privacy Manager from Southwestern Bell has virtually cut out all of the nuisance calls like that I was getting. Best of all, SWB Telco has a special right now; no installation charges and no monthly charges for Privacy Manager for three months. Do look into the link Joey gives above and also inquire of mailto: mike@sandman.com PAT] ------------------------------ From: Denis L. Menezes Subject: Re: Does Such a Technology Exist? Date: Mon, 26 Aug 2002 00:42:16 +0800 Organization: Singapore Telecommunications Ltd Hello Tony, We can help you. What we can give you is a telephone number. All the calls coming to this number will be converted to a voicemail which you can receive in your email and play it back with the Windows media player. You can even archive and forward this mail to many other email addresses just as an ordinary email. Moreover, this number will virtually never be busy. If you are interested, please send us a mail with your company name and contact details to mail@norcomms.com Denis Tony Kondaks wrote in message news:telecom22.4.3@telecom-digest.org: > Can anyone tell me if such a technology already exist and, if so, what > is the product name ... > 3 requirements: > 1)I need a telephone answering machine that can answer many in-coming > calls at once ON THE SAME LINE (SAME TELEPHONE NUMBER) so that all the > callers get serviced and can leave their messages without getting a > busy signal. Indeed, if the technology can handle an UNLIMITED number > of calls all at once, so much the better! > 2) I want to hook up such technology to a toll-free number. > 3) The actual machine/technology does NOT have to be located on my > premises just so long as I can access the messages remotely (just as > we all can with those voice messaging systems local telephone > companies offer residential customers). > I thank you in advance to your attention to these questions. > [TELECOM Digest Editor's Note: The technology you want is telco voice > mail in a business application with a business phone number. Tell > telco to install voice mail on your business line. Have telco give > you as many internal mailboxes on that voicemail as you need. Get a > toll free number and have it tied onto that number. Voice mail can > take an infinite number of incoming calls. Be sure to tell the telco > service rep to add 'operator escape' to the voicemail. Then after you > in the opening menu announce your various boxes (i.e. press one to > hear about X; press two, etc) you can then conclude your opening > announcement by telling the caller, 'press zero to be transferred to > a live person who can help you'. That's what operator escape does on > a BUSINESS voicemail system/account. Anyone who the presses zero > gets transferred to whatever line you tell telco you want those calls > to go to. PAT] ------------------------------ Reply-To: monty solomon From: monty solomon Subject: News Headlines of Interest 8/26/02 Date: Mon, 26 Aug 2002 13:05:48 -0400 Japanese phones vulnerable to hackers? By Reuters August 26, 2002, 6:26 AM PT Cell phone users in Japan have already had to contend with spam and technical glitches, but that may seem like a breeze when hackers finally turn their attention to the wireless world. So far, no serious virus attacks have been reported in Japan--or anywhere else--but tech security companies say cell phones could become targets as they turn into sophisticated, high-tech devices like PCs, allowing people to send e-mail, surf the Internet and shop online. http://news.com.com/2100-1033-955294.html Internet privacy loses a voice in D.C. By Declan McCullagh August 26, 2002, 4:00 AM PT WASHINGTON--Georgia Rep. Bob Barr is an irascible conservative, an unyielding foe of abortion, gay marriage, and any drug more potent than nicotine. A floor manager during Bill Clinton's impeachment, Barr had lobbied for the president's ouster long before anyone knew of an intern's unfortunate affections inside the Oval Office. Yet even Naderites should recognize that Barr's defeat in Georgia's Republican primary last week removes the fiercest champion of privacy in the U.S. House of Representatives, and his electoral loss will be a gain for the surveillance state. http://news.com.com/2010-1071-955235.html ------------------------------ From: GlowingBlueMist Subject: Re: Where to Get a Bong Tone? Organization: AT&T Broadband Date: Mon, 26 Aug 2002 00:24:58 GMT Give this place a try. They have quite a selection of phone sounds. http://www.payphone-directory.org/sounds.html Robert Switzer wrote in message news:telecom20.365.5@telecom-digest.org: > Does anyone know where I can get a .wav file containing a standard > Bong Tone? > Robert S. ------------------------------ TELECOM Digest is an electronic journal devoted mostly but not exclusively to telecommunications topics. It is circulated anywhere there is email, in addition to various telecom forums on a variety of networks such as Compuserve and America On Line, 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: 620-870-9697 Fax 1: 775-255-9970 Fax 2: 775-306-8390 Fax 3: 530-309-7234 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 second 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) Email <==> FTP: telecom-archives@telecom-digest.org Send a simple, one line note to that automated address for a help file on how to use the automatic retrieval system for archives files. You can get desired files in email. ************************************************************************* * 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. Access to Premium (P) links requires upgrade to a paid subscription. One click a day feeds a person a meal. Go to http://www.thehungersite.com Only subscribers or registered users of ICB Toll Free News web site will be able to access all or some of the full text of URLs provided. LEGAL STUFF: TELECOM Digest (sm) is owned by Patrick Townson. Copyright 2000 ICB, Inc. and TELECOM Digest. All rights reserved. Our attorney is Bill Levant, of Blue Bell, PA. --------------------------------------------------------------- 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 twenty 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 V22 #8 **************************** From editor@telecom-digest.org Mon Aug 26 16:23:24 2002 Received: from localhost (localhost [[UNIX: localhost]]) by massis.lcs.mit.edu (8.11.3nb1/8.11.3) id g7QKNOv04595; Mon, 26 Aug 2002 16:23:24 -0400 (EDT) Date: Mon, 26 Aug 2002 16:23:24 -0400 (EDT) From: editor@telecom-digest.org Message-Id: <200208262023.g7QKNOv04595@massis.lcs.mit.edu> X-Authentication-Warning: massis.lcs.mit.edu: ptownson set sender to editor@telecom-digest.org using -f To: ptownson Approved: patsnewlist Subject: TELECOM Digest V22 #9 TELECOM Digest Mon, 26 Aug 2002 16:23:00 EDT Volume 22 : Issue 9 Inside This Issue: Editor: Patrick A. Townson Telecom Update (Canada) #346, August 26, 2002 (Angus TeleManagement) Re: So You've Got Your HDTV. Now What's There to See? (Joey Lindstrom) Re: 1010/800 # Dialing With no LD Carrier? (John Stahl) Re: Payphones (Robert Johnson) Re: Banning Cell Phone Use in Theaters (John Higdon) Correction: ICANNWatch URL (Judith Oppenheimer) ICANN: Creating the Illusion of Legitimacy (Judith Oppenheimer) 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. WE DO NOT PERMIT NAME/EMAIL ADDRESS HARVESTING FROM THIS JOURNAL. 'SALTED' EMAIL ADDRESSES APPEAR HEREIN TO VERIFY THIS. YOU GET SUED IN SMALL CLAIMS COURT IF YOU GET CAUGHT SPAMMING OR SENDING VIRUSES. DON'T DO IT. See the bottom of this issue for subscription and archive details and the name of our lawyer; other stuff of interest. ---------------------------------------------------------------------- Date: Mon, 26 Aug 2002 14:00:51 -0400 From: Angus TeleManagement Subject: Telecom Update (Canada) #346, August 26, 2002 TELECOM UPDATE published weekly by Angus TeleManagement Group http://www.angustel.ca Number 346: August 26, 2002 Publication of Telecom Update is made possible by generous financial support from: ** AT&T CANADA http://www.attcanada.com ** BELL CANADA http://www.bell.ca ** GROUP TELECOM http://www.gt.ca ** LUCENT TECHNOLOGIES CANADA http://www.lucent.ca ** PRIMUS CANADA: http://www.primustel.ca ** Q9 NETWORKS: http://www.Q9.com ** TELUS: http://www.telus.com ** UNISPHERE NETWORKS: http://www.unispherenetworks.com ************************************************************ IN THIS ISSUE: ** ITAC Proposes Border Broadband ** CRTC Performance Falls Short of Target ** New President at Navigata ** Teleglobe Sells Intelsat Stake ** BT Loses Hyperlink Case ** Rogers Agent Spams Fido Users ** UK Plans Ban on Cellphone Use by Drivers ** "Memorial U. Tariff" Denied ** Is Turnabout Fair Play? ** PIAC Requests Party-Line Refund ** Call-Net Asks When 10-Year Payments End ** 724 Lays Off 35% of Staff ** Telus Invests in Photo Service ** George Addy Joins Davies ** Cygnal Revenue Up 50% ** Angus Briefings -- Register Now and Save Last Chance for Early Bird Discount ============================================================ ITAC PROPOSES BORDER BROADBAND: The Information Technology Association of Canada has called on Ottawa to install broadband connections linking Canada's 113 crossing points on the U.S. border, to "enhance security and maintain the steady flow of people, goods, and commerce." Estimated cost: $164 million. http://www.itac.ca CRTC PERFORMANCE FALLS SHORT OF TARGET: This spring, the CRTC adopted standards for how speedily it should rule on various types of telecom applications (see Telecom Update #328). Its first quarterly report shows that, between April and June 2002, the Commission failed to meet its own standard in three out of four categories. http://www.crtc.gc.ca/eng/publications/reports/t_st2002.htm NEW PRESIDENT AT NAVIGATA: SaskTel subsidiary Navigata Communications, formerly RSL Com Canada, has named Thomas Laird, former General Manager of SaskTel's Quantumlynx.com division, as President and CEO. TELEGLOBE SELLS INTELSAT STAKE: Teleglobe has sold its 3.8% stake in Intelsat's global marketing unit for US$65 million. Teleglobe is still negotiating on the sale of its long distance business, originally scheduled to be completed by July 2. BT LOSES HYPERLINK CASE: A U.S. court has dismissed British Telecom's claim that it owns the patent on hyperlinks. In 2000, BT demanded licence payments from 17 major ISPs, and then sued Prodigy Communications in a test case. ROGERS AGENT SPAMS FIDO USERS: A number of Microcell customers received a wireless message August 18 inviting them to switch to service from Rogers AT&T. A Rogers agent sent this spam; Rogers has told the agent to cease and desist. UK PLANS BAN ON CELLPHONE USE BY DRIVERS: The UK government has asked for public comment on its plan to ban motorists from using handheld mobile phones while driving. "MEMORIAL U. TARIFF" DENIED: The CRTC has rejected Aliant's proposal to offer a special rate ($20.75/line) to Centrex customers in St. John's that have at least 2,800 lines and are less than one kilometre from the Central Office. The Commission says Aliant didn't justify offering lower rates to some customers in a given rate band. ** The now-rejected rate was the basis of Aliant's successful competitive bid to Memorial University in April. (See Telecom Update #333) IS TURNABOUT FAIR PLAY? Futureway wants to charge ILECs (e.g. Bell Canada) when they incorrectly claim a faulty unbundled local loop is trouble-free, resulting in Futureway unnecessarily sending a technician. Futureway's proposed charge is the same as that charged by Bell when the situation is reversed. http://www.crtc.gc.ca/8740/eng/2002/f10.htm#07 PIAC REQUESTS PARTY-LINE REFUND: The Public Interest Advocacy Centre says Bell Canada has been charging party-line users nearly twice the tariffed rate for their rental phone sets, and asks the CRTC to investigate and order rebates. http://www.crtc.gc.ca/PartVII/eng/2002/8661/p8-02.htm CALL-NET ASKS WHEN 10-YEAR PAYMENTS END: CRTC Decision 92-12, which opened long distance competition, required new entrants to pay a portion of the incumbents' startup costs, amortized over ten years. Call-Net has asked the CRTC to clarify whether that period has now ended, or continues to July 2004 as Bell Canada contends. http://www.crtc.gc.ca/PartVII/eng/2002/8661/c25-04.htm 724 LAYS OFF 35% OF STAFF: 724 Solutions, which makes wireless financial services software, will lay off 100 employees by October, reducing its work force -- once 700 -- to 170. ** Karen Basian will be replaced as CFO at the end of October by Glenn Barrett, currently VP Finance. TELUS INVESTS IN PHOTO SERVICE: Web surfers can now order photo developing services from B.C.'s PhotoChannel Networks through www.mybc.com and www.alberta.com, both owned by Telus. The carrier will receive warrants to purchase PhotoChannel shares instead of cash for its services. GEORGE ADDY JOINS DAVIES: George Addy, head of the Competition Bureau of Canada from 1993 to 1996, has left Osler, Hoskin & Harcourt and joined Davies Ward Phillips & Vineberg. He will practice in the firm's Toronto Office as head of its antitrust and competition group. CYGNAL REVENUE UP 50%: Cygnal Technologies reports second quarter revenue of $42.1 million, up from $28.3 million in the same period last year. EBIDTA climbed 90% to $1.8 million; net income was $557,000. ANGUS BRIEFINGS -- REGISTER NOW AND SAVE: This is the last week to register for these exclusive briefings at the special early-bird rate: ** Reinventing Enterprise Communications: Setting Your Strategy for IP Telephony ** Beyond the Meltdown: A Report Card and Forecast for Canadian Telecom These hard-hitting half-day programs will be offered once only, in Toronto, on October 16. To guarantee that a seat is reserved for you -- and to receive your early registration discount -- download the Preview Announcement at http://www.angustel.ca/Angus-Seminars.pdf and register before August 31. ============================================================ HOW TO SUBMIT ITEMS FOR TELECOM UPDATE E-MAIL: editors@angustel.ca FAX: 905-686-2655 MAIL: TELECOM UPDATE Angus TeleManagement Group 8 Old Kingston Road Ajax, Ontario Canada L1T 2Z7 =========================================================== HOW TO SUBSCRIBE (OR UNSUBSCRIBE) TELECOM UPDATE is provided in electronic form only. There are two formats available: 1. The fully-formatted edition is posted on the World Wide Web on the first business day of the week at http://www.angustel.ca 2. The e-mail edition is distributed free of charge. To subscribe, send an e-mail message to: TelecomUpdate@add.postmastergeneral.com To stop receiving the e-mail edition, send an e-mail message to: TelecomUpdate@remove.postmastergeneral.com Sending e-mail to these addresses will automatically add or remove the sender's e-mail address from the list. Leave subject line and message area blank. We do not give Telecom Update subscribers' e-mail addresses to any third party. For more information, see http://www.angustel.ca/update/privacy.html. =========================================================== COPYRIGHT AND CONDITIONS OF USE: All contents copyright 2002 Angus TeleManagement Group Inc. All rights reserved. For further information, including permission to reprint or reproduce, please e-mail rosita@angustel.ca or phone 905-686-5050 ext 500. The information and data included has been obtained from sources which we believe to be reliable, but Angus TeleManagement makes no warranties or representations whatsoever regarding accuracy, completeness, or adequacy. Opinions expressed are based on interpretation of available information, and are subject to change. If expert advice on the subject matter is required, the services of a competent professional should be obtained. ------------------------------ From: Joey Lindstrom Date: Mon, 26 Aug 2002 12:07:45 -0600 Reply-To: Joey Lindstrom Subject: Re: So You've Got Your HDTV. Now What's There to See? On Mon, 26 Aug 2002 13:26:09 -0400 (EDT), KimBrennan wrote: > HD is a new media, and it takes a while for content in any new media > to fully exploit the capabilities, but it also takes a while for > regular content to blend into the new media. The easiest way for > regular content to get into the digital TV bandwagon is to start > filming in widescreen. A few programs do this now (cropping the > widescreen image to fit into a regular 4:3 screen when broadcast on > regular NTSC.) X-Files is one such. They don't film it in HD. Way back in 1992, when series creator J. Michael Straczynski was just getting his new show "Babylon 5" on the air, he took a gamble and decided to have the entire run of the show (five seasons) shot in 16x9 (making it, so far as I know, the first TV series to be shot this way). He saw HDTV on the horizon, and while he didn't know exactly how the whole standards debate was going to shake out, he was reasonably confident that the 16x9 aspect ratio would be part of it, and of course he was right. When Babylon 5 was originally aired, it was panned-and-scanned into 4:3 aspect ratio, although the opening credits of each episode were letterboxed. Now comes word that on November 5th, they're releasing the first season of Babylon 5 on DVD (6-disc set), in, of course, 16x9 widescreen. Ten years later, JMS's bet is paying off. :-) And at the risk of going off-topic for a moment ... folks, if you haven't seen Babylon 5, you should. It makes all other TV sci-fi, Star Trek included, look like children's programming. Joey Lindstrom - Laird's Flooring joey@lairdsflooring.com ------------------------------ Date: Mon, 26 Aug 2002 14:31:16 -0400 From: John Stahl Subject: Re: 1010/800 # Dialing With no LD Carrier? My base telephone line has no LD carrier. I have no difficulties dialing 800, 877, etc. tool-free numbers or the so called 1010 services from it. Contrary to what Telecom-Digest Editor Pat indicated, there are a number of low-cost LD services who charge no minimums or fixed monthly fees to use their services. BTW, there are several on-line sites which list LD service dial-around and some other LD services where you can investigate the cost of such services on a comparison basis. They are: http://www.10-10phonerates.com/ http://www.thedigest.com/programs/index.html I found the first on my list as being a great place to find rates especially for on-the-minute International rates. Hope this answers your question. John Stahl Telecom/Data Consultant Aljon Enterprises ------------------------------ From: Robert Johnson Subject: Re: Payphones Date: Mon, 26 Aug 2002 17:34:27 GMT Organization: RoadRunner - West What it Did do was forward me to their operator when I called my LD calling card number Robert Robert Johnson wrote in message news:telecom22.6.9@telecom-digest.org: > Are payphones required to to allow access to 800 numbers ... and > specificly the 800 access number for Long distance companys? > Robert K. Johnson Jr, KF6ECP > Qyouth101@socal.rr.com > [TELECOM Digest Editor's Note: They're supposed to, yes. Privately > owned payphones (often times referred to as COCOTS [Customer-Owned > Coin-Operated Telephones] usually require that 25-50 cents be dep- > osited to make up for the 'loss' the owner has by not collecting > on the calls otherwise. This does not come up on telco-owned and > operated phones, since telco receives revenue for the calls through > a process similar to the old 'Separations and Settlements' procedure. > Telcos get paid on the 800 calls they handle. The private phone owner > does not. The COCOT owner can however register his phone as such and > then a surcharge is added to the cost of the call which the recipient > pays, and eventually it is given to the COCOT owner. That surcharge > was specifically enacted to protect the private pay phone operators. > Between that surcharge and the fact that most private opertors require > the user to deposit some coins anyway on 800 calls means there is > no reason to ban calls like that. If you know of such phones (which > lock out toll-free calls) you really should file a complaint. PAT] [TELECOM Digest Editor's Note: In other words, it did not refuse to connect you; it simply suggested (and routed) you through its own operator service bureau for handling. Real cute. PAT] ------------------------------ Date: Mon, 26 Aug 2002 12:00:16 -0700 Subject: Re: Banning Cell Phone Use in Theaters From: John Higdon Organization: Green Hills and Cows In article telecom22.7.12@telecom-digest.org, Paul Wallich wrote: > "Requires" is a strong word. It's easier for you and the people who > employ you, but that's an economic decision (not having just that > extra tiny bit of redundant coverage). And it's a decision made easier > by the fact that you don't have to internalize the cost of your > communications mistakes. The whole point of modern technology was supposed to be a liberation of sorts. Instead of having to spend leisure time by the phone waiting for a call, technology has enabled many of us to live "normal" lives while still being at someone else's beck and call. Surely you are not suggesting that such is a misuse of technology, or that we should toss the benefits because a small group of inconsiderate people annoy another small group of the self-righteous. > There's a tiny minority of people who actually need to be reachable, > and a much larger group who _think_ they need to be reachable at all > times, or who just don't think at all. But if people who really think > their jobs require reachability should be willing to pay the price (or > their employers should). And who should be the judge of all of this? Those who would over-react to rude and inconsiderate people? Note that I agree with you regarding disruption of performances. You still haven't addressed the question of why those who are considerate must pay for those who are not. > I'm proposing a really simple measure: enter a theater or a concert > hall with a cellphone or beeper, and automatically post a bond for the > face value of every seat in the house, to be payable if your device > goes off. It wouldn't cover the transportation, scheduling and other > costs of the people whose evening was disrupted, but it would be a > start. And it would make people and businesses think about the true > costs of having someone reachable 24/7. Nonsense. Most professionals (in the true sense) do NOT disrupt performances because they know how to use the technology properly and with consideration for others. Just what is "the true cost" for people having electronic devices that surreptitiously alert them? Why should THEY pay for the lack of consideration by others? I am really amazed that there are still people who would eschew the benefits of modern technology because they either don't see the proximate value, or are put off by some who use it poorly. Lumping everyone who uses that technology in the same bag is not particularly useful from any standpoint. As always, education is the key. -- John Higdon | Email Address Valid | SF: +1 415 428-COWS +1 408 264 4115 | Anytown, USA | FAX: +1 408 264 4407 ------------------------------ From: Judith Oppenheimer Subject: Correction: ICANNWatch URL Date: Mon, 26 Aug 2002 14:54:58 -0400 TELECOM Digest Editor incorrectly referred to ICANN Watch as a Usenet newsgroup: > She also recommended that users who *do* give a shit about things > on the net read ICANN Watch (Usenet newsgroup) on a regular basis. ICANNWatch is at http://ICANNWatch.org . Judith Oppenheimer http://JudithOppenheimer.com http://ICBTollFreeNews.com http://WhoSells800.com 212 684-7210, 1 800 The Expert Visit 1-800 AFTA, http://www.1800afta.org [TELECOM Digest Editor's Note: Then Judith comes back with the correct URL but incorrectly places a 'period' (punctuation mark) right after the 'org' in the above URL. Although that *is* correct grammar, it simply wreaks havoc on a linking URL. People's computers see that and incorrectly assume 'org' is the second part of a longer address which began with 'icann'. Guffaw, shrill laugh. I slid it down a few pixels so it sat by itself. You got to be very careful about the way you edit a normally text-based journal like this one when you are trying to fix it so hmtl readers can deal with it also. Speaking of which, now we shall have another entree in the ICANN menu of malfeasance, as Judith might say. Read and meditate on the next message (or the message just before this if you are reading this via http://telecom-digest.org/TELECOM_Digest_Online ). PAT] ------------------------------ From: Judith Oppenheimer Subject: ICANN: Creating the Illusion of Legitimacy Date: Sun, 25 Aug 2002 20:44:53 -0400 Copied with permission from: CYBER-FEDERALIST No. 14 8 August 2002 Creating the Illusion of Legitimacy Civil Society Democracy Project (CivSoc) Computer Professionals for Social Responsibility (CPSR) http://www.civsoc.org The Internet Democracy Project http://www.internetdemocracyproject.org/ After four years of existence ICANN is widely recognized as a top-down policy-making body with only a weak basis in legitimacy. The Markle Foundation expressed the consensus of the Internet community when it said, "ICANN, as it has developed, is seriously flawed as a global institution able to make decisions worthy of deference or to safeguard the public interest...'" [1] This legitimacy deficit is certainly not from any failure to go through the motions. In its words and its actions, ICANN seems to employ participative, consensus-based, bottom-up procedures. The problem is that these words and actions often serve only to create an illusion of legitimacy. The reality is much different. The simulation of legitimacy is most frequently observed in matters pertaining to the At Large Membership. Today these activities are centered in the At Large Organizing Committee (ALOC). After the Board eliminated user elections this spring, ICANN's former Chair launched the ALOC to "guide and encourage bottom-up efforts ... for meaningful, informed participation ... by a full range of Internet users." [2] In fact, close observation shows that user input and participation is tightly controlled. In this issue of the Cyber-Federalist I examine the tactics by which ICANN and the ALOC create the illusion of legitimacy. The three tactics used most frequently are: Newspeak, exclusionary committees, and participant learning curves. Newspeak A considerable portion of ICANN's budget goes to public relations. Through its spokespeople, press releases, and interviews, ICANN presents issues in the most favorable light possible. Sometimes, however, ICANN's announcements seem contradictory to the facts. Orwell's most famous Newspeak phrase was, "War is peace"; for ICANN the equivalent might be "Disenfranchisement is participation." In Accra the Board rejected its own At Large Study Committee's (ALSC) recommendations to hold elections and instead decided to modify its bylaws to eliminate user representation from the board. The ALSC's Charles Costello of the Carter Center judged that act in no uncertain terms: * "The management proposal ... is a declared intent of a palace coup d'etat from within ICANN." * "[It] is a breach of faith with the founding principles and basic structure of ICANN..." [3] ICANN's official pronouncements painted a decidedly different picture. In a board resolution and a subsequent press release, the elimination of voting rights was described as an effort to promote participation: * "ICANN Board approves individual Internet user participation" * "[The Board] wishes to move forward with energy and enthusiasm to build a meaningful structure for informed participation by the full range of Internet users" [4] Even as it eliminated a basic mechanism of accountability -- the election of directors, as guaranteed in its founding by-laws -- ICANN used public relations techniques to convince the public that it was committed to a meaningful role for users. Actions and words diverged. The web site for the At Large Organizing Committee (ALOC) is another example of Newspeak. The site claims that the ALOC's work will be public and will be facilitated by a paid staff person. Yet the reality is different. Since its launch the ALOC has operated on a private list with no known archives. The ALOC's staff "facilitator" actually writes the material, and committee members are invited to comment on it. Contributions judged inappropriate by the "facilitator" have been summarily rejected -- even when they have received support in the committee. When this behavior was challenged by ALOC members, the facilitator announced the creation of a closed sub-committee from which the more outspoken members were excluded (more on this below.) Language and reality diverged. While top-down, closed processes are not per se wrong, it is inaccurate to describe such a process as public and participative. Such a description exaggerates the legitimacy of a closed policy process. Committees Another tool to create the illusion of public input is committees -- and sub-committees, and sub-sub-committees. Consistent with its mandate to employ consensual processes, ICANN often creates committee to address policy questions. However, should such a committee propose ideas inconsistent with what is desired, it is not uncommon that a new committee be formed. Should that committee also give the "wrong" answer, yet another committee may be formed. And so on. At each step, the composition of the latest committee may be refined. By excluding more vocal or better-informed members, ICANN may eventually achieve a committee whose opinion corresponds to what is desired. This can then be accepted as "public input." Thus when reformist directors were elected to the ICANN Board, the Board's business migrated to an Executive Sub-committee. Reform-minded directors were excluded. Or when the DNSO Review Working Group came up with the "wrong" ideas, the recommendations of another group -- the DNSO Review "Task Force" -- were used. In both cases the illusion of participation was maintained, but dissenting ideas were filtered out by the creation of new committees. The At Large Membership process has also seen a succession of committees. Self-organizing user groups like the NGO and Academic ICANN Study (NAIS) and the Interim Coordinating Committee (ICC) [5] were uncompromising in their commitment to user elections. Predictably, their recommendations were not adopted. Then the ICANN Board appointed its own committee to consider the issues: the At Large Study Committee (ALSC). However, after the ALSC also supported user elections, the Board rejected its recommendations, too. The Board finally decided to unilaterally eliminate elections. Today's ALOC manifests similar tactics. When ALOC members, including this author, included in a collective document language supporting user elections, the ALOC "facilitator" vetoed the material. In short order a new sub-committee was created, from which outspoken members were excluded. The ALOC's substantive work then shifted to this restricted group. Whether this sub-committee with its reduced membership will give the desired results remains to be seen. This use of committee-formation to filter out dissent is a second tactic to create the illusion of legitimacy. By ignoring committees that give the "wrong" results and by creating new committees or sub-committees as needed, ICANN creates the illusion of participatory processes. Participant Learning Curves When newcomers join ICANN processes, they can generally be counted on not to publicly dissent for about six months. That is the time needed for someone to understand complex policy questions and to evaluate the credibility of other participants. During this period newcomers' passive acquiescence and institutional affiliations can shore up ICANN's legitimacy. Imagine the situation of a newcomer new to ICANN and low on the learning curve. On the one hand, he/she hears the strong language used by people like Congressman Markey (ICANN is a "failure,") the Carter Center's Costello ("a palace coup,") or law professor Michael Froomkin ("ICANN plays dirty -- it lies.") [6]. On the other hand, the newcomer hears ICANN proclaim its commitment to open processes and sees ICANN accepting input from committees -- seemingly clear proof of its open and participative nature. As a result, most newcomers cautiously participate in ICANN processes and may support policies proposed from the top. They give ICANN the benefit of the doubt. Perhaps this explains the vehemence that comes later. Committee work representing many people-months' labor may be summarily rejected or ignored. Decisions once made may be reopened and passed to a new committee. Such has been the experience of members of the ALSC and the ALOC. After a few such experiences, the newcomer often joins the chorus of critics or leaves in disgust. By then, however, another batch of newcomers may be invited to participate, and the process begins again. Exploiting the learning curves of successive waves of participants has been an important tactic for the piecewise advancement of top-down decisions. You Can't Fool All of the People All of the Time Newspeak, committees, learning curves -- these and a host of other tactics have been the stuff of the ICANN policy process. While such dissimulation used to cause outrage, it is increasingly a source of wry amusement. As US Congressman Ed Markey said, "Although ICANN is supposed to be a consensus-based organization, the irony is that the only thing it has achieved global consensus on is that it is a failure." [7] Over time the tactics of illusion wear thin. Today, ICANN is widely recognized for what it is: a top-down policy-making institution that regulates important areas of the Internet. It is not particularly transparent, accountable, or representative. The people who run ICANN may honestly believe that this is how it should be; that is not the issue here. The issue is that ICANN attempts to make its processes look different than what they are. Expressions of concern about "participation by the full range of Internet users" are inconsistent with a demonstrated commitment to top-down decision-making. In particular, the ALOC (or its new sub-committee) is emerging as the latest attempt to create the illusion of legitimacy. With its staff vetoing language deemed unacceptable, the ALOC seems likely to produce a result acceptable to the ICANN board. At that point ICANN's board may announce that it has finally discovered the true voice of the user. ### References [1] Markle Foundation, "A Pluralistic View of DNS Governance: Core Principles for ICANN Reform," Statement for the Record to the Senate Committee on Commerce, Science, and Transportation, Subcommittee on Science, Technology, and Space, Hearing on ICANN (June 12, 2002) http://radio.weblogs.com/0108486/misc/icannstatementfinal-markle.doc [2] From the ALOC home page. (The language is quoted from an ICANN Board resolution. See note 4, below.) http://www.at-large.org/ [3] Charles Costello, ICANN Public Forum in Accra, Real-time Captioning, 13 March 2002. http://www.icann.org/accra/captioning-afternoon-13mar02.htm (To find the quote in this lengthy document, search on "palace coup.") [4] ICANN Board Resolution, 14 March 2002, "ALSC Report and At Large." http://www.icann.org/minutes/prelim-report-14mar02.htm [5] NAIS: http://www.naisproject.org/ ICC: http://www.icannmembers.org/ [6] Froomkin, Michael, presentation at "The Public Voice in Internet Policy Making," 22 June 2002, sponsored by the Electronic Privacy Information Center (EPIC). http://www.thepublicvoice.org/events/dc02/ . For Markey quote, see note 7. For Costello quote, see note 3. [7] Markey, Edward, (US Congressman), quoted in the Washington Post and Access Global Knowledge, 20 June 2002. http://access.globalknowledge.com/Article.asp?ID=3904 ========================================================= CYBER-FEDERALIST is a series of analyses and commentaries on Internet governance and ICANN produced by the Civil Society Democracy Project (CivSoc) of Computer Professionals for Social Responsibility (CPSR). See: http://www.cyber-federalist.org (archive) http://www.civsoc.org http://www.cpsr.org The author of the CYBER-FEDERALIST is Hans Klein. Subscribe to the CYBER-FEDERALIST! Send an Email to: cyber-federalist-subscribe@cpsr.org --------------------------- Judith Oppenheimer http://JudithOppenheimer.com http://ICBTollFreeNews.com http://WhoSells800.com 212 684-7210, 1 800 The Expert Visit 1-800 AFTA, http://www.1800afta.org ------------------------------ TELECOM Digest is an electronic journal devoted mostly but not exclusively to telecommunications topics. It is circulated anywhere there is email, in addition to various telecom forums on a variety of networks such as Compuserve and America On Line, 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: 620-870-9697 Fax 1: 775-255-9970 Fax 2: 775-306-8390 Fax 3: 530-309-7234 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 second 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) Email <==> FTP: telecom-archives@telecom-digest.org Send a simple, one line note to that automated address for a help file on how to use the automatic retrieval system for archives files. You can get desired files in email. ************************************************************************* * 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. Access to Premium (P) links requires upgrade to a paid subscription. One click a day feeds a person a meal. Go to http://www.thehungersite.com Only subscribers or registered users of ICB Toll Free News web site will be able to access all or some of the full text of URLs provided. LEGAL STUFF: TELECOM Digest (sm) is owned by Patrick Townson. Copyright 2000 ICB, Inc. and TELECOM Digest. All rights reserved. Our attorney is Bill Levant, of Blue Bell, PA. --------------------------------------------------------------- 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 twenty 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 V22 #9 **************************** From editor@telecom-digest.org Mon Aug 26 22:24:23 2002 Received: from localhost (localhost [[UNIX: localhost]]) by massis.lcs.mit.edu (8.11.3nb1/8.11.3) id g7R2ONB06985; Mon, 26 Aug 2002 22:24:23 -0400 (EDT) Date: Mon, 26 Aug 2002 22:24:23 -0400 (EDT) From: editor@telecom-digest.org Message-Id: <200208270224.g7R2ONB06985@massis.lcs.mit.edu> X-Authentication-Warning: massis.lcs.mit.edu: ptownson set sender to editor@telecom-digest.org using -f To: ptownson Approved: patsnewlist Subject: TELECOM Digest V22 #10 TELECOM Digest Mon, 26 Aug 2002 22:23:00 EDT Volume 22 : Issue 10 Inside This Issue: Editor: Patrick A. Townson Doubleclick Settles With Attorneys General (fwd) (Danny Burstein) Re: Banning Cell Phone Use in Theaters (tonypo@telecom-digest.zzn.com) Re: Banning Cell Phone Use in Theaters (Mark Roberts) Re: Banning Cell Phone Use in Theaters (Paul A Lee) Re: Banning Cell Phone Use in Theaters (Barry Margolin) Re: 1010/800 # Dialing With no LD Carrier? (Ed Ellers) Two URL Stylists, No Waiting (Gary Novosielski) Re: MCI Worldcom's 555 Pic Code: Arbitrary Rates Over $3 per Min (w_tom) Computer Expert Says Can Break Microsoft Security (Monty Solomon) This Takes Guts (David B. Horvath, CCP) 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. WE DO NOT PERMIT NAME/EMAIL ADDRESS HARVESTING FROM THIS JOURNAL. 'SALTED' EMAIL ADDRESSES APPEAR HEREIN TO VERIFY THIS. YOU GET SUED IN SMALL CLAIMS COURT IF YOU GET CAUGHT SPAMMING OR SENDING VIRUSES. DON'T DO IT. See the bottom of this issue for subscription and archive details and the name of our lawyer; other stuff of interest. ---------------------------------------------------------------------- From: Danny Burstein Subject: Doubleclick Settles With Attorneys General (fwd) Date: Mon, 26 Aug 2002 16:31:41 -0400 Organization: PANIX Public Access Internet and UNIX, NYC Attorney General Eliot Spitzer announced today a settlement with the nation's leading Internet advertising service that sets a new standard for consumersÕ online privacy. Under its agreement with New York and the other states, Manhattan-based DoubleClick Inc. will use its clientsÕ privacy policies to make its tracking activities more visible and will give consumers access to their online profiles. Terms of the settlement include provisions requiring DoubleClick to provide independent verification of its compliance with the agreement and to pay the states $450,000 for investigative costs and consumer education. [ snip, rest at: http://www.oag.state.ny.us/press/2002/aug/aug26a_02.html ] Knowledge may be power, but communications is the key dannyb@panix.com [to foil spammers, my address has been double rot-13 encoded] ------------------------------ From: tonypo@telecom-digest.zzn.com Subject: Re: Banning Cell Phone Use in Theaters Organization: The Ace Tomatoe and Cement Company Date: Mon, 26 Aug 2002 22:17:18 GMT In article , pw@panix.com says: > There's a tiny minority of people who actually need to be reachable, > and a much larger group who _think_ they need to be reachable at all > times, or who just don't think at all. But if people who really think > their jobs require reachability should be willing to pay the price (or > their employers should). I would be one of those people, as are many people in my office. Working for the state's top law enforcement agency as I do, requires it. > I'm proposing a really simple measure: enter a theater or a concert > hall with a cellphone or beeper, and automatically post a bond for the > face value of every seat in the house, to be payable if your device > goes off. It wouldn't cover the transportation, scheduling and other > costs of the people whose evening was disrupted, but it would be a > start. And it would make people and businesses think about the true > costs of having someone reachable 24/7. That's a bit extreme. I'd like to suggest a technological solution though -- how about requiring all cell phones and pagers be equipped with both the vibrate alerts and a system that can receive a certain signal that would put the phones into vibrate mode automatically. As it is now I leave my pager on vibrate. I do take classes and on a few occasions I've been paged -- left the class and returned the call. Most instructors prefer that over cell phones that bleat out who knows what tune or tone. ------------------------------ From: markrobt@hotmail.com (Mark Roberts) Subject: Re: Banning Cell Phone Use in Theaters (was News Headlines) Date: Mon, 26 Aug 2002 21:41:17 -0000 Organization: 1.94 meters Herb Stein had written: > Phooey. I go into lots of places every day with spotty or nonexistent > cell phone reception. I don't think that the fact that their > construction techniques interfere with my cell phone use is cause for > a lawsuit. For that matter, there are plenty of places outdoors around > here (St. Louis) with "dead spots." Dead spots are endemic in the (San Francisco) Bay Area, because of the wide variation in terrain. It's unfortunate that companies view their coverage information as "proprietary" or "competitive intelligence". It's literally "caveat emptor" and there is no incentive for the companies to be forthcoming about any coverage issues -- in fact, there is incentive to put you on the hook for a year's contract even if it doesn't work at your home. So I've taken to assuming that most won't work where you want them to once you're away from the major freeways. At my house in Oakland, I have found that most cellular carriers simply don't work. Nextel and AT&T sometimes work. My Sprint PCS phone kicks into "Analog Roam". So I think we're still keeping our landlines. I mostly have a cell phone along in the car in case of any emergencies -- or, for use whenever I'm in Missouri dealing with family issues. I'm thankful that Sprint has now extended service from I-70 along US 63 -- it now needs to build up along Missouri Route 22 over to Centralia and Mexico and then I'm set! Interestingly enough, I tell people at work that they should page me if needed urgently. I'm one of the few people at work who still carries both a cell phone and a pager because of the cellular coverage issue. (Pager works just fine at the house.) -- Mark Roberts | "This is local television. Get off your high horse!" Oakland, Cal.| -- Gary Radnich to Wendy Tokuda on KRON-TV's NO HTML MAIL | 9 pm newscast (said in jest), August 9, 2002 ------------------------------ From: Paul A Lee Subject: Re: Banning Cell Phone Use in Theaters Date: Mon, 26 Aug 2002 18:03:36 -0400 Paul Wallich wrote (in part): > In article , John Higdon > wrote: >> I, and a group of my friends, are in a business that >> requires us to be >> on call 24/7. Occasionally, we as a group attend a movie, play, >> concert or whatever. Half jokingly, someone invariably >> mutters "pagers >> on stun" as we enter the venue, meaning that we put cellphones, >> pagers, and other devices in "vibrate" mode. > "Requires" is a strong word. It's easier for you and the people who > employ you, but that's an economic decision (not having just that > extra tiny bit of redundant coverage). And it's a decision made easier > by the fact that you don't have to internalize the cost of your > communications mistakes. > There's a tiny minority of people who actually need to be reachable, > and a much larger group who _think_ they need to be reachable at all > times, or who just don't think at all. But if people who really think > their jobs require reachability should be willing to pay the price (or > their employers should). Just who determines who needs to be reachable? And who decided it's all based on economics? What about volunteer firefighters and EMTs? Electric utility workers? Medical professionals? Other disaster- or emergency-responders? How about parents of young children, taking a well-deserved night out, nervously leaving their kids with a sitter? What about your child's or your parent's cardiologist? Should s/he be denied the means for you to reach him/her? What about the transplant coordinator who finds a donor organ for your spouse while you're taking some time away from the pressure of waiting and hoping? Call you back in two hours? What about your mother, who has taken a fall at home, by herself? Should she be prevented from reaching you? Or your teenager who got into trouble while taking advantage of your absence? Voice mail? A little empathy, insight, or experience makes that "tiny minority" grow much larger for any but the most self-righteous. > I'm proposing a really simple measure: enter a theater or a concert > hall with a cellphone or beeper, and automatically post a bond for the > face value of every seat in the house, to be payable if your device > goes off. It wouldn't cover the transportation, scheduling and other > costs of the people whose evening was disrupted, but it would be a > start. And it would make people and businesses think about the true > costs of having someone reachable 24/7. Easily circumvented by those to whom it "should" be applied: Turn off the potential "offending device" until past any RF energy detection equipment of the type now being marketed for "protection" [!] against cell phones. Honest and responsible wireless device users -- and those who are totally clueless, I grant you -- will be "caught" and subjected to the administrative nightmare of "post[ing] a bond" to Big Brother. Or, more likely, we'll simply avoid performance venues that accede to the demands of those who continue to blame the technology, instead of holding the abuser accountable. How about concentrating efforts on the offenders? The person whose phone or pager goes off audibly, or who engages in conversation, is shown the door. Perhaps, s/he should be identified and placed on a "gray" list that could be shared among performance venues and ticket agents. Prominent notices might be printed on tickets and placed in box offices and lobbies, notifying patrons that anyone with an audible ringer will be shown the door, with no recourse or refund. Most importantly, wireless users need to be told HOW not to disrupt or offend. As other respondents to this string have pointed out, it's mostly ignorance or obliviousness that causes the problem. And that ignorance and obliviousness applies to legislative and administrative approaches to the problem, just as it applies to the "antisocial" behavior itself. Paul A Lee ------------------------------ From: Barry Margolin Subject: Re: Banning Cell Phone Use in Theaters (was News Headlines) Organization: Genuity, Woburn, MA Date: Mon, 26 Aug 2002 20:34:19 GMT In article , Herb Stein wrote: > David Esan wrote in message > news:telecom22.3.3@telecom-digest.org: >> Can you imagine an emergency in a theater (fire, health, violence) and >> someone whips out their cellphone to call 911 and can't because its >> blocked by the theater? Huge lawsuit. > Phooey. I go into lots of places every day with spotty or nonexistent > cell phone reception. I don't think that the fact that their > construction techniques interfere with my cell phone use is cause for > a lawsuit. For that matter, there are plenty of places outdoors around > here (St. Louis) with "dead spots." But there is probably no gaurantee > from Cingular either. Those are not cases where someone has deliberately created a dead zone. And the types of venues we're talking about often have large crowds in them, so their action creates an added danger for a large number of people. Barry Margolin, barmar@genuity.net Genuity, Woburn, MA *** DON'T SEND TECHNICAL QUESTIONS DIRECTLY TO ME, post them to newsgroups. Please DON'T copy followups to me -- I'll assume it wasn't posted to the group. ------------------------------ From: Ed Ellers Subject: Re: 1010/800 # Dialing With no LD Carrier? Date: Mon, 26 Aug 2002 16:56:15 -0400 To add to what John said, keep in mind that if you select "no PIC" (as it's known in the phone business) the local phone company will add a monthly charge to make up for one of the FCC-required fees that your long distance company would be required to pay on your behalf; when my mother went this route, BellSouth (in Kentucky) charged 57 cents per month for this. ------------------------------ Date: Mon, 26 Aug 2002 17:04:05 -0400 From: Gary Novosielski Subject: Two URL Stylists, No Waiting At 16:23 08/26/02, editor@telecom-digest.org wrote: > Then Judith comes back with the correct > URL but incorrectly places a 'period' (punctuation mark) right after > the 'org' in the above URL. Although that *is* correct grammar, it > simply wreaks havoc on a linking URL. People's computers see that and > incorrectly assume 'org' is the second part of a longer address which > began with 'icann'. Guffaw, shrill laugh. As I understand it, the "correct grammar" for URLs involves wrapping them in angle brackets like . That's also MLA style for URLs in footnotes and bibliographies. This has the advantage of isolating the URL from any preceding or following punctuation that is not a part of the actual URL, and on at least some e-mail programs (e.g., Eudora) angle brackets will even preserve URLs that have been fractured onto two lines by word wrapping, allowing them to be directly clickable. Gary ------------------------------ From: w_tom Subject: Re: MCI Worldcom's 555 Pic Code: Arbitrary Rates Over $3 per Minute Date: Mon, 26 Aug 2002 19:31:16 -0400 Organization: Posted via Supernews, http://www.supernews.com We don't know how much that pile of potatoes will cost until we have them weighed at the cash register. But at least we are told in advance the price per pound. We don't know how much the gasoline will cost BUT we are told the price per gallon in advance. Telcos need not even let us know the price per minute of a call until up to a month after we have made that call. What else is sold this way - without any indication of price per use, price per minute, price per pound, price per gallon, etc? Only phone calls? KimBrennan wrote: >> So why are they not required to make pricing available at the time >> of purchase? > I'm a little surprised that our moderator didn't reply on this. > The reason that jumps out most in my mind, is that the exact price is > unknown until finished. Many phone (most? all?) charge on the basis of > how long the call was. This can be broken down by per minute or > fractions of a minute basis, but in the end, until the call is > finished, how much to charge you for the service is unknown. In > addition, there are other possible charges that you may invoke during > the call (900 calls for instance, or 800 calls that take you to areas > where you authorize a purchase that is charged to your phone bill.) > Convienence has a price and that price is in having to compute your > charge AFTER the call is completed. > Of course, in this era of modern electronics it would be nice to have > the exact charge appear on a display on your phone the moment you hang > up. This would undoubtably require an additional service (like the > caller id service) that could be added to your monthly bill. Then > there are the taxes, and surcharges which are prorated per > usage. These can/could vary from state to state. So this proposed > phone handset would have to be programmed by the end user to reflect > all of those charges. AND the company manufacturing the handsets would > have to have extra legal language to be sure you couldn't sue them for > improperly calculating phone charges ... this might make the handsets > prohibitively expensive. > "I'm sorry, all my money is tied up in currency." > W.C.Fields > [TELECOM Digest Editor's Note: I think he said that phone service was > the ONLY commodity where one does not know the cost before purchasing > it. That isn't really true either. You buy electrical service each > month, plus water and gas without knowing what the final bill for the > month will be. I now sit here and cringe thinking about what the > electric bill will be for August here in Independence considering the > bake-oven weather conditions we have endured over the past two > months. I am on the annual 'budget plan' meaning the bills from KG&E > are averaged over twelve months, however KG&E reserves the right to > 'adjust' the monthly payments as they see fit to keep you from having > a large over/underpayment at the end of the year. I've had to run the > air conditioner on high for the past month, although it cycles on and > off from time to time. What would you do if the temperature was in > the 95-105 degree range during the day? > The Independence Water Works and Public Works is the most reasonable > of all. $53 per month delivers all the water and sewer (based on a > percentage of the water consumption) AND trash collection each > month. They re-evaluate sewer and trash four times each year based on > the water meter readings during the months of November and January. So > I must be careful about using water in November. > The people outside of the city limits get hit *very hard* on water. > Rural water delivery is outrageous I am told. They get their water > from the City of Independence but it costs them plenty, and they have > to water their livestock as well. People buy a lot of things in a > month's time they don't know exactly what it will cost before hand. PAT] ------------------------------ Subject: Computer Expert Says Can Break Microsoft security Date: Mon, 26 Aug 2002 19:33:44 -0400 From: Monty Solomon By Peter Andersson STOCKHOLM, Aug 26 (Reuters) - Software security widely used for Internet banking and e-commerce can be easily circumvented, and customer accounts at several of Sweden's largest banks remain at risk as a result, a computer expert said on Monday. The Swedish hacking expert, who is well known in computer security circles, but asked not to be named, demonstrated to Reuters how it was possible within minutes to break through security on Web server software from Microsoft Corp. (NASDAQ:MSFT). The expert showed how to crack the security systems for Internet banking, breaking into three of Sweden's big four banks in quick succession. He was then able to show how to conceal his tracks, making detection difficult afterward. While stopping short of breaking into customer accounts, the hacker-turned-consultant said an intruder could have hidden instructions to transfer sums into a separate account when the customer authorises a payment from his Internet bank account. He relied on a variation of a weakness that came to light two weeks ago in Microsoft's implementation of Secure Socket Layer (SSL), an industry standard for transmitting credit card numbers and account passwords via the Web. http://finance.lycos.com/home/news/story.asp?story=28447602 ------------------------------ Date: Mon, 26 Aug 2002 20:43:35 -0400 From: dhorvath@cobs.com (David B. Horvath, CCP) Subject: This Takes Guts Check out the "source" of my email address used in a SPAM I recently received trying to sell me Norton products: > CLICK HERE to Order Yours NOW! or Call > Toll-Free 1-800-861-1481! > Your email address was obtained from an opt-in list. > opt-in UEFAS (United Email Federation Against Spam) > Approved List - Purchase Code # 8594030. If you wish > to be unsubscribed from this list, please Click > here. If you have previously unsubscribed and are still receiving > this message, you may email our [HTTP, not MAILTO reference] Spam > Abuse Control Center. We do not condone spam in any shape or form. > Thank You kindly for your cooperation. - David ------------------------------ TELECOM Digest is an electronic journal devoted mostly but not exclusively to telecommunications topics. It is circulated anywhere there is email, in addition to various telecom forums on a variety of networks such as Compuserve and America On Line, 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: 620-870-9697 Fax 1: 775-255-9970 Fax 2: 775-306-8390 Fax 3: 530-309-7234 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 second 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) Email <==> FTP: telecom-archives@telecom-digest.org Send a simple, one line note to that automated address for a help file on how to use the automatic retrieval system for archives files. You can get desired files in email. ************************************************************************* * 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. Access to Premium (P) links requires upgrade to a paid subscription. One click a day feeds a person a meal. Go to http://www.thehungersite.com Only subscribers or registered users of ICB Toll Free News web site will be able to access all or some of the full text of URLs provided. LEGAL STUFF: TELECOM Digest (sm) is owned by Patrick Townson. Copyright 2002 ICB, Inc. and TELECOM Digest. All rights reserved. Our attorney is Bill Levant, of Blue Bell, PA. --------------------------------------------------------------- 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 twenty 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 V22 #10 ***************************** From editor@telecom-digest.org Tue Aug 27 13:28:42 2002 Received: from localhost (localhost [[UNIX: localhost]]) by massis.lcs.mit.edu (8.11.3nb1/8.11.3) id g7RHSge13179; Tue, 27 Aug 2002 13:28:42 -0400 (EDT) Date: Tue, 27 Aug 2002 13:28:42 -0400 (EDT) From: editor@telecom-digest.org Message-Id: <200208271728.g7RHSge13179@massis.lcs.mit.edu> X-Authentication-Warning: massis.lcs.mit.edu: ptownson set sender to editor@telecom-digest.org using -f To: ptownson Approved: patsnewlist Subject: TELECOM Digest V22 #11 TELECOM Digest Tue, 27 Aug 2002 13:28:00 EDT Volume 22 : Issue 11 Inside This Issue: Editor: Patrick A. Townson Call for Participation, DIALM 2002 (Eric Fleury) Re: MCI Worldcom's 555 Pic Code: Arbitrary Rates Over $3 per Min (Frank) Re: MCI Worldcom's 555 Pic Code: Arbitrary Rates Over $3 per Min (Sutton) Re: Banning Cell Phone Use in Theaters (Ron Bean) Re: Banning Cell Phone Use in Theaters (Barry Margolin) Re: Banning Cell Phone Use in Theaters (Brian Gordon) Re: Banning Cell Phone Use in Theaters (Michael Neary) Re: Banning Cell Phone Use in Theaters (Christopher Wolf) Re: So You've Got Your HDTV. Now What's There to See? (David Clayton) Re: So You've Got Your HDTV. Now What's There to See? (Ed Ellers) Re: Verizon Call Reject?? (John R. Levine) UK: Old BT Jackplug Standards (ric) 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. WE DO NOT PERMIT NAME/EMAIL ADDRESS HARVESTING FROM THIS JOURNAL. 'SALTED' EMAIL ADDRESSES APPEAR HEREIN TO VERIFY THIS. YOU GET SUED IN SMALL CLAIMS COURT IF YOU GET CAUGHT SPAMMING OR SENDING VIRUSES. DON'T DO IT. See the bottom of this issue for subscription and archive details and the name of our lawyer; other stuff of interest. ---------------------------------------------------------------------- From: Eric.Fleury@inria.fr Subject: Call for Participation, DIALM 2002 Date: Tue, 27 Aug 2002 09:30:18 +0000 (UTC) Organization: LORIA & INRIA-Lorraine - Nancy - FRANCE C A L L F O R P A R T I C I P A T I O N DIAL M for Mobility 6th International Workshop on Discrete Algorithms and Methods for Mobile Computing and Communications September, 28, 2002 Atlanta, Georgia, USA (In conjunction with ACM MobiCom 2002) Sponsored by ACM Sigmobile http://dialm.insa-lyon.fr/ SCOPE Mobile computing and communications such as portable phones and Personal Digital Assistants will have an enormous impact on all of us over the next several decades. The introduction of mobility raises a number of new research questions. For many of them, approaches based on the continuous case are not satisfactory, and discrete models and algorithms are required in order to deal with real applications. The workshop DIAL M for Mobility is devoted to discrete algorithms and discrete modelling in the context of mobile and wireless computing and communications. It is intended to be a lively meeting, covering many of the algorithmic and discrete aspects of this field going from operations research to radio engineering problems. It aims, in particular, at fostering the cooperation among practitioners and theoreticians of the field. Following the success the first workshop held jointly with Mobicom 97 in Budapest, DIAL M for Mobility will be co-located with ACM/IEEE MobiCom 98 and will be composed of contributed and invited talks. FINANCIAL SUPPORT A limited support is available for students to attend the conference. Please send an email to one of the Program Chairs to obtain further information. We encourage the students to apply as soon as possible. TENTATIVE PROGRAM (The times might change slightly in order to coordinate with other workshops.) SESSION ONE 8.50-9.00 a.m. Welcome and Opening Remarks 9.00-10.00 a.m. INVITED TALK: Distributed Algorithmic Mechanism Design: Recent Results and Future Directions Professor Joan Feigenbaum, Dept. Computer Science, Yale University. Joint work with Dr. Scott Shenker, ACIRI Coffee Break 10.00 - 10.30 a.m. SESSION TWO 10.30-12.20 p.m. Title: Asymptotically Optimal Geometric Mobile Ad-Hoc Routing Author: Fabian Kuhn, Roger Wattenhofer, Aaron Zollinger Title: Cluster Based Routing Using a k-Tree Core Backbone for Mobile Ad hoc Networks Authors: Saurabh Srivastava, Ratan K. Ghosh Title: A Theoretical Study of Optimization Techniques USed in Resgistration Area Based Location Mangement: Models and Online Algorithms Authors: Sandeep Gupta, Goran Konjevod, Georgios Varsamopoulos. Title: Self-Stabilizing Mutual Exclusion Using Tokens in Mobile Ad Hoc Networks Authors: Yu Chen, Jennifer L. Welch Lunch 12.20 - 1.30 p.m. SESSION THREE 1.40-2.40 p.m. INVITED TALK: Energy v/s Performance in Wireless Networks Professor Hari Balakrishnan Laboratory of Computer Science MIT Coffee Break 2.40-3.00 p.m. SESSION 3: 3.00-4.15 p.m. Title: Scalable Analysis and Design of Ad Hoc Networks via Random Graph Theory Authors: Andras Farago Title: Approximation Algorithms for the Mobile Piercing Set Problem with Applications to Clustering in Ad-hoc Networks Authors: Hai Huang, Andrea W. Richa, Michael Segal Title: Simple Heuristics and PTASs for Intersection Graphs in Wireless Ad Hoc Networks Authors: Xiang-Yang Li, Yu Wang ORGANIZATION CONFERENCE CHAIRS Eric FLEURY CITI/INRIA Rhne-Alpes Domaine Scientifique de la Doua - INSA de Lyon Bât. Léonard de Vinci - 21 av. Jean Capelle F-69621 Villeurbanne Cedex France Work Phone: +33 472 434 421 Fax Number: +33 472 436 227 Email: Eric.Fleury@inria.fr Madhav MARATHE Los Alamos National Laboratory P.O. Box 1663 Los Alamos, NM 87545 USA Work Phone: +1 505 667 8010 Fax Number: +1 505 665 6474 Email: marathe@lanl.gov TECHNICAL PROGRAM COMMITTEE P. Agarwal, Duke University, USA A. Bar-Noy, CUNY -- Brooklyn College, USA P. Crescenzi, U. Firenze, Italia B. Ducourthial, UTC, France P. Jacquet, INRIA, France S. Krumke, ZIB Berlin, Germany J-Y. Leboudec, EPFL, Switzerland G. R. Mateus, UFMG, Brasil M. Morvan, ENS-Lyon, France S. Naor, Technion, Israel D. Peleg, Weizmann Institute, Israel C. Phillips, Sandia National Laboratories, USA A. Richa, ASU, USA B. Schieber, IBM Watson, USA M. Steenstrup, BBN, USA A. Srinivasan, University of Maryland, USA P. Widmayer, ETH Zurich, Switzerland STEERING COMMITTEE Ian Akyildiz, Georgia Tech, USA Maurizio Bonuccelli, University of Pisa, Italy Afonso Ferreira, CNRS - I3S - INRIA - Sophia Antipolis, France Errol Lloyd, University of Delaware, USA Arunabha Sen, Arizona State University, USA. ------------------------------ From: coolwebgeek@yahoo.com (Frank) Subject: Re: MCI Worldcom's 555 Pic Code: Arbitrary Rates Over $3 per Minute Date: 26 Aug 2002 21:14:28 -0700 Organization: http://groups.google.com/ > The reason that jumps out most in my mind, is that the exact price is > unknown until finished. Many phone (most? all?) charge on the basis of > how long the call was. Ahh, I must of used too many words to describe the problem ;) MCI WorldCom's reseller service (555) told me that they did not have any rates to give me and that none existed. Meaning, they could not go anywhere and look up what the per-minute rate was for any of my calls, or what the per per-call rate was, surcharges, etc. They simply charged me whatever their computers dynamically / randomly decided to charge me for each call. Meaning, I could call the same exact number 100 times in 100 consecutive seconds and be charged 100 different prices for each of those calls. Part of me is thinking there has to be some defined rates somewhere and that it really cannot be this arbitrary / random. > Of course, in this era of modern electronics it would be nice to have > the exact charge appear on a display on your phone the moment you hang > up. This would undoubtably require an additional service (like the > caller id service) that could be added to your monthly bill. Then > there are the taxes, and surcharges which are prorated per > usage. I personally designed and built technology called CallSense, based on AccountPoint technologies, that does exactly this, but it runs on your personal computer. It includes a complete state-of-the-art real-time rating engine that is more advanced than anything on the market such as from Portal. It also includes billing and account management, so I definitely know tariffs, rates, rating rules, billing, and how phone bills are calculated from A to Z. By the way, GTC Telecom was a great company to work with overall. I had them on several of my home lines for two years. ------------------------------ From: Colin Sutton Subject: Re: MCI Worldcom's 555 Pic Code: Arbitrary Rates Over $3 per Minute Date: Tue, 27 Aug 2002 11:44:25 GMT Organization: BigPond Internet Services (http://www.bigpond.net.au) KimBrennan wrote in message news:telecom22.7.14@telecom-digest.org: >> So why are they not required to make pricing available at the time >> of purchase? > The reason that jumps out most in my mind, is that the exact price is > unknown until finished. Many phone (most? all?) charge on the basis of > how long the call was. This can be broken down by per minute or > fractions of a minute basis, but in the end, until the call is > finished, how much to charge you for the service is unknown. In > addition, there are other possible charges that you may invoke during > the call (900 calls for instance, or 800 calls that take you to areas > where you authorize a purchase that is charged to your phone bill.) > Convienence has a price and that price is in having to compute your > charge AFTER the call is completed. > Of course, in this era of modern electronics it would be nice to have > the exact charge appear on a display on your phone the moment you hang > up. The charge could be calculated and displayed in real-time based on the rate for the length of time connected. A web-phone service should easily be able to display the current charge. There is at least one service that gives a dynamic indication of the likely charge. After many complaints, my local ADSL service provider, which charges for data downloaded, supplied a web-site that shows the daily amount downloaded, and how close you are to the limit at which the charges start. It's not quite real-time yet: there's a lag of a day or so :-) Pat said: > You buy electrical service each month, plus water and gas without > knowing what the final bill for the month will be. I now sit here > and cringe thinking about what the electric bill will be for August > here in Independence considering the bake-oven weather conditions we > have endured over the past two months. Can't you read your meters? Not that there'll be much consolation in knowing in advance what you are going to pay, you need that cooling! Be thankful you can postpone the worry about how to pay for it and the meters aren't coin-operated ... Colin [TELECOM Digest Editor's Note: "Can't you read your meters?" Yeah, but it gets so depressing to read then attempt to calculate the charges. "You need that cooling!" Yes, I think I do. But I went to see my mother at the home the other day and asked her, "how did people survive back in the 1920's and 30's when there was no home air cond- itioning?" Her response was "well, we suffered, but I think our bodies were more conditioned to it, so we did not notice it quite as much as we do now days, but we did notice it." My first employment, in 1958 when I was in high school was working for the University of Chicago in the telephone exchange room on campus. Air conditioning in offices was not at all common (actually rare) in those days; we had overhead ceiling fans which spun all the time in the summer, and windows which we could open but had to close if it rained. If it got very humid before and after a heavy rain, we suffered also. Movie theatres were about the only place that had regular air conditioning until the late fifties or early sixties. The first job I had where air-conditioning was normal (installed while I was working there) was in 1967 at the Amoco credit card billing center and I think they put that in because they were warned that the computers they were also istalling (instead of manual bookkeeping) demanded cool air to not 'go down' all the time. At first they had overhead fans and windows that opened also. PAT] ------------------------------ Date: Tue, 27 Aug 2002 09:39:05 -0500 From: Ron Bean Subject: Re: Banning Cell Phone Use in Theaters Paul A Lee writes: > What about volunteer firefighters and EMTs? Electric utility workers? > Medical professionals? Other disaster- or emergency-responders? At some theaters, the recommended procedure is to leave your seat number and pager at the box office. If your pager goes off, an usher comes and gets you. I don't know if anyone actually does this ... ------------------------------ From: Barry Margolin Subject: Re: Banning Cell Phone Use in Theaters Organization: Genuity, Woburn, MA Date: Tue, 27 Aug 2002 14:46:21 GMT In article , Paul A Lee wrote: > Just who determines who needs to be reachable? And who decided it's > all based on economics? > What about volunteer firefighters and EMTs? Electric utility workers? > Medical professionals? Other disaster- or emergency-responders? > How about parents of young children, taking a well-deserved night out, > nervously leaving their kids with a sitter? > What about your child's or your parent's cardiologist? Should s/he be > denied the means for you to reach him/her? > What about the transplant coordinator who finds a donor organ for your > spouse while you're taking some time away from the pressure of waiting > and hoping? Call you back in two hours? > What about your mother, who has taken a fall at home, by herself? Should > she be prevented from reaching you? > Or your teenager who got into trouble while taking advantage of your > absence? Voice mail? All your professional examples are based on economics. For instance, if a community could afford it, they could have full-time firefighters living in the firehouse 24x7, instead of using volunteer firefighters. And hospitals could employ enough cardiologists that they could have one on duty all the time. Communications technology has indeed allowed many cost savings, by replacing on-site staff with on-call staff. But it's possible to solve these problems without pagers and cellphones, since there was a time before they were ubiquitous and society managed to survive. Personally, I don't have a problem with cellphones being used for emergency uses. The ones that are causing all the furor are people using them for frivolous, personal use in inappropriate places. If they weren't so inconsiderate, the ones who really need their cellphones wouldn't be seen as guilty by association. Barry Margolin, barmar@genuity.net Genuity, Woburn, MA *** DON'T SEND TECHNICAL QUESTIONS DIRECTLY TO ME, post them to newsgroups. Please DON'T copy followups to me -- I'll assume it wasn't posted to the group. [TELECOM Digest Editor's Note: About three months ago, I was riding in the car with a man here in town going out to dinner in the little town (population 250) of Tyro, Kansas. He went on and on about the evils of cell phones and how people who 'wanted to act important' carried them fastened on their belts, etc. On the way back from dinner, about 10 PM (it was very dark and very lonely on County Road 2700 for the ten miles back to Independence) we passed a car sitting on the side of the road, and inside the car sat a young woman and a little girl. We stopped to ask if they needed any help. The woman's car had overheated or had vapor-lock, I dunno which. Yes, she said, if I could call my husband over in Dearing, Kansas (another tiny, rural town of 300 population about ten miles away) he would come out and get my car started or take us home. Out comes my cell phone and two calls were made: the first to her husband at home; the second to 911 and the county sheriff. We then parked nearby and waited until the husband and the sheriff arrived a few minutes later. My friend just sat there thinking about it and said nothing. We thought the right thing to do was sit there and wait with the lady until someone showed up. After the sheriff and her husband showed up we drove away. I said to him "I do not know these days why anyone who drives a car does not have a cell phone installed in it. You never know when you will see or have a situation like that." I guess he heeded my advice, because a week or so later when he came around I noticed he had installed a cell phone in his car. I know he did not complain to me about cell phones again. PAT] ------------------------------ From: briang@panix.com (Brian Gordon) Subject: Re: Banning Cell Phone Use in Theaters Date: 26 Aug 2002 20:27:41 -0700 Organization: PANIX -- Public Access Networks Corp. In article , John David Galt wrote: >> As much as New Yorkers love to talk, they appear to be inclined to >> support legislation that prohibits people from using their cell phones >> in public. >> http://www.wired.com/news/business/0,1367,54608,00.html > Why is a law needed for this? Why don't the affected theaters just > show their rude patrons the door? > If that's too expensive because it requires hiring human beings, maybe > they should consider installing Faraday cages in the walls. That's > certainly legal even if active jamming isn't. I don't know if it is accidental or deliberate, but I was in a theater (fairly new) over the weekend where there was no reception. I was happy about it ... (Century 20, The Great Mall, Milpitas, CA). +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+ | Brian Gordon -->briang@panix.com<-- | +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+ ------------------------------ From: Michael Neary Subject: Re: Banning Cell Phone Use in Theaters (was News Headlines) Date: Mon, 26 Aug 2002 20:52:23 -0700 Reply-To: mike@neary.com >> Can you imagine an emergency in a theater (fire, health, violence) and >> someone whips out their cellphone to call 911 and can't because its >> blocked by the theater? Huge lawsuit. Sorry. In a large (or even in a small) venue, a cell phone is a LAST RESORT for getting help. At the PSAP, they have no clue where you are. If they are lucky, they might actually know what city you're calling from ... I was working at the door, at a small public event, a few years ago when the paramedics suddenly arrived. They were looking for a twisted ankle. But the caller had neglected to tell the event staff about the injury, so they were on the verge of leaving and chalking it up to a false alarm. The paramedics eventually resorted to polling each guest to see if they were injured and/or had placed the call. Whoever called 911 was connected to the Highway Patrol, who had to ask where they were calling from. Then, the caller had to describe the location of the emergency a second time to the local emergency staff. This had to be input manually. BUT if someone had used *any* landline phone on the premises, the location would have been displayed automatically with no transcription errors. And if they had used the phone at the entrance, the event staff might have actually known what had happened, and could have quickly directed the paramedics to the injured person. Response was delayed significantly by the use of a cell phone. We shouldn't forget that we had neighbors and friends long before we could call 911. Mike [TELECOM Digest Editor's Note: My 911 call mentioned elsewhere in this issue first went to the Independence Police dispatcher who said to me 'hold for Montgomery County sheriff.' The next voice I heard was someone who answered for the Sheriff's office. I asked how she knew I wanted the sheriff, and she said 'the cell site you are on registered a 620-289 number which is a rural exchange for Tyro/Dearing/Bolton and Liberty, Kansas (all *very tiny* villages with possibly a thousand people between them all.) They all get fire protection from either Independence or Coffeyville, but the Sheriff handles other calls. Coffey- ville (620-251 and recently 252) and Independence (620-331 and recently 332 for city offices and the college) have their own police/fire and EMT workers, but Dearing/Bolton/Tyro/Caney (620-289) get fire and EMT service from either C-ville or Indy depending on what they are closest to. They know your location because 289 is further divided up with the '4' group of 289 assigned to Tyro for example. The cell tower that picks up your call decides where to route your 911 call, to C-ville or Indy or in a couple cases, direct to the sheriff. I think Dearing and Liberty are sent to C-ville for handling. PAT] ------------------------------ Date: Mon, 26 Aug 2002 22:21:18 -0500 From: Christopher Wolf Subject: Re: Banning Cell Phone Use in Theatres Paul A Lee wrote: > Paul Wallich wrote (in part): >> There's a tiny minority of people who actually need to be reachable, >> and a much larger group who _think_ they need to be reachable at all > Just who determines who needs to be reachable? And who decided it's all > based on economics? > What about volunteer firefighters and EMTs? Electric utility workers? > Medical professionals? Other disaster- or emergency-responders? > How about parents of young children, taking a well-deserved night out, > nervously leaving their kids with a sitter? > What about your child's or your parent's cardiologist? Should s/he be > denied the means for you to reach him/her? > What about the transplant coordinator who finds a donor organ for > your spouse while you're taking some time away from the pressure of > waiting and hoping? Call you back in two hours? (Royal 'you' used below.) Many of these counter arguments try to show *really important* situations where people still need to stay in touch. If it's really *that* important, why are you trusting a cell phone/pager with potentially spotty coverage?!?!?! Anyone who uses a cellphone/pager accepts that the coverage is not complete, otherwise they'd sit at home next to the phone. And I'm betting that every one of these situations has a back-up plan that will make it work just fine if the person in question can't be reached, or that it has enough leeway that checking voicemail at intermission would be fine; it would have to, if they're trusting cellphones. Still sounds more like self-important people who think they're the only one can do whatever it is that needs to be done. I have numerous personal gadgets, so I'm not eschewing technology, but I paid just as much as you for that ticket, and I see no reason you should be able to disrupt my enjoyment of the evening, especially when I make sure I turn mine off. Even if you're that important, stay home, as you still have no right to disrupt my night. Plan your own life better to deal with this; its your own choices that got you here. Take some responsibility, or someone else will with jammers. ------------------------------ From: David Clayton Subject: Re: So You've Got Your HDTV. Now What's There to See? Date: Tue, 27 Aug 2002 18:20:06 +1000 Organization: Customer of Connect.com.au Pty. Ltd. Reply-To: dcstar@acslink.net.au Joey Lindstrom contributed the following: > And at the risk of going off-topic for a moment ... folks, if you > haven't seen Babylon 5, you should. It makes all other TV sci-fi, > Star Trek included, look like children's programming. Just as I have almost completed the whole lot on video tape ... :-( - - Regards, David Clayton, e-mail: dcstar@acslink.net.au Melbourne, Victoria, Australia. Dilbert's words of wisdom #18: Never argue with an idiot. They drag you down to their level then beat you with experience. ------------------------------ From: Ed Ellers Subject: Re: So You've Got Your HDTV. Now What's There to See? Date: Tue, 27 Aug 2002 05:44:51 -0400 KimBrennan wrote: > The easiest way for regular content to get into the digital TV > bandwagon is to start filming in widescreen. A few programs do this > now (cropping the widescreen image to fit into a regular 4:3 screen > when broadcast on regular NTSC.) X-Files is one such. They don't > film it in HD. Nobody films anything in "HD" -- that's video, not film. If a series is shot on 35mm film and preserved in that format, it can later be transferred to HD video if the need arises -- though the difficulty of doing this varies depending on how the show was handled after principal photography. Older series were almost always edited on film, and can be transferred directly to HD video if a good 35mm film element still exists; many newer series are transferred to video, at standard definition, from the original negative and then edited as video, and in those cases the editing work would have to be done over after the negative is transferred to HD video. (The current "Enterprise" series splits the difference -- the film is transferred to HD video, but the computer-generated effects are rendered at standard definition, so they would have to be re-rendered for any future HD release.) 16mm film is trickier; CBS refused to show "Walker, Texas Ranger" in HDTV because it was shot in 16mm, and the network felt that the results wouldn't justify the cost of an HD transfer. Even 35mm film often looks less sharp on HDTV than material shot in HD video, despite the fact that a 35mm frame can hold far more information than an HDTV frame; AFAIK this is because of modulation transfer losses in the scanners used to do the video transfers. ------------------------------ Date: 27 Aug 2002 00:14:08 -0400 From: johnl@iecc.com (John R. Levine) Subject: Re: Verizon Call Reject?? Organization: I.E.C.C., Trumansburg NY USA In article you write: > I have a big question. I live in NJ and am looking to find out if > Verizon offers a service where I can put in a phone number and when > the person calls it will reject the call ... What did Verizon say when you called the business office and asked them? (In case you don't have page 2 of your local phone book handy, the number is 800-427-9977.) That's the same number you call to report annoying or harassing calls. > one phone like with distinctive ring and someone keeps faxing me 50 > pages a day of junk. Are these junk fax ads, or a crazed fax machine who thinks you're someone else? -- John R. Levine, IECC, POB 727, Trumansburg NY 14886 +1 607 387 6869 johnl@iecc.com Village Trustee and Sewer Commissioner http://iecc.com/johnl Member, Provisional board, Coalition Against Unsolicited Commercial E-mail ------------------------------ From: ric@infobubble.co.uk (ric) Subject: UK: Old BT Jackplug Standards Date: 27 Aug 2002 05:37:53 -0700 Organization: http://groups.google.com/ Hi All, I've inherited an old, rotary dial pulse phone that I'd like to get working in the UK. At the moment the end of the cable has a jackplug that's approx 1/4 inch in diameter, with 4 bands across it. It's about the same dimensions as an audio 1/4 jack. I'd like to cut this off and crimp on a UK standard phone jack. Does anyone know what these old connectors are called, and have the pin-outs for them so I can adapt it, or know of an existing adaptor? Thanks, Ric ------------------------------ TELECOM Digest is an electronic journal devoted mostly but not exclusively to telecommunications topics. It is circulated anywhere there is email, in addition to various telecom forums on a variety of networks such as Compuserve and America On Line, 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: 620-870-9697 Fax 1: 775-255-9970 Fax 2: 775-306-8390 Fax 3: 530-309-7234 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 second 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) Email <==> FTP: telecom-archives@telecom-digest.org Send a simple, one line note to that automated address for a help file on how to use the automatic retrieval system for archives files. You can get desired files in email. ************************************************************************* * 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. Access to Premium (P) links requires upgrade to a paid subscription. One click a day feeds a person a meal. Go to http://www.thehungersite.com Only subscribers or registered users of ICB Toll Free News web site will be able to access all or some of the full text of URLs provided. LEGAL STUFF: TELECOM Digest (sm) is owned by Patrick Townson. Copyright 2000 ICB, Inc. and TELECOM Digest. All rights reserved. Our attorney is Bill Levant, of Blue Bell, PA. --------------------------------------------------------------- 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 twenty 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 V22 #11 ***************************** From editor@telecom-digest.org Thu Aug 29 00:21:12 2002 Received: from localhost (localhost [[UNIX: localhost]]) by massis.lcs.mit.edu (8.11.3nb1/8.11.3) id g7T4LCs22377; Thu, 29 Aug 2002 00:21:12 -0400 (EDT) Date: Thu, 29 Aug 2002 00:21:12 -0400 (EDT) From: editor@telecom-digest.org Message-Id: <200208290421.g7T4LCs22377@massis.lcs.mit.edu> X-Authentication-Warning: massis.lcs.mit.edu: ptownson set sender to editor@telecom-digest.org using -f To: ptownson Approved: patsnewlist Subject: TELECOM Digest V22 #12 TELECOM Digest Thu, 29 Aug 2002 00:20:00 EDT Volume 22 : Issue 12 Inside This Issue: Editor: Patrick A. Townson "No-Dial-Tone" on HP Fax (nospam) AT&T Never Calls Me Back. Do I Have Any Recourse? (Dr. Joel M. Hoffman) Book Review: Communications Toolkit; Longstaff (David Weininger) Stor-Com Question (Lincoln J. King-Cliby) Re: Banning Cell Phone Use in Theaters (Paul Wallich) Re: Banning Cell Phone Use in Theaters (Gary Novosielski) Update on My Phone Service Leaving Cavalier (Carl Moore) Instant Messaging Over the Phone? (Adrian) 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. WE DO NOT PERMIT NAME/EMAIL ADDRESS HARVESTING FROM THIS JOURNAL. 'SALTED' EMAIL ADDRESSES APPEAR HEREIN TO VERIFY THIS. YOU GET SUED IN SMALL CLAIMS COURT IF YOU GET CAUGHT SPAMMING OR SENDING VIRUSES. DON'T DO IT. See the bottom of this issue for subscription and archive details and the name of our lawyer; other stuff of interest. ---------------------------------------------------------------------- From: Jeffrey L. Hook Subject: No-Dial-Tone on HP Fax Date: Wed, 28 Aug 2002 01:29:06 -0400 I hope you can help. Thanks in advance for whatever explanation you can offer for this apparent fax machine malfunction, and for whatever recommendation you can give for a suitable replacement fax machine which might not be susceptible to this problem. (The HP was already returned to the retailer.) I've suspected, for example, that the entire line of HP faxes might be equipped with Line Interface Units which might be less than 100% reliable. PROBLEM: A recently-purchased Hewlett-Packard "hp fax 1020" was unable to obtain a dial tone at either of the two phone lines which are in service at this house. The HP machine was plugged in here at a single-socket baseboard jack. A simple table telephone (with no special features at all; just voice communication) had been able to reach both of the phone lines which are in service here, before the HP unit's modular phone cable was plugged into the same phone jack, and subsequently. The table phone reached the first line directly at the jack, and it reached the second line by use of a splitter in that modular jack's single socket. I.D. OF MALFUNCTIONING UNIT: The hp fax 1020 is a multiple-function unit, which includes a telephone with a handset, a digital telephone answering machine, and a facsimile machine. The unit's telephone won't work if the unit has no electrical power, but the unit was always powered on during my tests of its inability to obtain a dial tone. The unit's model number was C8580A, its serial number was C N E 2 1 A 0 P P S, and its apparent "Ringer Equivalent Number" was REN : 068 / ICREN : 0.4. Verizon provides local telephone service at this address, and AT&T provides long distance service. INCONSISTENCY OF MALFUNCTION: The "kicker" in this case is the HP unit's normal performance elsewhere. When no dial tone could be obtained here, the unit was taken to another address nearby, where it performed well. It obtained a dial tone and its integral phone worked as it should have worked here. In fact, a call was completed on that phone from that separate location to here. The unit was brought back here and it again failed to obtain a dial tone. It was returned to the retailer, Staples, where it was tested, and where its integral telephone again obtained a dial tone and performed normally. It was brought back here and it failed again to obtain a dial tone. It was *never* able to obtain a dial tone here. Upon its final return to Staples for a refund its integral telephone again functioned as it should have functioned here. SYMPTOMS OF MALFUNCTION: For all tests of the HP unit's telephone, the unit's power cord was plugged in to the house current at a wall electrical outlet, its modular two-lead phone cable was plugged in to the fully-operative baseboard phone jack, and its telephone handset was picked up to listen for a dial tone. (Yes, the other ends of the unit's power and phone cables *were* correctly connected to the unit...): On this house's first line (which is used primarily for voice communication), there was only an irregular clicking, with a very faint background hiss. The clicking sounded as if someone was depressing and releasing the switch hook of a phone, rapidly, in a random sequence. That persisted for far less than a minute, and then only the faint hissing continued. The HP fax was intended for use on that first line. On this house's second line (which is primarily dedicated to a PC modem, a Zoom 3048L external V.92 model) there'd be silence at length (nearly a full minute), then two rings, and then a recorded announcement which featured the well-known "shrieking" static and then the phone company female voice which announces, "We're sorry; your call could not be completed as dialed." A representative of Verizon's Repair department suggested the recorded phone company recorded error message suggested the HP phone was able to indicate at least an attempted dial-up to the phone system, in that the long passage of time followed by the recorded message was the scenario which would transpire if any other phone had in fact both obtained a dial tone and had been able to dial, albeit incorrectly. REPLACEMENT OF HOUSE WIRE IS INEFFECTIVE: The phone cable from this house's Network Interface Device (NID) (on the exterior of the house), to the fax's wall jack had clearly provided access for a standard telephone to both phone numbers which are in use here. Even so, I suspected a splice in that line might have been unacceptable to the HP fax machine. Hence, I re-wired that jack to the NID, with a fresh, non-spliced, four-lead "cable." I then tested that new wiring and I found a standard table phone was still able to obtain access to both lines from the baseboard jack, when a splitter was used to reach the second line. However, that "cable" replacement produced NO CHANGE in the fax machine's inability to obtain a dial tone on either line. NID REPLACEMENT IS RECOMMENDED: I called Verizon, our local service provider. When I reported our NID was a Keptel SNI-4600, I was told Keptels had been designed for high-quality analog voice transmission. They were said to be full of features ("filters" and other types of modulators) which improved voice signals, but which were said to be impediments to digital transmissions. It was suggested the NID had precluded the obtaining of dial tones by the HP unit. I later disassembled the Keptel NID after it was replaced, and I found no such intermediate devices. The NID seemed to employ only simple "isolators," which could be used to interrupt the connection of the outgoing house wires to the incoming outside lines. For example, there was a modular "jumper" plug which could be used to disconnect each "customer wiring bridge" from the outside connection. There were four white insulators on the incoming side of the box, one for each of the four leads of the two circuits for our two phone lines, i.e. one for green, red, yellow, and black, and I didn't disassemble them, but I doubt they contain any such "filters." NID REPLACEMENT HAS *NO* EFFECT: A Verizon field service technician was called in here to install a new NID. However, before he did, he checked the operation of the baseboard jack at which we'd been unable to obtain a dial tone on the HP unit. He found the jack gave access to both lines (via a splitter for the second line, of course) and he said that indicated the HP unit was defective. Even so, he installed a new NID and that new interface made no change whatsoever in the inability of the HP unit to obtain a dial tone on either phone line. HP ADMITS LINE INTERFACE UNIT DEFECT: I then called HP's customer support line. I was told the unit's ability to obtain a dial tone elsewhere while it remained unable to obtain one here was baffling, but I was also told the "no-dial-tone" problem seemed to trace to a defective LIU ("Line Interface Unit"). I was instructed in a method for resetting the unit's memory. (That was: Unplug the unit's power cord, re-plug it, observe a line of dots in the unit's LED/LCD display, then press the unit's asterisk key and hold it until "All Memory Init" appeared on the tiny display screen.) I tried that method several times, with no effect, and with the HP unit set initially to each of its three "Answer Modes": Telephone answering machine and fax, fax, and telephone.. When I reported the ineffectiveness of the memory reset procedure, HP's customer support representative told me it was apparent the unit's LIU was defective and that it required replacement. He seemed to imply I'd be unwise to replace the defective hp fax 1020 with an identical model. He suggested a 910, a 920, or a 1220. QUESTIONS: 1. Can anyone explain this strange and inconsistent malfunction? How could a machine readily obtain a dial tone at two other locations, but not here, particularly when the phone wiring here checked out well? 2. This bad experience has left me suspicious of HP "Line Interface Units." Does anyone know if the LIU in the hp 1020 is also used in other models? I'm most concerned about the 910, the 920, and the 1220, which were all recommended by the HP customer support representative as appropriate replacements for the hp fax 1020. 3. Can anyone recommend a fax machine which isn't likely to be susceptible to this weird problem? For example, is it possible that any simple fax unit which doesn't also include its own integral telephone might be immune? Thanks very much for any help you can offer! Jeff Hook NJ, USA ------------------------------ Subject: AT&T Never Calls Me Back; Do I Have Any Recourse? Organization: Excelsior Computer Services From: joel@exc.com (Dr. Joel M. Hoffman) Date: Wed, 28 Aug 2002 13:26:43 GMT Once again, I'm in a billing dispute with AT&T. I've tried calling their "customer support" number, but a supervisor is never available. The low-level rep always takes my number, promises that a supervisor will call me within 24 to 48 hours, and then I never hear from AT&T again. This has happened two or three times in the past two weeks, and dozens of times in the past. Do I have any recourse? Is this illegal on their part? Does anyone have a direct number to someone higher up than a first-level rep? Thanks, -Joel ------------------------------ Date: Wed, 28 Aug 2002 16:03:26 -0400 From: David Weininger Subject: Book Review: Communications Toolkit; Longstaff I thought readers of the Telecom Digest (comp.dcom.telecom) might be interested in this book. For more information please visit http://mitpress.mit.edu/0262122464 The Communications Toolkit How to Build and Regulate Any Communications Business P. H. Longstaff foreword by Anthony Oettinger Although telephone, cable, broadcast, print, and Internet companies are changing at a fantastic rate, the fundamentals of communications, networks, and competition have remained constant. This book provides the tools necessary to build lasting, flexible strategies to survive and grow in these times of transition. Whether you are a business executive, lawmaker, policy analyst, industrialist, stock analyst, lawyer, or judge, these tools will help you to solve real problems right away. The toolkit contains six tools -- essentially ways to view the workings of the communications sector from a larger, more inclusive perspective. The tools draw on knowledge and concepts from communications, engineering, biology, business, and law. Tool #1, Information Theory, presents the big picture of the communications sector. Tool #2, Networks, develops the fundamental parts and processes found in all networks. Tool #3, Competition and Cooperation, presents the basic characteristics shared by most processes in which two or more entities compete or cooperate to obtain a scarce resource. Tool #4, The Three Visions of Convergence, sorts out the many things people mean when they say "convergence." Tool #5, Convergence Theology, shows how people's faith (or lack of it) in convergence influences their predictions for the future. Finally, Tool #6, Concentration/Diversity, focuses on the forces that drive things together and those that pull them apart. The book also discusses how the tools can be used to understand and influence public policy issues. P. H. Longstaff is Associate Professor of Television, Radio, and Film at the S. I. Newhouse School of Public Communications, Syracuse University, and a Research Associate at Harvard University's Program on Information Resources Policy. 6 x 9, 305 pp., 12 illus., cloth, ISBN 0-262-12246-4 David Weininger Associate Publicist The MIT Press 5 Cambridge Center, 4th Floor Cambridge, MA 02142 617 253 2079 617 253 1709 fax http://mitpress.mit.edu ------------------------------ From: chsvideo@hotmail.com (Lincoln J. King-Cliby) Subject: Stor-Com Question Date: 28 Aug 2002 12:50:54 -0700 Organization: http://groups.google.com/ Hello, I have a question that I'm hoping you guys can help me with (Or at least point me in the right direction(s)). Background: I have a workshop that I've installed a quasi home-brew system that allows me to page from any phone inside (By picking up the phone and pressing "*"). The 'paging module' has relay outputs that I use to triger a relay-based priority system (Alarm overrides PA which overrides Background Music). I wanted a method to allow people outside the building to page (to be able to carry on some intercom functions would be a plus) without having dialtone (and the risks associated with it) exposed to the public. Recently I aquired some "Stor-Com" sets from a store that upgraded to a PBX. In case you aren't familiar with what I'm talking about by name, think of what was in virtually every grocery store at the checkstands for what seems like decades ("John, pick up the red line please", "Price check lane five"). Basically it looks like a telephone handset with a red button behind the earpeace, and the "cradle" has either a single red LED in the upper right corner (Single line units) or a green LED in the upper left corner, a red LED in the upper right corner, and a switch on top to select the line. I have the single line units. The connections are Talk 1 (Appears to be the voice circut), Page (I beleive it shorts to common when the page button is pressed), Common (well, duh), and Light 1 (Lights the red LED when a circut is formed between common and this wire). I have no problem getting the light to illuminate or the page button to work (or even both of these together), but how to get the voice portion to work has me somewhat clueless, and I am TOTALLY CLUELESS on how to convert the audio that this is creating into the Line-Level input I need for the paging amplifiler. At the location I need to install this, I have virtually unlimited quanities of 16.5VAC, 18VDC, and 12VDC, but 120VAC is not readily available. For parts, I have a few Radio Shacks and (If I have to) a Fry's Electronics. Oh, and by the way, I'd prefer to have this working by Friday :-) for a little get together we're hosting. For reference, when I connect a telephone line between Common and Talk 1, you can barely hear a buzzing for a dialtone, when I connect 12 or 18VDC, I get a nice loud buzzing (Varries with voltage) in the ear peice, and can kind of carry on a conversation between sets. Thanks, Lincoln (If you prefer to send replies via email, please send them to lincoln at pe dot net) ------------------------------ From: Paul Wallich Subject: Re: Banning Cell Phone Use in Theaters Date: Tue, 27 Aug 2002 13:12:05 -0400 Organization: PANIX Public Access Internet and UNIX, NYC In article , Paul A Lee wrote: > Paul Wallich wrote (in part): >> In article , John Higdon >> wrote: >>> I, and a group of my friends, are in a business that >>> requires us to be >>> on call 24/7. Occasionally, we as a group attend a movie, play, >>> concert or whatever. Half jokingly, someone invariably >>> mutters "pagers >>> on stun" as we enter the venue, meaning that we put cellphones, >>> pagers, and other devices in "vibrate" mode. >> "Requires" is a strong word. It's easier for you and the people who >> employ you, but that's an economic decision (not having just that >> extra tiny bit of redundant coverage). And it's a decision made easier >> by the fact that you don't have to internalize the cost of your >> communications mistakes. > >> There's a tiny minority of people who actually need to be reachable, >> and a much larger group who _think_ they need to be reachable at all >> times, or who just don't think at all. But if people who really think >> their jobs require reachability should be willing to pay the price (or >> their employers should). > Just who determines who needs to be reachable? And who decided it's > all based on economics? > What about volunteer firefighters and EMTs? Electric utility workers? > Medical professionals? Other disaster- or emergency-responders? > How about parents of young children, taking a well-deserved night out, > nervously leaving their kids with a sitter? > What about your child's or your parent's cardiologist? Should s/he be > denied the means for you to reach him/her? > What about the transplant coordinator who finds a donor organ for your > spouse while you're taking some time away from the pressure of waiting > and hoping? Call you back in two hours? > What about your mother, who has taken a fall at home, by herself? Should > she be prevented from reaching you? > Or your teenager who got into trouble while taking advantage of your > absence? Voice mail? > A little empathy, insight, or experience makes that "tiny minority" grow > much larger for any but the most self-righteous. I don't really see the point here. When a cellphone or a pager goes off in a space for which people have paid to obtain intermission, it's destroying the value for which they have paid. The fact that the person who owns the disrupting device is willing to have their own evening (or afternoon or whatever) disrupted for an emergency (or non-emergency) call doesn't necessarily give them the right to destroy value for which hundreds or thousnds of people around them have paid. Saying that it shouldn't come down to economics sounds a lot like saying that your convenience is worth thousands of dollars of other people's money. Just possibly there should be exceptions made for "real" emergencies where there is an immediate risk of death or injury (just as you wouldn't charge someone for disorderly conduct if they called out for a doctor in a theatre where someone had just keeled over with a heart attack). This would be analagous to the practice of charging people who call out search-and-rescue teams in a non-emergency or in an emergency caused by negligence. If the phones and pagers are all on "vibrate" there's no extra disruption and hence no bond to be paid, and meanwhile I would be more likely to go out to various venues if I knew that having the crucial moment ruined by someone else's phone call would result in a refund. paul ------------------------------ Date: Tue, 27 Aug 2002 13:54:05 -0400 From: Gary Novosielski Subject: Re: Banning Cell Phone Use in Theaters On 26 Aug 2002, briang@panix.com (Brian Gordon) wrote: > I don't know if it is accidental or deliberate, but I was in a theater > (fairly new) over the weekend where there was no reception. I was > happy about it ... (Century 20, The Great Mall, Milpitas, CA). At the theater I went to this weekend in Clifton, NJ, during the opening announcements about smoking, exits, and the all-important plug for the snack bar, there was a short clip regarding cell-phones. As little animated stick-figures (resembling those on the sign for the men's/women's restrooms) acted out the scenario, the voice-over announcer said: "Please ensure that all pagers and cell phones are turned off or set to silent mode at this time. If your phone should ring during the picture, we will immediately stop the film, you will be asked to stand, and the rest of the audience will be encouraged to pelt you with popcorn, chocolate covered raisins, and malted milk balls. Thank you for your cooperation." It worked. =Gary ------------------------------ Date: Tue, 27 Aug 2002 17:34:44 EDT From: Carl Moore Subject: Update on My Phone Service Leaving Cavalier In early July, I wrote that I learned I would have to switch phone service back to Verizon after having found my Maryland home phone lines dead. While the order for Verizon to take back those lines was pending, I was able to have Cavalier provide dial tone -- but got rebuffed when I asked for my call forwarding, because, so I am told, I was only being furnished "basic" service in that interim period, so I had to go without the call forwarding during that time. It was also up in the air about me being able to keep the same telephone numbers in going back to Verizon, because I was so late in contacting Verizon -- but I later received a letter from Cavalier (providing a Newark, Del. address I had never seen before) which said that, because of incorrect address information in their file, I never received letters that were sent in May and June to affected Cavalier customers (Maryland exchanges of Aberdeen, Churchville, Havre de Grace, Bel Air, Elkton, North East, Easton, and Ocean City -- all but the last 2 are in Harford and Cecil Counties in northeastern Maryland). (Huh? I got my bills OK in a PO box, and they'd have to know my street address because they were providing local dial tone.) As the new deadline for me changing local dial tone got closer, I sent a hard copy of the above-mentioned letter to someone in Verizon, and even though I am up in northeastern Maryland, I had to mail it to Roanoke, Virginia, way down I-81 from Hagerstown in western Maryland. The change back to Verizon was done August 9, and I do indeed have the same telephone numbers. The immediate problem was providing my local dial tone, but I have also written to the FCC because in going back to Verizon, I had to give up the extended local calling into northern Delaware (notice that is across a state line). There were some old cases where people did not want to change because of disruption of calling areas: 1. a little area called Galestown, Maryland was using phone numbers in the Seaford, Delaware exchange in mid 1970s, and the "correct" situation would have been to go onto the Federalsburg (MD) exchange, which had no local service to Delaware. 2. some eyebrows were raised in the setting up of LATAs w/r to Calvert County, Maryland, because I think that went to the Baltimore LATA but there is 301-855 prefix in northern part of that county which furnishes Washington metro local service. There was a comment in this digest about not disrupting existing calling area. ------------------------------ From: al503141@my-deja.com (Adrian) Subject: Instant Messaging Over the Phone?? Date: 28 Aug 2002 13:53:15 -0700 Organization: http://groups.google.com/ Hi, I was wondering if theres an aplication (Computer Telephone Integration-Platform) where I can "see" people online?? For example having a computer logged with my MSN Messanger account, with a voice board with text and speech capabilites, and have or develop a program which can interface with the MSN, so that when I dial to the computer, can tell who is online. It would be great to have this on my sales team. Please advice if there such software and computer. Thanks!! ------------------------------ TELECOM Digest is an electronic journal devoted mostly but not exclusively to telecommunications topics. It is circulated anywhere there is email, in addition to various telecom forums on a variety of networks such as Compuserve and America On Line, 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: 620-870-9697 Fax 1: 775-255-9970 Fax 2: 775-306-8390 Fax 3: 530-309-7234 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 second 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) Email <==> FTP: telecom-archives@telecom-digest.org Send a simple, one line note to that automated address for a help file on how to use the automatic retrieval system for archives files. You can get desired files in email. ************************************************************************* * 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. Access to Premium (P) links requires upgrade to a paid subscription. One click a day feeds a person a meal. Go to http://www.thehungersite.com Only subscribers or registered users of ICB Toll Free News web site will be able to access all or some of the full text of URLs provided. LEGAL STUFF: TELECOM Digest (sm) is owned by Patrick Townson. Copyright 2000 ICB, Inc. and TELECOM Digest. All rights reserved. Our attorney is Bill Levant, of Blue Bell, PA. --------------------------------------------------------------- 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 twenty 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 V22 #12 ***************************** From editor@telecom-digest.org Thu Aug 29 01:16:23 2002 Received: from localhost (localhost [[UNIX: localhost]]) by massis.lcs.mit.edu (8.11.3nb1/8.11.3) id g7T5GNE24144; Thu, 29 Aug 2002 01:16:23 -0400 (EDT) Date: Thu, 29 Aug 2002 01:16:23 -0400 (EDT) From: editor@telecom-digest.org Message-Id: <200208290516.g7T5GNE24144@massis.lcs.mit.edu> X-Authentication-Warning: massis.lcs.mit.edu: ptownson set sender to editor@telecom-digest.org using -f To: ptownson Approved: patsnewlist Subject: TELECOM Digest V22 #13 TELECOM Digest Thu, 29 Aug 2002 01:16:00 EDT Volume 22 : Issue 13 Inside This Issue: Editor: Patrick A. Townson Ring Back and Say-Number Dial Codes (John Stahl) Map of Coverage/Availability of DSL, Cable, etc (Dave Brenan) Re: Banning Cell Phone Use in Theaters (John Higdon) Transmission Time Vs. Propagation Time (Juan Pardillos) Re: MCI Worldcom's 555 Pic Code: Arbitrary Rates Over $3 (Frank) Pay Phoner Data Base (Stuart Jeffery) Cell/Mobile Phone Jamming Devices - Legal in UK? (shiprath henethe) Re: Old BT Jackplug Standards (Paul Coxwell) Re: Hello, Pat! Really Basic Question (Gerry Belanger) Illinois LATA and Exchange (Paul Cook) Re: So You've Got Your HDTV. Now What's There to See? (Rob Levandowski) Telecom IT Resources Needed! (Jim Chang) Japanese Phones Vulnerable to Hackers? (Walter Dnes) News Headlines of Interest 8/29/02 (Monty Solomon) Advanced Communications Tech Announces Court Decision (info) 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. WE DO NOT PERMIT NAME/EMAIL ADDRESS HARVESTING FROM THIS JOURNAL. 'SALTED' EMAIL ADDRESSES APPEAR HEREIN TO VERIFY THIS. YOU GET SUED IN SMALL CLAIMS COURT IF YOU GET CAUGHT SPAMMING OR SENDING VIRUSES. DON'T DO IT. See the bottom of this issue for subscription and archive details and the name of our lawyer; other stuff of interest. ---------------------------------------------------------------------- Date: Tue, 27 Aug 2002 13:48:36 -0400 From: John Stahl Subject: Ring Back and Say-Number Dial Codes It seems to me that there are a couple of codes which would information about a telco line with some sort of a dial code to "access" the function. Have several lines which are not identified but are "alive" (with dial-tone) through a LEC which I'm trying to identify the particular phone number. Are there specific codes or generalized dial codes which I can dial on the line with a butt-set to get it to ring back and announce the particular line's phone number? Most of the applications are within Verizon territory. Thanks, John Stahl Telecom/Data Consultant Aljon Enterprises ------------------------------ From: davebrennan1975@hotmail.com (Dave Brenan) Subject: Map of Coverage/Availability of DSL, Cable, etc Date: 27 Aug 2002 11:23:14 -0700 Organization: http://groups.google.com/ I'm trying to find a graphic for the growth of high speed Internet access. I recall seeing an article in PC magazine or something similar that had past, current, and projected US coverage of high bandwidth connections. Anyone familar with something like this? I've searched DSL-reports and other sites, but can't find anything. Any help would be most appreciated. Thanks. ------------------------------ Date: Tue, 27 Aug 2002 14:10:47 -0700 Subject: Re: Banning Cell Phone Use in Theaters From: John Higdon Organization: Green Hills and Cows In article telecom22.11.5@telecom-digest.org, Barry Margolin wrote: > Communications technology has indeed allowed many cost savings, by > replacing on-site staff with on-call staff. But it's possible to > solve these problems without pagers and cellphones, since there was a > time before they were ubiquitous and society managed to survive. We used to "get by" without telephones, automobiles, computers, and an endless list of modern conveniences. We can do many things now that we could not afford to do in days gone by. > Personally, I don't have a problem with cellphones being used for > emergency uses. The ones that are causing all the furor are people > using them for frivolous, personal use in inappropriate places. If > they weren't so inconsiderate, the ones who really need their > cellphones wouldn't be seen as guilty by association. But that is a problem with your own attitude and perception, not with those who use the technology considerately. I won't even go down the road of who might "need" the technology and who might be using it for "frivolous" purposes. As our moderator knows, nearly ten years ago I was two thousand miles from home when an FCC inspector showed up at one of my client's locations back home ... demanding to be accommodated with technical information that only I could supply. I was reached transparently in Chicago where the matter was handled neatly and cleanly. And ... my client got to keep his license. When one group of people starts presuming the needs and necessities of another group of people and makes pronouncements with the force of law, the criteria had better be something more substantial than a matter of trivial annoyance or irritation. "Cellphone envy" is not sufficient justification to ban any technology anywhere. -- John Higdon | Email Address Valid | SF: +1 415 428-COWS +1 408 264 4115 | Anytown, USA | FAX: +1 408 264 4407 ------------------------------ From: sicotom@eresmas.com (Juan Pardillos) Subject: Transmission time Vs. Propagation Time Date: 27 Aug 2002 15:48:40 -0700 Organization: http://groups.google.com/ Hi, I'd like to know which is the difference between the propagation time and the transmission time. Is the transmission time the parameter to consider or they both are important?. I've read somewhere that the propagation time is the time of transmission of 1 bit, but I think this definition is wrong and there is something more complicated. Please, sorry for this simple question, but some web pages I've read don't clarify this question. Thanks in advance. ------------------------------ From: coolwebgeek@yahoo.com (Frank) Subject: Re: MCI Worldcom's 555 Pic Code: Arbitrary Rates Over $3 per Minute Date: 27 Aug 2002 21:39:37 -0700 Organization: http://groups.google.com/ Just in case anyone is interested in further poking around :) The actual phone company that showed up on my Pacific Bell bill was USBI. They said they were just billing for MCI Worldcom's reseller service because I was not tied to a 555 reseller. USBI's phone number is 1.888.478.8724 MCI Worldcom's wholesale service's number is 1.800.821.2001. This is the company that USBI was billing for. Have a great week, Frank. ------------------------------ Date: Tue, 27 Aug 2002 22:13:54 -0700 From: Stuart Jeffery Subject: Pay Phoner Data Base Reply-To: stu@seena.net Hi List, Does anyone know where I could find a current (or near current) national data base listing the location and operators of all public pay phones? It would have about 2.6 million listings. Thanks, Stu Jeffery ******************************************************** Stuart Jeffery Home Office +1 650 966 8199 1072 Seena Ave Home Fax +1 650 292 2296 Los Altos, CA 94024, USA Mobile +1 650 966 8199 ******************************************************** ------------------------------ From: shiphen@yahoo.com (shiprath henethe) Subject: Cell/Mobile Phone Jamming Devices - Legal In UK? Date: 28 Aug 2002 06:53:55 -0700 Organization: http://groups.google.com/ Hi, Anyone know if it is legal in the UK to "jam" someone else's mobile phone? If so do such devices exist, what do they cost and where can I buy one. I am *sick to death* of people having long, loud personal conversations on public transport ! With thanks, Shiperton Henethe ------------------------------ From: PaulCoxwell@aol.com Date: Tue, 27 Aug 2002 18:25:18 EDT Subject: Re: Old BT Jackplug Standards > I've inherited an old, rotary dial pulse phone that I'd like to get > working in the UK. At the moment the end of the cable has a jackplug > that's approx 1/4 inch in diameter, with 4 bands across it. It's > about the same dimensions as an audio 1/4 jack. I'd like to cut this > off and crimp on a UK standard phone jack. Does anyone know what > these old connectors are called, and have the pin-outs for them so I > can adapt it, or know of an existing adaptor? Ric, To adapt a phone wired on the old system to the new-style jacks you'll also have to make some simple wiring changes inside the phone itself. Are we talking about a 700-series phone here, or something older? Paul ------------------------------ From: glb0802@cognitronics.com (Gerry Belanger) Subject: Re: Hello, Pat! Really Basic Question Date: Wed, 28 Aug 2002 16:29:40 GMT Organization: none In article , John Stahl wrote: > In fact ETC even makes recorded announcements for their (only) > competitor's (Cognitronics) systems and a bunch of other's announcers > for commercial establishments with Jane's voice. As a long time engineer for Cognitronics, I can not let this pass without clarification. Cognitronics has never knowingly used an ETC sourced announcement in it's equipment. That said, we (unlike some of our competitors) do provide our telco customers the ability to record and add their own announcements. They can do it themselves, or purchase them from outside vendors such as ETC. In some cases, certain customers have supplied us with their own recordings, in which case we would have no knowledge of the source. The majority of our systems for the past 25+ years have used the professional voice of the same (not Jane) recording artist. Our equipment (and our voice (not Jane)) is used on most of the GTD-5, EWSD, DCO, and DMS-10 switches out there. They are also used with 5Es, and DMS switches by various ILECs and CLECs. Gerry Belanger, Senior Engineer, Cognitronics. (The above e-mail address is valid and will last until spammed). ------------------------------ Reply-To: Paul Cook From: Paul Cook Subject: Illinois LATA and Exchange Date: Wed, 28 Aug 2002 14:37:06 -0700 Organization: Proctor & Associates, Inc. Does anyone know where I can find detailed maps showing LATA (MSA) and exchange area boundaries for the state of Illinois? I haven't found anything on the Illinois Commerce Commission web site. I did find an interesting map on the web, but I can't really read it: http://www.crosstelco.com/longdistance.htm Paul Cook - Applications Engineer pcook@proctorinc.com 425-881-7000, ext 566 Proctor & Associates 15305 NE 95 St Redmond WA 98052-2517 www.proctorinc.com ------------------------------ From: Rob Levandowski Subject: Re: So You've Got Your HDTV. Now What's There to See? Date: Wed, 28 Aug 2002 18:16:07 -0400 Organization: MacWhiz Technologies In article , Steve Elias wrote: > I won't bother to list all of my favorite tv shows since surely you > would/could/should deride them. To each his own taste ... there are > many nights when I find that both a commercial DTV station and > PBS are broadcasting something interesting at the same time. > imho, there is *plenty* of decent free content. ... and if you want exceptional TV programming, check with your cable company or satellite provider to see if you can get HBO HD or Showtime HD. Here in Rochester, New York, the local Time Warner affiliate very quietly rolled out HDTV capability. I can now get those two channels via digital cable in 1080i. (No local broadcast stations are available in HDTV yet here.) I'm a science fiction fan. One of the best shows out there right now is "Odyssey 5," on Showtime. This show is shot in 1080i, and it looks absolutely gorgeous. Trust me when I say, if I could show you this program with two TVs -- one connected to analog cable watching the 480i version, one connected to the 1080i hi-def version -- you would instantly see the value in HDTV and lust after it. I bought a "transitional" set, a Sony XBR WEGA. It has a 32" 4:3 CRT, but it is capable of reducing its vertical scan to show 1080i in a 16:9 mode. (That is, it presents what looks like a letterboxed image without any loss of resolution from the black bars.) Watching "Odyssey 5," the image is incredible. You can see individual hairs standing off the actors' heads ... a subtle thing, but it makes you realize just how fuzzy NTSC really is. The color is bold and vibrant and capable of great subtlety, just like a DVD. The 5.1 sound is incredible (well, except that the Scientific-Atlanta 3100HD cable box apparently has a firmware bug that causes occasional dropouts of the 5.1 sound). There are other good shows on pay cable that are in hi-def or pseudo-hi-def. For example, "Jeremiah," the excellent new show by the creator of Babylon 5, is not filmed in hi-def. It is, however, shot in 16:9 with 5.1 sound. So, the image clarity isn't as good as a true 1080i show... but, being 480i 16:9 upconverted to 1080i, and processed as component color, it's still as good as any anamorphic DVD. Note the implication: HDTV content looks noticeably better than an anamorphic DVD, even with line doubling. Rob Levandowski robl@macwhiz.com ------------------------------ From: jade_inc@yahoo.com (Jim Chang) Subject: Telecom IT Resources Needed! Date: 28 Aug 2002 20:26:35 -0700 Organization: http://groups.google.com/ Dear All, I am a newbie to the IT integration in the telecom industry. I desperately need resources for telecom IT resources in any format, e.g. books, journal, Web links and other possibilities. I need these for my new job on integration of CRM, provisioning and order capturing system. Thanks ! Jim ------------------------------ From: Walter Dnes Subject: Japanese Phones Vulnerable to Hackers? Date: 29 Aug 2002 04:29:58 GMT Reply-To: waltdnes@waltdnes.org On Mon, 26 Aug 2002 13:05:48 -0400, monty solomon, wrote: > Cell phone users in Japan have already had to contend with spam and > technical glitches, but that may seem like a breeze when hackers > finally turn their attention to the wireless world. So far, no > serious virus attacks have been reported in Japan -- or anywhere > else -- but tech security companies say cell phones could become > targets as they turn into sophisticated, high-tech devices like PCs, > allowing people to send e-mail, surf the Internet and shop online. > http://news.com.com/2100-1033-955294.html Which begs the obvious question, why the bleep does every cellphone have to be a computer with an OS ? Nobody's going to "hack" my home phone, because there's nothing to break into. Walter Dnes I'm not repeating myself; I'm an X Window user, I'm an ex-Windows user Palladium ain't done till linux won't run ------------------------------ Date: Tue, 27 Aug 2002 17:07:32 -0400 From: Monty Solomon Subject: News Headlines of Interest 8/29/02 The Official AVS HDTV Programming Synopsis - Fall 2002! http://www.avsforum.com/avs-vb/showthread.php?s=&threadid=164671 Sun Microsystems Works With Sprint to Power Enhanced Third Generation Network And PCS Vision(SM) Services SANTA CLARA, Calif. and OVERLAND PARK, Kan., Aug. 26 /PRNewswire-FirstCall/ -- Sun Microsystems, Inc. (NASDAQ:SUNW) today announced that Sun products and technologies provide valuable infrastructure and service delivery technology for Sprint's PCS Vision(SM) -- the company's revolutionary Third Generation (3G) wireless products and services -- and the upgraded 3G 1X wireless network -- that recently debuted nationwide. Sprint, a pioneer in communications network technologies, and Sun Microsystems, an innovator of Internet systems and software, are delivering the first nationwide convergence of Internet services, wireless data and voice to consumers and business people. Both companies share the common vision that next generation services must be based on open standards that support rapid innovation and faster time to market. This initiative builds on the existing alliance between Sprint and Sun to deliver integrated customer solutions. Working end-to-end from the backend server system to the mobile handset, Sun's technologies, including Sun(TM)ONE software, Java(TM) technology and Sun servers, give Sprint a scalable, secure standards-based platform for the delivery of interactive wireless data services to Sprint's more than 15 million wireless customers. http://finance.lycos.com/home/news/story.asp?story=28445418 DoubleClick agrees to privacy rules Pays $450,000 to avoid a probe By Associated Press, 8/27/2002 NEW YORK - In order to ward off an investigation into its privacy practices, online ad provider DoubleClick Inc. agreed yesterday to adhere to stiff restrictions - and to pay a $450,000 settlement. The 30-month investigation, by attorneys general from 10 states, including Massachusetts, peered into DoubleClick's practices of gathering Web users' personal information and surfing habits. The New York City-based company, which sells its services to advertisers and major Internet sites, deposited unique 'cookie' files on a user's computer that tracked the machine's online travels, allowing the company to display Web ads tailored to a person's shopping and surfing preferences. Under the settlement, DoubleClick will adopt privacy-related restrictions that include giving consumers access to their online profiles, verifying its compliance with the agreement, and paying $450,000 for states' investigative costs and consumer education. http://www.boston.com/dailyglobe2/239/business/DoubleClick_agrees_to_privacy_rules+.shtml Appeals Court Overturns Own Web Site Ruling By Bob Egelko August 28, 2002 A lawyer for online privacy-rights group the Electronic Frontier Foundation said a certain amount of inconvenience for police is often the price of protecting privacy. Heeding prosecutors' pleas, the federal appeals court in San Francisco has overturned its own ruling that would have made it much harder to peek at private Web sites. The unusual reversal by the Ninth U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals came after federal and state prosecutors warned that the ruling would hamper investigations of child molesters who recruit victims online. In its earlier ruling, the court said an airline's furtive entry into a pilot's personal Web site, where criticism of the company was collected, was a possible violation of the federal wiretap law. The 1986 version of that law prohibits any unauthorized interception of an electronic communication. http://www.newsfactor.com/perl/story/19210.html Missed phone connections By Robert Kuttner, 8/28/2002 OUR LONG-DISTANCE telephone service stopped functioning yesterday. For the magazine I edit, it was a pretty big inconvenience. For several hours we pooled cellphones. My first call was to our bookkeeper. Were we current on our bills? We were. My second call was to Qwest, the offending long-distance company. Its lines were jammed. A company spokeswoman said she didn't know how many customers had lost service, but Qwest's own filing with the Federal Communications Commission yesterday, as required by law, indicated that 500,000 calls per hour didn't get through. http://www.boston.com/dailyglobe2/240/oped/Missed_phone_connections+.shtml ------------------------------ From: Eworldwire Subject: Advanced Communications Technologies Announces Court Decision Date: Tue, 27 Aug 2002 8:13:2 -0400 ATTN: TELECOMM, TECHNOLOGY AND BUSINESS EDITORS AND WRITERS Advanced Communications Technologies, Inc. (OTCBB:ADVC) Announces Favorable Court Decision in Litigation Against ACT-Australia and Roger May New York, NY/EWORLDWIRE/August 27, 2002 --- Advanced Communications Technologies, Inc. (OTCBB:ADVC) ("ACT" or the "Company") announces that on Friday, August 23, 2002, the Supreme Court of Victoria at Melbourne, Australia handed down its rulings and order on the issues pending currently before the court in the litigation initiated by the Company in January against Advanced Communications Technologies (Australia) Pty Ltd ("ACT Australia") and Roger May (collectively, the "Defendants") regarding the Company's rights as a shareholder of ACT Australia and as ACT Australia's exclusive licensee for SpectruCell in North, Central and South America (the "Exclusive Territory").  Although ACT Australia is currently "in administration" (i.e., in a bankruptcy-type proceeding) in Australia under which all legal actions against ACT Australia are stayed by operation of law, the Company and ACT Australia stipulated that the court could render its decision on these important matters and the court agreed to do so. The main issues pending before the court were whether the existing injunctions which the Company had against the Defendants should be continued in effect until the trial of the case was held and, if extended, whether they should be expanded. The Company's existing temporary injunctions against the Defendants prohibited them from (i) taking any action to divest or transfer the Company's shares in ACT Australia; (ii) taking any action based on ACT Australia's purported termination of the Company's SpectruCell License Agreement; and (iii) taking any action to sell, supply or distribute SpectruCell in the Exclusive Territory. The Company requested the court to keep the existing injunctions in place pending trial on the merits and to expand them to (i) prohibit the Defendants from conducting any marketing activities as to SpectruCell (in addition to selling, supplying and distributing activities) in the Exclusive Territory which the Defendants maintained they had the right to do; and (ii) include within the definition of the "product" for purposes of the prohibited activities as to SpectruCell, the military applications of SpectruCell, which the Defendants had tried to exclude from the License Agreement. The court ruled in favor of the Company on all points. "We couldn't be more pleased with these rulings" said Wayne I. Danson, ACT's President and CFO." Danson continued, "This not only protects our ownership interest in ACT Australia, but safeguards the Company's exclusive rights under the License Agreement to market and distribute SpectruCell in both the commercial and military marketplaces in North, South and Central America. Under the court's ruling, even ACT-Australia is prohibited from marketing SpectruCell in the Exclusive Territory. We are confident that the currently unresolved issues that will enable SpectruCell to be brought to the marketplace will be resolved during the current administration process [of ACT Australia], versus a lengthy court trial". Randall H. Prouty, the Company's Chairman stated, "I am pleased that the court recognizes the importance of the Company's contractual rights and has ruled to protect them during the litigation process." Prouty concluded, "We appreciate the ongoing support from our Board of Directors, management and other ACT supporters, and look forward to sharing more good news with our shareholders in the weeks ahead". About Advanced Communications Technologies Inc. Advanced Communications Technologies Inc. ("ACT") holds the exclusive rights throughout the North, South and Central American markets to SpectruCell, a software-defined radio (SDR) multiple protocol wireless base station consisting of hardware and software that enables network providers to install a single base station and configure it to any or all protocols (GSM, CDMA, UMTS, W-CDMA, etc). SpectruCell has been, and other related products are being developed by, Advanced Communications Technologies (Australia) Pty Ltd, which the Company owns a 20% interest in. This release contains 'forward-looking statements' within the meaning of Section 27A of the Securities Act of 1933, as amended, and Section 21E of the Securities Act of 1934. Although the Company believes that the expectations reflected in such statements are reasonable, no assurances can be given that they will prove correct. The Company remains exposed to risk factors that include the availability of financing, the outcome of litigation, the outcome of the bankruptcy filing of Advanced Communications Technologies (Australia) Pty Ltd, technical or equipment complications, the availability of qualified personnel, market competition, meeting time critical requirements and others. Statements made herein are not a guarantee of future corporate or stock performance. The Company does not update or revise its forward-looking statements even if it becomes clear projected results (expressed or implied) will not be realized. HTML: http://www.eworldwire.com/wr/082702/advancedcommtech.htm ONLINE NEWSROOM: http://www.eworldwire.com/profile/advancedcommtech.htm LOGO: http://www.eworldwire.com/profile/advancedcommtech.htm CONTACT: Wayne Danson President and CFO Advanced Communications Technologies, Inc. 420 Lexington Avenue New York, NY 10170 PHONE: 310.416.1270 URL: http://www.actadvc.com Copyright 2002 Eworldwire, All rights reserved. Press Relase Distribution By EWORLDWIRE http://www.eworldwire.com (973)252-6800. For Media Questions: http://www.eworldwire.com/forthemedia.htm ------------------------------ TELECOM Digest is an electronic journal devoted mostly but not exclusively to telecommunications topics. It is circulated anywhere there is email, in addition to various telecom forums on a variety of networks such as Compuserve and America On Line, 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: 620-870-9697 Fax 1: 775-255-9970 Fax 2: 775-306-8390 Fax 3: 530-309-7234 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 second 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) Email <==> FTP: telecom-archives@telecom-digest.org Send a simple, one line note to that automated address for a help file on how to use the automatic retrieval system for archives files. You can get desired files in email. ************************************************************************* * 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. Access to Premium (P) links requires upgrade to a paid subscription. One click a day feeds a person a meal. Go to http://www.thehungersite.com Only subscribers or registered users of ICB Toll Free News web site will be able to access all or some of the full text of URLs provided. LEGAL STUFF: TELECOM Digest (sm) is owned by Patrick Townson. Copyright 2000 ICB, Inc. and TELECOM Digest. All rights reserved. Our attorney is Bill Levant, of Blue Bell, PA. --------------------------------------------------------------- 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 twenty 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 V22 #13 ***************************** From editor@telecom-digest.org Thu Aug 29 13:39:28 2002 Received: from localhost (localhost [[UNIX: localhost]]) by massis.lcs.mit.edu (8.11.3nb1/8.11.3) id g7THdSb29152; Thu, 29 Aug 2002 13:39:28 -0400 (EDT) Date: Thu, 29 Aug 2002 13:39:28 -0400 (EDT) From: editor@telecom-digest.org Message-Id: <200208291739.g7THdSb29152@massis.lcs.mit.edu> X-Authentication-Warning: massis.lcs.mit.edu: ptownson set sender to editor@telecom-digest.org using -f To: ptownson Approved: patsnewlist Subject: TELECOM Digest V22 #14 TELECOM Digest Thu, 29 Aug 2002 13:39:00 EDT Volume 22 : Issue 14 Inside This Issue: Editor: Patrick A. Townson Re: No-Dial-Tone on HP Fax (w_tom) Re: Illinois LATA and Exchange (James Bellaire) Re: Old BT Jackplug Standards (ken) Re: Banning Cell Phone Use in Theaters (Barry Margolin) Re: Cell/Mobile Phone Jamming Devices - Legal In UK? (Paul Coxwell) Re: Cell/Mobile Phone Jamming Devices (Alan Burkitt-Gray) Re: Cell/Mobile Phone Jamming Devices - Legal In UK? (David B. Horvath) Re: Cell/Mobile Phone Jamming Devices - Legal In UK? (Mike Hartley) Fine For Text Message Spam (Alan Burkitt-Gray) Good 2-Line Phone Jack, But Answer Machine Won't Pick Up (Mike Sweeden) Re: Instant Messaging Over the Phone?? (Jeremy Lee) Re: Transmission time Vs. Propagation Time (Justin Time) Re: 1010/800 # Dialing With no LD Carrier? (David L) Re: Ring Back and Say-Number Dial Codes (David) 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. WE DO NOT PERMIT NAME/EMAIL ADDRESS HARVESTING FROM THIS JOURNAL. 'SALTED' EMAIL ADDRESSES APPEAR HEREIN TO VERIFY THIS. YOU GET SUED IN SMALL CLAIMS COURT IF YOU GET CAUGHT SPAMMING OR SENDING VIRUSES. DON'T DO IT. See the bottom of this issue for subscription and archive details and the name of our lawyer; other stuff of interest. ---------------------------------------------------------------------- From: w_tom Subject: Re: No-Dial-Tone on HP Fax Date: Thu, 29 Aug 2002 08:25:57 -0400 Organization: Posted via Supernews, http://www.supernews.com First, verify that both phone lines and electric lines share a common ground. This is required by code but is often overlooked by repair people since most phone line appliances have internal isolation (suggesting a poor design in that HP fax). This assumes the HP is properly connected via a three outlet where the safety ground connection does exist. NID contains a surge protector -- that epoxy block that looks like a terminal block but that is electrically connected at its bottom to the earth ground wire. Is that earth ground wire connected to the same ground rod that the AC electric connects to? Does AC electric connect to a nearby earth ground rod? The latter is a requirement of post 1990 National Electrical Code (NEC) and is typically essential to effective household surge protection. IOW upgrade your grounding anyway to eliminate grounding as a reason for HP failure AND to address both human safety and transistors safety issues created by insufficient grounding. Second, eliminate household wiring as a reason for failure. Connect the HP directly to the NID, with all other household wiring disconnected at the NID. Yes, other phone line equipment has caused failure. Replacement of the NID is not necessary. The NID is still being used in an analog function - POTS. You are not using xDSL or ISDN, and therefore don't have NID problems - if the NID is properly earthed. Jeffrey L. Hook wrote: > I hope you can help. Thanks in advance for whatever explanation you > can offer for this apparent fax machine malfunction, and for whatever > recommendation you can give for a suitable replacement fax machine > which might not be susceptible to this problem. (The HP was already > returned to the retailer.) I've suspected, for example, that the > entire line of HP faxes might be equipped with Line Interface Units > which might be less than 100% reliable. > PROBLEM: > A recently-purchased Hewlett-Packard "hp fax 1020" was unable to > obtain a dial tone at either of the two phone lines which are in > service at this house. The HP machine was plugged in here at a > single-socket baseboard jack. A simple table telephone (with no > special features at all; just voice communication) had been able to > reach both of the phone lines which are in service here, before the HP > unit's modular phone cable was plugged into the same phone jack, and > subsequently. The table phone reached the first line directly at the > jack, and it reached the second line by use of a splitter in that > modular jack's single socket. > INCONSISTENCY OF MALFUNCTION: > The "kicker" in this case is the HP unit's normal performance > elsewhere. When no dial tone could be obtained here, the unit was > taken to another address nearby, where it performed well. It obtained > a dial tone and its integral phone worked as it should have worked > here. In fact, a call was completed on that phone from that separate > location to here. The unit was brought back here and it again failed > to obtain a dial tone. It was returned to the retailer, Staples, where > it was tested, and where its integral telephone again obtained a dial > tone and performed normally. It was brought back here and it failed > again to obtain a dial tone. It was *never* able to obtain a dial > tone here. Upon its final return to Staples for a refund its integral > telephone again functioned as it should have functioned here. > SYMPTOMS OF MALFUNCTION: > For all tests of the HP unit's telephone, the unit's power cord was > plugged in to the house current at a wall electrical outlet, its > modular two-lead phone cable was plugged in to the fully-operative > baseboard phone jack, and its telephone handset was picked up to > listen for a dial tone. (Yes, the other ends of the unit's power and > phone cables *were* correctly connected to the unit...): > On this house's first line (which is used primarily for voice > communication), there was only an irregular clicking, with a very > faint background hiss. The clicking sounded as if someone was > depressing and releasing the switch hook of a phone, rapidly, in a > random sequence. That persisted for far less than a minute, and then > only the faint hissing continued. The HP fax was intended for use on > that first line. > QUESTIONS: > 1. Can anyone explain this strange and inconsistent malfunction? How > could a machine readily obtain a dial tone at two other locations, but > not here, particularly when the phone wiring here checked out well? ------------------------------ Date: Thu, 29 Aug 2002 00:52:13 -0500 From: James Bellaire Subject: Re: Illinois LATA and Exchange At 01:16 AM 8/29/2002 -0400, Paul Cook wrote: > Does anyone know where I can find detailed maps showing LATA > (MSA) and exchange area boundaries for the state of Illinois? Geographic Data Technology Lebanon, NH 800-331-7881 www.geographic.com They sell datasets of each state that outlines exchanges and LATAs. James ------------------------------ From: ken Subject: Re: Old BT Jackplug Standards Date: Thu, 29 Aug 2002 10:07:33 +0100 Organization: ntlworld News Service ric wrote in message news:telecom22.11.12@telecom-digest.org: > I've inherited an old, rotary dial pulse phone that I'd like to get > working in the UK. At the moment the end of the cable has a jackplug > that's approx 1/4 inch in diameter, with 4 bands across it. It's > about the same dimensions as an audio 1/4 jack. I'd like to cut this > off and crimp on a UK standard phone jack. Does anyone know what > these old connectors are called, and have the pin-outs for them so I > can adapt it, or know of an existing adaptor? Sounds like a plug no.505 - for 5-way connection This site gives information on converting a number of instruments to the modern 431/631 plug: http://web.ukonline.co.uk/freshwater/pstconv1.htm You may need to search the site's telephone list to identify the model. You should obtain a new line cord with spade terminals (assuming the phone has screw terminals inside), rather than attempting to crimp the old cord. You will probably need to re-wire the terminals inside. ------------------------------ From: Barry Margolin Subject: Re: Banning Cell Phone Use in Theaters Organization: Genuity, Woburn, MA Date: Thu, 29 Aug 2002 14:35:44 GMT In article , John Higdon wrote: > As our moderator knows, nearly ten years ago I was two thousand miles > from home when an FCC inspector showed up at one of my client's > locations back home ... demanding to be accommodated with technical > information that only I could supply. I was reached transparently in > Chicago where the matter was handled neatly and cleanly. And ... my > client got to keep his license. I guess it's good economics for you, making your clients totally dependent upon you. But it's really poor planning for them -- what if you'd gotten hit by a truck on that trip? If you didn't have a cellphone, you probably would have left the number of the hotel with an assistant, or on your answering machine message. I tried sending this by private mail, as my original version of the response didn't have the second paragraph about alternate ways of reaching people without cellphones, but the email address is *not* valid; there's no "amadeus.kome.com". Barry Margolin, barmar@genuity.net Genuity, Woburn, MA *** DON'T SEND TECHNICAL QUESTIONS DIRECTLY TO ME, post them to newsgroups. Please DON'T copy followups to me -- I'll assume it wasn't posted to the group. ------------------------------ From: PaulCoxwell@aol.com Date: Thu, 29 Aug 2002 05:36:13 EDT Subject: Re: Cell/Mobile Phone Jamming Devices - Legal In UK? > Anyone know if it is legal in the UK to "jam" someone else's mobile > phone? > If so do such devices exist, what do they cost and where can I buy > one. > I am *sick to death* of people having long, loud personal > conversations on public transport ! > With thanks, > Shiperton Henethe I understand your frustration only too well, but I'm afraid that the use of a jamming device in the U.K. would constitute unlicensed use of a transmitter and would therefore be illegal. Paul Coxwell Eccles-On-Sea, Norfolk U.K. ------------------------------ From: Alan Burkitt-Gray Subject: Re: Cell/Mobile Phone Jamming Devices Date: Thu, 29 Aug 2002 13:54:27 +0100 Shiperton/Shiprath Henethe wrote: > Anyone know if it is legal in the UK to "jam" someone else's mobile phone? I'm glad to say it's highly illegal to transmit a signal -- for jamming purposes or other reasons -- in any frequency. There are "class licences" issued by the regulator which allow you to use certain frequencies for certain stated purposes (from baby alarms to wireless LANs) without your own personal licence. But you certainly can't sit on a number 12 bus going down Fleet Street with your own jammer squirting out frequencies in the 900 and 1800 MHz mobile bands so that you block usage of phones for yards around. Perhaps you should get some ear muffs. That way, you won't just block out people talking on the phone but also to others who happen to be next to them -- or, for some reason, do you not object to those who are talking just as loudly to someone who happens to be there in the flesh? Alan Burkitt-Gray Editor, Global Telecoms Business Euromoney Institutional Investor plc, Nestor House, Playhouse Yard, London EC4V 5EX, UK tel +44 20 7779 8518 fax +44 20 7779 8492 e-mail aburkitt@euromoneyplc.com www.globaltelecomsbusiness.com ------------------------------ From: David B. Horvath, CCP Date: Thu, 29 Aug 2002 09:55:20 est Subject: Re: Cell/Mobile Phone Jamming Devices - Legal In UK? On 28 Aug 2002 06:53:55 -0700, shiphen@yahoo.com (shiprath henethe) posted: > I am *sick to death* of people having long, loud personal > conversations on public transport ! Shiperton, Do you want to also tape shut the mouths of people who have long, loud conversations with the people sitting next to them? Why do you think you have the right to micro-manage the behavior of others in a public space (where there is not the *expectation* of quiet -- like in a theater/theatre)? Note that there are places where there is the expectation of quiet -- in a movie theater for instance. That is a totally different issue than public transit. In most U.S. theaters (movie and stage), there are instructions for you to be quiet during the show. The owners of the theater have the right to remove you if you don't follow those instructions (or have you arrested for trespassing). There are no such instructions on public transit or in most public places. I'm not sure if your note was intended to be a troll! My response is not intended to be a flame or personal attack; I just want you to realize exactly what you are suggesting. Unfortunately, one of the inherent rights that people have is to be annoying. Even in the United States, we do not have the right to happiness or not being bothered by others -- we only have the right to pursue happiness and the liberty to move away from those we don't like. If hearing their personal information really annoys you, start commenting about it while they're on the phone. A few comments like "your prostate is bothering you? My (adult male relative/friend/coworker) had the same problem and the doctors had to rip it out, now he has a case ED that even viagra won't fix" or "I wouldn't buy stock X, you should buy (really bad but don't tell them) stock Y" or "hey you work for company X and you just did Y? I wonder what the regulators (or newspaper or stockholders or boss) or the appropriate equivalent will get them to speak quietly or even end the conversation until they can be private. I'll admit to using that technique when the conversation has been really disruptive (discussing a medical condition while I'm trying to eat for instance). My wife and I use a similar technique when parents don't control their kids in public (where the kids are bugging *us* -- typically by running around/into us in restaurants, airplanes, stores, etc.): we discuss sexual topics, without the use of profanity, at a voice level that both the kids and their absentee-parents hear it. Sex is one topic that parents don't want to discuss with or explain to their kids, so they get them away from us *quick*. We don't have to confront the kids or their parents; we've done nothing wrong since we don't yell or curse or even get graphic to the point of being obscene. David B. Horvath, CCP Consultant, Author, International Lecturer, Adjunct Professor Board Member: ICCP Educational Foundation, ICCP Test Council, and Philadelphia Association of Systems Administrators ------------------------------ From: mike.hartley@ntlworld.com Subject: Re: Cell/Mobile Phone Jamming Devices - Legal In UK? Date: Thu, 29 Aug 2002 11:36:06 +0000 > Anyone know if it is legal in the UK to "jam" someone else's mobile > phone? No. It's illegal to operate a phone jammer in the UK. > I am *sick to death* of people having long, loud personal > conversations on public transport ! I'm *even sicker* of listening to people whinging about cellphone use. Get a life, or write to one of the tabloids where your pathetic whining will be better received. Whilst I'm at it -- if there were 'bonds' used to control cellphone use in theatres, would a similar bond be applied to those people who cough loudly, belch, pass wind, whisper/talk to their neighbours, eat food from loudly crinkling packaging or obstruct my vision by having large hats / hairstyles? Thought not. A few signs, trailers on movies and a dose of common sense is all that's required. Rant over. Mike ------------------------------ From: Alan Burkitt-Gray Alan Subject: Fine For Text Message Spam Date: Thu, 29 Aug 2002 15:22:30 +0100 I thought this might cheer some of you up. Note that 350,000 pounds is equal to $77,427 at today's rates. Alan B-G Source: Media supplement of The Guardian, London, UK http://media.guardian.co.uk/newmedia/story/0,7496,782873,00.html Watchdog imposes record fine for mobile phone spam Owen Gibson Thursday August 29, 2002 A mobile phone company has been fined 350,000 pounds for bombarding mobile phone users with unwanted text messages. The problem of "spamming" has already reached epidemic proportions on the internet. Many users are finding their email systems are becoming clogged up with unsolicited special offers, "get rich quick" scams and pornography. The popularity of mobile phone text messaging has caused concern among regulators, who believe the medium is the next target for spammers. Moby Monkey, a company based in Leeds, was handed the record fine by the Independent Committee for the Supervision of Standards of Telephone Information Services. The company sent phone users misleading messages telling them they had won a 'mystery award'. To collect the prize -- a holiday discount voucher with a number of restrictions attached -- the 'winner' had to call a premium rate line costing 31.50 a minute, with each call lasting about four minutes. "We will not hesitate to take swift action against the small minority of service providers who think they can abuse public confidence and trust in text messaging in order to make money with no regard for consumers," said the Icstis director, George Kidd. "Our sanctions against Moby Monkey reflect the serious consumer harm caused by their service and its promotion, and will act as a warning to the industry," Mr Kidd added. Icstis said it had received more than 200 complaints about the messages including some from parents whose children, in some cases as young as 11, were targeted. Others complained they were sent the message repeatedly; one user received 40 messages in a day. Moby Monkey was fined 350,000 pounds and banned from sending the message again. Earlier this year, the same company was fined 36,000 for a similar offence. A spokesman for the company said Moby Monkey would appeal against the decision but refused to comment further. [end of clip] Alan Burkitt-Gray Editor, Global Telecoms Business Euromoney Institutional Investor plc, Nestor House, Playhouse Yard, = London EC4V 5EX, UK tel +44 20 7779 8518 fax +44 20 7779 8492 e-mail aburkitt@euromoneyplc.com www.globaltelecomsbusiness.com ------------------------------ From: Michael Sweeden Subject: Good Two-Line Phone Jack, But Answer Machine Won't Pick Up Organization: Giganews.Com - Premium News Outsourcing Date: Thu, 29 Aug 2002 14:54:08 GMT I have a client with a Partner phone system, 2 phone lines, and two 2-line jacks in the house wired to the phone lines before they go into the phone system. With a 2-line phone in either of the 2-line jacks they can make and answer calls on both lines with no problem, and both lines sound perfectly clear. However, on one jack, where they would LIKE the answering machine, the machine will not answer incoming calls. The answering machine works fine on the other jack. A second answering machine was tried with the same results. This is a puzzler to me, and any advice would be greatly appreciated. Thanks! [TELECOM Digest Editor's Note: Usually answering machines (unless they are specifically wired and intended for two line service) answer only on the 'first' line of any two-line system. Sometimes on two-line phone systems, if the user has a preference for having the 'first' line to ring at one station, and the 'second' line to be the preferred line at the other station, the installer will reverse the pairs, making the 'second' pair (of two pairs) go out to the phone on the 'first' pair. In other words, let's say the traditional wiring is in place, of red/green for pair one and yellow/black for pair two inbound from the central office. Normally at the house demarc or the terminal box in the home, the wires go straight through to the phone instruments with the same colors. But let's say pair one (the 'first line') has some special features on it, i.e. a special ringer, lights, a modem, etc. Those special features work on any phone attached to the 'first line'. The 'second line' does its thing but does not get the other features, or maybe gets features peculiar to that line only. Now along comes an answering machine which works on the 'first line' only, as most of them do. Examine the modular cord for the answering machine. Does it have only two tiny wires crimped on the plug, in the center rather than four? Well then it is for the 'first' (or only) line inbound. What you need to do in that case is 'trick' the answering machine into thinking it *is* on the 'first line' (or the desired line to be answered.) At the phone box check the wires out. *At that terminal box only* swap the *outbound (to the phone side)* wires with the other pair. In other words where the yellow/black pair is located (for outbound) lift them off and put the red/green wires there. Put the yellow/black wires where the red/green had been. In effect, from that terminal box ONLY, the 'first line' has become yellow/black. The phone should wind up working the same as always, but anything (such as answering machine) downstream from that point should consider itself to be on the 'first line'. In other words, the answering machine needs to be on the pair of wires which services that particular phone and its ringer. If the answering machine does not 'hear' the ringing (sense the voltage of the ringer, etc) then it is not gonna answer. Ah, but you say, if I swap the wires at some point locally (black/yellow) for (red/green) now I don't hear the audible ringing tone for (which- ever) line at all, or maybe the modem on that line/other line got messed up also. In that case you may need to install an entire new outlet box nearby with a tiny jumper between them. Make sure you come off of the 'proper' wires (red/green locally inbound) to the two center pins (pins two and three; the two middle pins) of the new box you installed. Now the line to be answered comes in from the central office to this NEW box you installed which actually works like a third extension for the answering machine only. We've answered this question in the past; maybe with a two line system the modem would not work, or the answering machine or some other device was not working. Just be certain with any single line device that the 'first' or 'second' or 'third' (blue/white wires) wires are connected to the device. ------------------------------ From: J3r3my L33 Subject: Re: Instant Messaging Over the Phone?? Date: Thu, 29 Aug 2002 11:28:58 -0400 Organization: University of Maryland, Baltimore County You can get AOL IM on T-Mobile using a GSM phone. Others online see you in their buddy list and you can send a message to retrieve who is on yours. Jeremy Adrian wrote in message news:telecom22.12.8@telecom-digest.org: > Hi, I was wondering if theres an aplication (Computer Telephone > Integration-Platform) where I can "see" people online?? > For example having a computer logged with my MSN Messanger account, > with a voice board with text and speech capabilites, and have or > develop a program which can interface with the MSN, so that when I > dial to the computer, can tell who is online. > It would be great to have this on my sales team. > Please advice if there such software and computer. > Thanks!! ------------------------------ From: a_user2000@yahoo.com (Justin Time) Subject: Re: Transmission time Vs. Propagation Time Date: 29 Aug 2002 06:13:24 -0700 Organization: http://groups.google.com/ sicotom@eresmas.com (Juan Pardillos) wrote in message news:: > I'd like to know which is the difference between the propagation time > and the transmission time. Is the transmission time the parameter to > consider or they both are important?. > I've read somewhere that the propagation time is the time of > transmission of 1 bit, but I think this definition is wrong and there > is something more complicated. > Please, sorry for this simple question, but some web pages I've read > don't clarify this question. Simply stated, propogation time is the amount of time it takes a signal to travel between the end points. Propogation time is always a constant factor of the speed of light and varies depending on the medium carrying the signal. ------------------------------ From: davidlind@my-deja.com (David L) Subject: Re: 1010/800 # Dialing With no LD Carrier? Date: 29 Aug 2002 06:08:04 -0700 Organization: http://groups.google.com/ davidlind@my-deja.com (David L) wrote in message news:: > Can someone tell me if 1010 dialarounds or 800 numbers can be dialed > from an ordinary telephone line with no LD carrier? Any info about > consistancy across carriers or other details would be appreciated. > Always thought that a LD carrier of NONE would only allow 1010 > dialarounds and no 800 number dialing. I'm researching this for > misc.consumers.frugal-living where others are reporting just the > opposite case. > Thanks, > David > DavNOLindiSPAM(at)hotmail(dot)com > [TELECOM Digest Editor's Note: YES, those calls can be made from > phones with 'none' as their carrier of choice. The reason is, in > the case of toll-free (or 800 numbers) the choice is being made > by the recipient of the call, who is the person paying for it. You > are not paying for the call; they are, so they choose the carrier > they wish to use. In the case of ten-tens, you should really not use > that phrase in the same sentence as 'frugal living'. Dial-arounds are > notoriously expensive to use. All you are doing is making your finger > work harder for the privilege of paying more for the call. If you want > to be 'frugal' then get a carrier, like IDT as one example, which > charges five cents per minute or less, has one-plus ability, or get > a cell phone with thousands of minutes 'free' each month and long- > distance calls included. Southwestern Bell (or SBC as it is called > now) gets between 4 cents and 7 cents per minute on long-distance, > depending if you don't mind paying $4.50 per month for the cheapest > rate. It more or less amortizes at 5 cents per minute if you use at > least 100 plus minutes of LD each month. PAT] Thanks Pat and all for the correction. So 800 numbers and Carrier Access Codes (1010 numbers) can be dialed from a NO PIC line. AND for some unexplained reason a number of folks have been reporting an inability to use (unspecified) carrier access codes. I know WorldXchange was banned from CA intrastate. That restriction appears to have ended. Perhaps not every carrier has been available in every state? As far as Carrier Access Codes a waste of money ... there may be certain limited calling patterns, including states with high instate rates or calls to international destinations where they may be viable alternatives. Personally, I use a flat 2.9 cent/minute, NO tax or other fee, local access number, calling card with a speed dial. ANI allows no PIN dialing. My total PIC LD bill is often under three dollars a month that includes toll free number at same $.06 minute. Also I use a cell phone with 1000 off peak +LD. Great ratesn, but there are two problems with the cell phone LD solution. I call from west to east. That means during weekdays it's two hours later in TN. Who cares about unlimited hours if no one is awake? Luckily, I have a grandfathered plan where offpeak starts at 7PM and can actually use the minutes during the week:) The other problem with cellular is the voice quality. CDMA cellular (Verizon) has its good days and bad days. Landline is much better and often worth the extra cost. Who cares about unlimited minutes if the calls sound crummy? Women (who seem to have exceptional hearing) do notice the difference. Ed Ellers wrote in message news:: > To add to what John said, keep in mind that if you select "no PIC" (as > it's known in the phone business) the local phone company will add a > monthly charge to make up for one of the FCC-required fees that your > long distance company would be required to pay on your behalf; when my > mother went this route, BellSouth (in Kentucky) charged 57 cents per > month for this. I believe those that may think they are saving money with a NO PIC, haven't been able to find or qualify for no monthly fee LD service. Lots of established carriers seem to be raising minimum rates. I'd imagine most consumers think ATT, Sprint or Worldcom (chocolate, strawberry or vanilla) when it comes to LD choice. IDT is at least offering some competition. I don't know how much of my $1.03 PICC line charges would go onto my local bill after dropping LD? The savings would be small, but the way my telecom bills fees seem to change around, it might be hard to see the exact amount saved. Any ideas the average savings for a NO PICC line? The point was to attempt some "theoretical" most frugal LD solutions, for minimal use, say by fixed income users. Thanks, David DavNOLindiSPAM(at)hotmail(dot)com ------------------------------ From: davidgoNOSPAM@excite.com (David) Subject: Re: Ring Back and Say-Number Dial Codes Organization: AT&T Broadband Date: Thu, 29 Aug 2002 15:56:05 GMT Other people will probably give you the same simple solution: Call your cell phone and look at the number. David On Tue, 27 Aug 2002 13:48:36 -0400, John Stahl wrote: > It seems to me that there are a couple of codes which would > information about a telco line with some sort of a dial code to > "access" the function. > Have several lines which are not identified but are "alive" (with > dial-tone) through a LEC which I'm trying to identify the particular > phone number. Are there specific codes or generalized dial codes which > I can dial on the line with a butt-set to get it to ring back and > announce the particular line's phone number? Most of the applications > are within Verizon territory. ------------------------------ TELECOM Digest is an electronic journal devoted mostly but not exclusively to telecommunications topics. It is circulated anywhere there is email, in addition to various telecom forums on a variety of networks such as Compuserve and America On Line, 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: 620-870-9697 Fax 1: 775-255-9970 Fax 2: 775-306-8390 Fax 3: 530-309-7234 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 second 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) Email <==> FTP: telecom-archives@telecom-digest.org Send a simple, one line note to that automated address for a help file on how to use the automatic retrieval system for archives files. You can get desired files in email. ************************************************************************* * 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. Access to Premium (P) links requires upgrade to a paid subscription. One click a day feeds a person a meal. Go to http://www.thehungersite.com Only subscribers or registered users of ICB Toll Free News web site will be able to access all or some of the full text of URLs provided. LEGAL STUFF: TELECOM Digest (sm) is owned by Patrick Townson. Copyright 2000 ICB, Inc. and TELECOM Digest. All rights reserved. Our attorney is Bill Levant, of Blue Bell, PA. --------------------------------------------------------------- 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 twenty 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 V22 #14 ***************************** From editor@telecom-digest.org Thu Aug 29 19:40:03 2002 Received: from localhost (localhost [[UNIX: localhost]]) by massis.lcs.mit.edu (8.11.3nb1/8.11.3) id g7TNe3K01859; Thu, 29 Aug 2002 19:40:03 -0400 (EDT) Date: Thu, 29 Aug 2002 19:40:03 -0400 (EDT) From: editor@telecom-digest.org Message-Id: <200208292340.g7TNe3K01859@massis.lcs.mit.edu> X-Authentication-Warning: massis.lcs.mit.edu: ptownson set sender to editor@telecom-digest.org using -f To: ptownson Approved: patsnewlist Subject: TELECOM Digest V22 #15 TELECOM Digest Thu, 29 Aug 2002 19:40:00 EDT Volume 22 : Issue 15 Inside This Issue: Editor: Patrick A. Townson Re: Banning Cell Phone Use in Theaters (Paul A Lee) Re: Banning Cell Phone Use in Theaters (John Stanle) Re: Banning Cell Phone Use in Theaters (John Higdon) Re: Cell/Mobile Phone Jamming Devices (Ed Ellers) Re: Cell/Mobile Phone Jamming Devices - Legal In UK? (John Higdon) Re: Cell/Mobile Phone Jamming Devices - Legal In UK? (Wes Leatherock) Re: Telephone Surge Suppressor (KimBrennan) Re: Transmission time Vs. Propagation Time (Daniel J. McDonald) Re: So You've Got Your HDTV. Now What's There to See? (KimBrennan) Converting Copper to Fiber From Telco (Karl Albrecht) 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. WE DO NOT PERMIT NAME/EMAIL ADDRESS HARVESTING FROM THIS JOURNAL. 'SALTED' EMAIL ADDRESSES APPEAR HEREIN TO VERIFY THIS. YOU GET SUED IN SMALL CLAIMS COURT IF YOU GET CAUGHT SPAMMING OR SENDING VIRUSES. DON'T DO IT. See the bottom of this issue for subscription and archive details and the name of our lawyer; other stuff of interest. ---------------------------------------------------------------------- From: Paul A Lee Subject: Re: Banning Cell Phone Use in Theaters Date: Thu, 29 Aug 2002 12:52:13 -0400 Paul Wallich wrote (in part): > When a cellphone or a pager goes off in a space for which people > have paid to obtain intermission, it's destroying the value for > which they have paid. The fact that the person who owns the > disrupting device is willing to have their own evening (or afternoon > or whatever) disrupted for an emergency (or non-emergency) call > doesn't necessarily give them the right to destroy value for which > hundreds or thousnds of people around them have paid. > If the > phones and pagers are all on "vibrate" there's no extra disruption I agree completely with the portions of Paul's reply I've quoted above. I believe that the responsible and polite thing to do is to have phones, pagers, alarms (on watches or PDAs), and other annunciator devices set to a silent or vibrate mode in any situation where it would not be appropriate, for example, to strike up a conversation. That includes places like theaters, houses of worship, courtrooms, and presentations, to name a few. Perhaps the problem with this concept is that there are a lot of people who would not think [deliberate choice of wording] anything of disrupting those situations with vocal comments or with gadget sounds. THAT is the problem to address: the behavior of misuse. What I've been objecting to is a myopic, technophobic, downright passive-aggressive approach of preemptively banning, disrupting, or disabling a class of devices as a purported solution for the self-important, thoughtless misuse of those devices by some people. That kind of "solution" is just as much an affront to polite society as the problem it seeks to address. Let me spell it out: 1. If you are entering a situation where it would be impolite or disruptive to strike up a conversation with another person in a normally audible voice, the device(s) get set to silent, vibrate mode -- no ringer, annunciator, or speaker. If it has no such mode, it gets switched to standby or off. 2. If the device alerts you, discreetly check the display to see if you must answer it. The best way to handle it is to check the calling party display and determine whether the call is urgent. If you can't determine that it is, wait for intermission to return it or check messages. 3. If it _is_ urgent, excuse yourself, much as you would if you needed to use the restroom or had a coughing spell, adjourn to the lobby or hallway, and return the call discreetly from an area where you won't disrupt others. 4. If it is an emergency call that you must answer immediately, do so only with a whispered "Hold on, I'm at the theater," as applicable. Excuse yourself as above, and wait until you reach the lobby to continue the conversation. A little common sense, reasoning, judgment, and empathy, here, people! Same goes for the other side of the argument. What is so unbearably antisocial about carrying on a phone conversation under circumstances where a face-to-face conversation would be perfectly acceptable? A lot of the protests I have heard against public cell phone usage don't seem reasonable. If a person sitting in a restaurant is having a civil conversation at a reasonable, discreet volume level, what difference should it make whether the other party to the conversation is present or at the other end of a wireless connection? Whatsa matter -- miffed because you're missing half the conversation? Ignoring others to carry on a phone conversation, taking frequent calls, loud ring tones, and unruly conversations are generally all impolite. I can't see the problem, though, with continuing a phone conversation (slightly subdued) while riding an elevator or a bus, just as you might do with the other person present. What objection could there be -- that half of the conversation can't be overheard? I say again: A little common sense, reasoning, judgment, and empathy. Where those are not evident, don't blame the behavior on the technology! And don't preemptively restrict my responsible use of technology, based on others' misuse of it! Paul A Lee Voice: +1 717 730-8355 Sr Telecom Engineer [Voice & Transmission] Fax: +1 717 975-3789 Rite Aid Corporation, Telecomm, 30 Hunter Lane, Camp Hill, PA 17011-2410 ------------------------------ From: stanley@peak.org (John Stanley) Subject: Re: Banning Cell Phone Use in Theaters Date: 29 Aug 2002 11:00:11 -0700 Organization: Public Electronic Access to Knowledge,Corvallis,US In article , Paul Wallich wrote: > I don't really see the point here. When a cellphone or a pager goes > off in a space for which people have paid to obtain intermission, it's > destroying the value for which they have paid. Get off your high horse. A phone ringing during a movie is hardly the end of the world. It doesn't "destroy" anything that hasn't already been destroyed by the continuous slurping chomping rattling talking noises that half a hundred annoying people are making all during the movie. You'd think from the way you talk that your life was ending just because someone else carries a cell phone. > evening (or afternoon or whatever) disrupted for an emergency (or > non-emergency) call doesn't necessarily give them the right to destroy > value for which hundreds or thousnds of people around them have > paid. So how come all those hundreds or "thousnds" of people have the right to destroy the "value" for which I've paid? Why the hell should they be able to say that I cannot get messages on my phone while I am paying the same money they are, if they have the right to yak chomp slurp rattle rattle whenever their little hearts please? The vibrator from my cell phone makes a lot less noise than they do. Do I have a right to demand that they have their mouths taped shut when they enter the theater on the off chance they might yak and destroy the value I've paid for? > Saying that it shouldn't come down to economics sounds a lot > like saying that your convenience is worth thousands of dollars of > other people's money. It is nothing like that. Go rant about something worthwhile. ------------------------------ Date: Thu, 29 Aug 2002 11:39:34 -0700 Subject: Re: Banning Cell Phone Use in Theaters From: John Higdon Organization: Green Hills and Cows In article telecom22.14.4@telecom-digest.org, Barry Margolin wrote: > I guess it's good economics for you, making your clients totally > dependent upon you. But it's really poor planning for them -- what if > you'd gotten hit by a truck on that trip? What an ignorant statement! If I could document everything I know, every talent that I possess, and every every conceivable course of action that could or should be taken in response to any of an infinite number of events, Then I could just hand my client a book or CDROM and my services would no longer be required at all, right? If I had been hit by a truck, they they would have had to find someone else. As it was, modern technology make it all very easy. (Isn't that what modern technology is supposed to do?) > If you didn't have a cellphone, you probably would have left the > number of the hotel with an assistant, or on your answering machine > message. Or if there were no telephones, I could have used the US Mail. What is your point? That we should draw a line in the sand as to what technology is important or necessary and use nothing else, regardless of progress? > the email address is *not* valid; there's no > "amadeus.kome.com". Nonsense. In article telecom22.12.5@telecom-digest.org, Paul Wallich wrote: > I don't really see the point here. When a cellphone or a pager goes > off in a space for which people have paid to obtain intermission, it's > destroying the value for which they have paid. It is annoying. It hardly "destroys" the value received from the performance. Hyperbole seems to figure prominently in these discussions. Nevertheless, the mere fact that some people are inconsiderate in their use of technology is hardly grounds to punish everyone indiscriminately and "destroy" the value of that technology. > Saying that it shouldn't come down to economics sounds a lot > like saying that your convenience is worth thousands of dollars of > other people's money. Isn't everything we do based on economics? Following that line, let's eliminate telecommunications and have all messages carried by courier. The person carrying the message could make an intelligent decision as to whether to disturb the recipient. This would have the advantage of eliminating junk faxes, junk phone calls, and many other modern-day maladies. It's just a matter of economics, no? > Just possibly there should be exceptions made for "real" emergencies > where there is an immediate risk of death or injury (just as you > wouldn't charge someone for disorderly conduct if they called out for > a doctor in a theatre where someone had just keeled over with a heart > attack). This would be analagous to the practice of charging people > who call out search-and-rescue teams in a non-emergency or in an > emergency caused by negligence. I see. Rather than deal simply with the minority of people who do not use the technology with consideration for others, you would turn the whole matter over on its ear, forcing everyone to justify ANY use of the technology? > If the phones and pagers are all on "vibrate" there's no extra > disruption and hence no bond to be paid, and meanwhile I would be more > likely to go out to various venues if I knew that having the crucial > moment ruined by someone else's phone call would result in a refund. You know, I attend movies, plays, concerts, etc., several times a week. I just don't see the crisis here. Out of hundreds of shows I have attended over the past couple of years, I think I have heard a cellphone ring maybe once. Folks have long since learned to use the vibrate mode on pagers, so it has been a long time since a pager has intruded into my entertainment space. It is just a matter of time before cellphone use matures into a non-issue disturbance-wise. In a year or two, all of this angst will appear very silly, indeed. John Higdon | Email Address Valid | SF: +1 415 428-COWS +1 408 264 4115 | Anytown, USA | FAX: +1 408 264 4407 ------------------------------ From: Ed Ellers Subject: Re: Cell/Mobile Phone Jamming Devices Date: Thu, 29 Aug 2002 16:44:45 -0400 David B. Horvath wrote: > Why do you think you have the right to micro-manage the behavior of > others in a public space (where there is not the *expectation* of > quiet -- like in a theater/theatre)? Excellent point. However ... > If hearing their personal information really annoys you, start > commenting about it while they're on the phone. A few comments like > "your prostate is bothering you? My (adult male relative/friend/ > coworker) had the same problem and the doctors had to rip it out, > now he has a case ED that even viagra won't fix" or "I wouldn't buy > stock X, you should buy (really bad but don't tell them) stock Y" or > "hey you work for company X and you just did Y? I wonder what the > regulators (or newspaper or stockholders or boss) or the appropriate > equivalent will get them to speak quietly or even end the > conversation until they can be private." This could also cost you a few teeth, or worse. ------------------------------ Date: Thu, 29 Aug 2002 12:16:18 -0700 Subject: Re: Cell/Mobile Phone Jamming Devices - Legal In UK? From: John Higdon Organization: Green Hills and Cows In article telecom22.13.7@telecom-digest.org, shiprath henethe wrote: > I am *sick to death* of people having long, loud personal > conversations on public transport ! Let's see ... people are sick to death of people using phones on the street, on public transit, in their cars, sitting on a park bench, in a restaurant, in any public gathering, in airport waiting areas, and even when standing in lines outside of theaters. The word "oversensitive" comes to mind. How about showing a little backbone and politely asking the person who is talking so loud to tone it down just a little? Do you get this indignant when two people on the train are conducting a "loud" conversation? Would you ask them to tone it down, or would you cut out their tongues? There is an interesting dynamic with cellphones. I was with someone recently who saw someone in a mall leaning up against the wall talking on the phone in an agitated manner and who could be plainly heard from some distance. "How rude", commented my companion. An invective against cellphones ensued ... until it was clearly observed that the person was, in fact, using a public phone that was mounted on the wall just around from where the person was standing. Instant end of commentary against cellphones. So it is OK if a person conducts a loud conversation on an ordinary, lowly payphone, but cellphones deserve special condemnation, apparently. John Higdon | Email Address Valid | SF: +1 415 428-COWS +1 408 264 4115 | Anytown, USA | FAX: +1 408 264 4407 ------------------------------ From: wesrock@aol.com (Wes Leatherock) Date: 29 Aug 2002 23:09:37 GMT Organization: AOL http://www.aol.com Subject: Re: Cell/Mobile Phone Jamming Devices - Legal In UK? On Thu, 29 Aug 2002 09:55:20 est David B. Horvath, CCP dhorvath@cobs.com wrote: > If hearing their personal information really annoys you, start > commenting about it while they're on the phone. A few comments like > "your prostate is bothering you? My (adult male relative/friend/coworker) > had the same problem and the doctors had to rip it out, now he has a > case ED that even viagra won't fix" My wife was walking down the hall of a shopping mall turned into offices today and passed a female wireless user talking about her period with some person at the other end. Wes Leatherock wesrock@aol.com wleathus@yahoo.com ------------------------------ From: kimbrennan@aol.comfrtz.com (KimBrennan) Date: 29 Aug 2002 17:44:24 GMT Organization: AOL http://www.aol.com Subject: Re: Telephone Surge Suppressor > So my rule of thumb has always been to keep phone surge suppression > and AC surge suppression strictly separate, for the most part leaving > the former entirely up to the telco, and I have never had occasion to > regret it. Can anyone else comment? I happen to have a place out in WV on top (or near the top) of a mountain. Both the telephone and power have to travel a fair amount of distance (more than two miles) to get from the road (common distribution point) to this house. Almost every year, lightning hits one of the little metal posts that are the junction boxes for the telephone system (junction between two runs of cable). It's almost always the same one, exposed in a field at the crest of a mountain. The power line hasn't been hit by lightning in my experience (though it has fluctuated a couple of times, the lines themselves have never needed servicing.) I put a simple protector on the telephone line after lightning coming through the line fried some of my electronics. The protector (designed for mobile users) was intended to check the polarity of the circuit, and prevent you damaging your expensive laptop from a digital circuit in some hotel room. However, it worked to protect my expensive electronic equipment when lightning again hit the telephone line. Fried the protector, but nothing else. I put another one on the telephone line. BTW, I know it was the telephone line that got the lightning hit; I followed the scortch marks from the telephone jack on my electronics across the circuit board. Later I went out with the telephone crew to the (slightly melted) telephone post in the field. They eventually had to replace about 1 mile of cable that had been zapped too many times and gave nothing but static. That was on the 4th of July, in 2001. "I'm sorry, all my money is tied up in currency." W.C.Fields ------------------------------ Subject: Re: Transmission time Vs. Propagation Time Organization: io.com From: djmcdona@io.com (Daniel J McDonald) Date: Thu, 29 Aug 2002 17:52:33 GMT In article , Juan Pardillos wrote: > I'd like to know which is the difference between the propagation time > and the transmission time. Is the transmission time the parameter to > consider or they both are important?. They are both important. There are actually three items to consider. 1. queuing delay - how long does a packet have to spend in various buffers before it has a turn to use the wire. 2. Serialization delay (I think that's what you mean by transmission time) - how long does it take to place the packet on the wire. For example, a 1500 byte packet takes 213ms to be encoded on a 56K circuit, but a little less than 8ms on a T1. 3. Propogation delay - how long does it take for the electrons/photons to show up at the other end of the connection so that receiving can start. Electrical signals move about 30cm per nanosecond, so if you are going across country you could burn up 13ms or so. > Please, sorry for this simple question, but some web pages I've read > don't clarify this question. Hopefully this helps. Daniel J McDonald CCIE # 2495, CNX Visit my website: http://www.austinnetworkdesign.com ------------------------------ From: kimbrennan@aol.comfrtz.com (KimBrennan) Date: 29 Aug 2002 17:58:29 GMT Organization: AOL http://www.aol.com Subject: Re: So You've Got Your HDTV. Now What's There to See? Ed Ellers caught me in a semantics disaster noting: > Nobody films anything in "HD" -- that's video, not film. Film, in my text meant the process of capturing the acting onto a storage media. A verb, not a noun. HD video ... in native mode, is stored on digital tape. The media is not consumer accessible. It is similar to the digital tape used in some consumer cam-corders. "I'm sorry, all my money is tied up in currency." W.C.Fields ------------------------------ From: karl.albrecht@eloan.com (Karl Albrecht) Subject: Converting Copper to Fiber From Telco Date: 29 Aug 2002 15:52:48 -0700 Organization: http://groups.google.com/ PacBell has offered us free conversion of our data/voice T1s from copper to fiber. We have an existing fiber connection for our T3 and this would have all of our T1s (that PacBell hosts) running on it. Is this a good idea?? Does this create a single point of failure with the fiber cabinet or line? Any advice would be greatly appreciated! Thank you, Karl Albrecht ------------------------------ TELECOM Digest is an electronic journal devoted mostly but not exclusively to telecommunications topics. It is circulated anywhere there is email, in addition to various telecom forums on a variety of networks such as Compuserve and America On Line, 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: 620-870-9697 Fax 1: 775-255-9970 Fax 2: 775-306-8390 Fax 3: 530-309-7234 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 second 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) Email <==> FTP: telecom-archives@telecom-digest.org Send a simple, one line note to that automated address for a help file on how to use the automatic retrieval system for archives files. You can get desired files in email. ************************************************************************* * 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. Access to Premium (P) links requires upgrade to a paid subscription. One click a day feeds a person a meal. Go to http://www.thehungersite.com Only subscribers or registered users of ICB Toll Free News web site will be able to access all or some of the full text of URLs provided. LEGAL STUFF: TELECOM Digest (sm) is owned by Patrick Townson. Copyright 2000 ICB, Inc. and TELECOM Digest. All rights reserved. Our attorney is Bill Levant, of Blue Bell, PA. --------------------------------------------------------------- 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 twenty 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 V22 #15 ***************************** From editor@telecom-digest.org Fri Aug 30 16:07:26 2002 Received: from localhost (localhost [[UNIX: localhost]]) by massis.lcs.mit.edu (8.11.3nb1/8.11.3) id g7UK7QA08183; Fri, 30 Aug 2002 16:07:26 -0400 (EDT) Date: Fri, 30 Aug 2002 16:07:26 -0400 (EDT) From: editor@telecom-digest.org Message-Id: <200208302007.g7UK7QA08183@massis.lcs.mit.edu> X-Authentication-Warning: massis.lcs.mit.edu: ptownson set sender to editor@telecom-digest.org using -f To: ptownson Approved: patsnewlist Subject: TELECOM Digest V22 #16 TELECOM Digest Fri, 30 Aug 2002 16:00:28 EDT Volume 22 : Issue 16 Inside This Issue: Editor: Patrick A. Townson Re: Fine For Text Message Spam (Mark Brader) Fine For Text Message Spam (Alan Burkitt-Gray) Re: Ring Back and Say-Number Dial Codes (Hank Fung) Re: Transmission time Vs. Propagation Time (No Spam) Re: AT&T Didn't Honor Their Rates (Dr. Joel M. Hoffman) Re: Caller ID Spoof? (Dr. Joel M. Hoffman) Re: Converting Copper to Fiber From Telco (Bill) Re: Converting Copper to Fiber From Telco (Brian Wohlgemuth) Re: Telecom IT Resources Needed! (Kevingr) Re: Converting Copper to Fiber From Telco (Marty Bose) Ring Back and Say-Number Dial Codes (Gary Novosielski) (H)DTV vs. NTSC (Mark J Cuccia) Re: Cell/Mobile Phone Jamming Devices (Ed Ellers) Re: No-Dial-Tone on HP Fax (Kenneth P. Stox) News Headlines of Interest 8/30/02 (Monty Solomon) Re: Cell/Mobile Phone Jamming Devices (shiprath henethe) Shareware Day Once Again (TELECOM Digest Editor) 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. WE DO NOT PERMIT NAME/EMAIL ADDRESS HARVESTING FROM THIS JOURNAL. 'SALTED' EMAIL ADDRESSES APPEAR HEREIN TO VERIFY THIS. YOU GET SUED IN SMALL CLAIMS COURT IF YOU GET CAUGHT SPAMMING OR SENDING VIRUSES. DON'T DO IT. See the bottom of this issue for subscription and archive details and the name of our lawyer; other stuff of interest. ---------------------------------------------------------------------- Date: Fri, 30 Aug 2002 12:16:14 EDT From: msb@vex.net (Mark Brader) Subject: Re: Fine For Text Message Spam Organization: TELECOM Digest > In my message yesterday about text-message spammers, the sign for British > pounds got screwed up in transmission and somehow affected the > numbers ... MIME encoding strikes again! See article in Risks Digits / comp.risks, which as I recall was based on an original article by Linc Madison here in Telecom Digest / comp.dcom.telecom. When I pointed the discrpancy out to Alan, I thought he'd carelessly slipped a factor of 10 in converting the numbers: 350,000 pounds isn't so far from $774,270 in *Canadian dollars*, so that looked right for me. But that wasn't the problem at all. Thanks for correcting it, Alan. Mark Brader, Toronto Don't put all your X in one window. msb@vex.net -- Peter Neumann ------------------------------ Date: Fri, 30 Aug 2002 10:20:01 +0100 From: Alan Burkitt-Gray Subject: Fine For Text Message Spam Organization: TELECOM Digest In my message yesterday about text-message spammers, the sign for British pounds got screwed up in transmission and somehow affected the numbers, as anyone who checks the original story will see. The actual fine was not 350,000 pounds but 50,000 pounds, which nevertheless I did convert accurately to $77,427. Alan B-G Alan Burkitt-Gray Editor, Global Telecoms Business Euromoney Institutional Investor plc, Nestor House, Playhouse Yard, London EC4V 5EX, UK tel +44 20 7779 8518 fax +44 20 7779 8492 e-mail aburkitt@euromoneyplc.com www.globaltelecomsbusiness.com [TELECOM Digest Editor's Note: That may, or may not have been your fault. My eight-bit to seven-bit translator may have let me down. You see, non-American symbols such as the British pound sign are not available in normal use either at massis or my personal computer. The British pound sign, the little thing over letters used in stuff I get sent here from France and Mexico and similar don't do very well. In the ASCII set on massis for example, things like that appear on my screen as 'backslash number', for example '\243' and if I do not take care to remove each and every instance of those as I find them, then sendmail gets really bitchy about it and tosses most of the outgoing mail (the issue of the Digest) away. I tried using a flag for sendmail or an argument called 'force -7BIT' which means to make it go through anyway. Then sendmail tries its best, but many individual sites refuse to accept the Digest and I wind up getting twice as much bounced mail as before. It seems that 8 bit ASCII (a full 255 characters including British pound signs and even a few simple graphic characters) does not work very well when converted to 7 bits (127 character ASCII) for this two-bit Digest. So at the risk of coming off like the hated Americans all over the globe, all I can say is if you can't talk 'American' then don't talk at all! Seriously, try spelling some of those words such as 'fifty thousand pounds' in the future, okay, rather than using the verbotin symbol 50,000. Oh, and by the way, anytime you try to use 'diff' to find differences in files, just plain 'diff' attempts to cat the two files for comparison. You have to say 'more the file piped through diff compare to the other file'. The reason is (at least on this current version of massis) 'cat' looks at the file and tries to repair the damage but not too sucessfully, while 'more' just deals with the raw stream. I found that out the hard way a few years ago when an issue of the Digest would not go out and furthermore did not want to tell me what was wrong with it. Here is the portion of my 'send-digest' script which deals with it: # #!/bin/sh - # NR==3 { # printf("V%d #%d\n", $2, $5); # } # ' somefile'. Do 'diff' on output # and somefile and edit in needed corrections to output; then pass it # here again. IMPORTANT: 'more output' NOT 'cat output' to strip8bit. # This is because cat and more display differently, and cat tries to # repair the damage on its own but does so unsuccessfully. ------------------------------ Date: Fri, 30 Aug 2002 10:34:28 +0000 (UTC) From: fungus@OCF.Berkeley.EDU (Hank Fung) Subject: Re: Ring Back and Say-Number Dial Codes Organization: Univ. of California Berkeley Open Computing Facility In article , John Stahl wrote: > It seems to me that there are a couple of codes which would > information about a telco line with some sort of a dial code to > "access" the function. > Have several lines which are not identified but are "alive" (with > dial-tone) through a LEC which I'm trying to identify the particular > phone number. Are there specific codes or generalized dial codes which > I can dial on the line with a butt-set to get it to ring back and > announce the particular line's phone number? Most of the applications > are within Verizon territory. You're looking for an ANAC (Automatic Number Announcement Circuit) number, where you call it and it announces the number you dialed from. They're switch dependent, so I can't give you the actual number, although in the past numbers like 311 and 958 were common. Some 1-800 numbers also read out numbers from ANI, but you'll have to find your own, and those calls cost the company money anyway. There are ANAC lists available on the Internet, but I can't vouch for the accuracy of them, as many seem to be at least a year or two old. -- Hank Fung fungus@ocf.berkeley.edu Go Bears! http://www.ocf.berkeley.edu/~fungus ------------------------------ Date: Fri, 30 Aug 2002 09:27:04 -0400 From: No Spam Subject: Re: Transmission time Vs. Propagation Time Organization: ITS - NetNews Daniel J McDonald wrote in message news:telecom22.15.8@telecom-digest.org... > 3. Propagation delay - how long does it take for the > electrons/photons to show up at the other end of the connection > so that receiving can start. Electrical signals move about 30cm > per nanosecond, so if you are going across country you could burn > up 13ms or so. Propagation in a vacuum is indeed at the speed of light, but there's a velocity factor in other media which affects propagation delay. IIRC, a good conservative rule of thumb is 1 msec for every 100 miles. ------------------------------ Date: Fri, 30 Aug 2002 13:45:35 GMT From: joel@exc.com (Dr. Joel M. Hoffman) Subject: Re: AT&T Didn't Honor Their Rates Organization: Excelsior Computer Services > I just finished listening to AT&T trying to sell me their long > distance -- the benefit they offered is a reduction on a bill I had no > idea was going to be so big. You see, they sold me a plan (all > verbal) and then didn't honor the rates they quoted. I can't comment This happened to me, too. I was quoted a low rate for calling-card calls and signed up for a monthly plan. Then I made a bunch of them over the course of the summer. Then I came home to a bill that was several hundred dollars. When I called to complain, the rep told me that I received a written letter after I signed up. 1. I tried to speak to a supervisor, and was unable to do so. I was promised that a supervisor would call me back, but one never did (obviously) --- see my other post on that topic. 2. Now that I think about it, the rep's response about my having received a written notice was "canned." It was too rehearsed. AT&T must have had a problem with their employees promising lower rates than AT&T was offering. Now AT&T has a standard non-answer answer. Thoughts? -Joel ------------------------------ Date: Fri, 30 Aug 2002 14:32:17 GMT From: joel@exc.com (Dr. Joel M. Hoffman) Subject: Re: Caller ID Spoof? Organization: Excelsior Computer Services Here's a tricky caller ID spoof, of sorts. Happened to me just a few weeks ago. I got a call from a GSM phone user from overseas, who was roaming here. The CID came through, but started with her country code, and listed exactly 10 digits. So I got a call from what looked like area code 972 (which doesn't exist). I suppose if you cared enough, you could find a cell phone with a country code that matched a real area code ... ------------------------------ Date: Fri, 30 Aug 2002 08:57:06 -0700 From: Bill Subject: Re: Converting Copper to Fiber From Telco Organization: TELECOM Digest In the security business, sometimes it is necessary to run a "dual drop" phone connection. This is a backup in case someone cuts one of the lines. The two different lines also enter the building at different locations as far away from each other as possible. This installation is for high security only which a particular business may be required to have, and they pay to have this additional security. So it is a question of how important your lines are. If they can not go down under any circumstances and you are willing to pay if necessary, make them install a separate fiber cable. May want to borrow from the security industry and have the second cable enter the building at a different location. You may not need this for security reasons, but sometimes contractors will accidentally cut a cable. This would give you a backup if one was cut. Also there are wireless networks which can connect via an antenna to another building. If you have another office across town on a separate phone exchange, maybe you could go wireless to there as a backup? Karl Albrecht wrote in message: > PacBell has offered us free conversion of our data/voice T1s from > copper to fiber. We have an existing fiber connection for our T3 and > this would have all of our T1s (that PacBell hosts) running on it. > Is this a good idea?? > Does this create a single point of failure with the fiber cabinet or > line? > Any advice would be greatly appreciated! ------------------------------ Date: Thu, 29 Aug 2002 22:23:21 -0500 From: Brian Wohlgemuth Subject: Re: Converting Copper to Fiber From Telco Organization: TELECOM Digest Probably would create a single point of failure. However, you would be less susceptible to outages due to wet pairs, etc. Also, it is more than likely your T1 already rides the same fiber to the CO, it just hops on later down the line. Ask if you have dual fiber feeds into your building, and if they take geographically diverse paths. Don't be surprised when they tell you that you don't. It's probably going to be a folded SONET ring between the CO and your building. This is normal, unless you are a hospital or a gargantuan facility that pays Pac Bell a few million a month, you aren't going to have physically diverse SONET. Basically, take the upgrade, make sure it works completely perfect before they disconnect the copper pairs in the CO. Brian Karl Albrecht wrote in message news:telecom22.15.10@telecom-digest.org: > PacBell has offered us free conversion of our data/voice T1s from > copper to fiber. We have an existing fiber connection for our T3 and > this would have all of our T1s (that PacBell hosts) running on it. > Is this a good idea?? > Does this create a single point of failure with the fiber cabinet or > line? ------------------------------ Date: 30 Aug 2002 00:57:57 -0700 From: kevingr97@my-deja.com (Kevingr) Subject: Re: Telecom IT Resources Needed! Organization: http://groups.google.com/ jade_inc@yahoo.com (Jim Chang) wrote in message news:: > I am a newbie to the IT integration in the telecom industry. I > desperately need resources for telecom IT resources in any format, > e.g. books, journal, Web links and other possibilities. I need these > for my new job on integration of CRM, provisioning and order capturing > system. Thanks ! If your interest is in technology strategy, as opposed to practical "how-to" stuff, the TeleManagement Forum is the place to go: http://www.tmforum.org/ K ------------------------------ Date: Thu, 29 Aug 2002 16:50:52 -0700 From: Marty Bose Subject: Re: Converting Copper to Fiber From Telco Organization: TELECOM Digest karl.albrecht@eloan.com (Karl Albrecht) wrote: > PacBell has offered us free conversion of our data/voice T1s from > copper to fiber. We have an existing fiber connection for our T3 and > this would have all of our T1s (that PacBell hosts) running on it. > Is this a good idea?? Ask PacBell if your fiber is on a Sonet ring or a point to point run. if it is on a Sonet ring, you're pretty well backed up, since they are bidirectional. If it is point to point, you are somewhat at a risk. Marty ------------------------------ Date: Thu, 29 Aug 2002 20:17:05 -0400 From: Gary Novosielski Subject: Ring Back and Say-Number Dial Codes Organization: TELECOM Digest On Tue, 27 Aug 2002 13:48:36 -0400, John Stahl wrote: >> Have several lines which are not identified but are "alive" (with >> dial-tone) through a LEC which I'm trying to identify the particular >> phone number. Are there specific codes or generalized dial codes which >> I can dial on the line with a butt-set to get it to ring back and >> announce the particular line's phone number? Most of the applications >> are within Verizon territory. Well, there's Verizon and then there's Verizon. In most of New Jersey the code "958" will read back the number of the line (but without the area code). Just dial it and stay on the line. What you'll hear is a short burst of "#" tone, then a read-back of the number, then a re-order tone. If, as soon as you hear the "#" tone, you respond with a "#" tone of your own, then the voice read-back will be replaced by a touch-tone playback of the line number. The code has also come in handy for me when I needed to receive a call at a pay phone where someone had removed the number designation for "security" purposes. Gary ------------------------------ Date: Thu, 29 Aug 2002 19:45:15 -0500 (CDT) From: Mark J Cuccia Subject: (H)DTV vs. NTSC Organization: TELECOM Digest So, does anyone care to make a guess as to what will become of the THOUSANDS of hours of TV programming of the 1940's thru 1980's, filmed or pre-taped (or kinescoped) in 3x4 format? Similarly, what will broadcasters do with movies that were NOT filmed in CinemaScope, VistaVision, PanaVision, etc., mostly made before the 1950's/60's? Is is possible that all of these classic movies and TV shows will simply "disappear" from regular broadcast/cablecast/sat-cast? And WHY in the *&!@ should we be expected to have to PAY to upgrade to entirely new equipment (or at least HOPEFULLY a low-cost Digital-to-NTSC converter, that is, if the "entertainment/copyright police" will "allow" us such converters), whether or not classic movies/TV filmed (or taped) in 3x4 is "allowed" to continue in the "new-and-improved" (GAG) digital world? Back in the mid-1960's, prior to when the Feds made CBS/NBC/ABC sell off their domestic syndication units, which BTW is no longer in force (Viacom was carved out of CBS Films in 1970 due to 'fin-syn', but NOW there's the mega-merged entity of CBS-Viacom-Paramount-Westwood-Infinity- Mutual-etc, also owning what *USED* to be NBC Films and ABC Films rerun/first-run SYNDICATION units) ... the NBC-Films rerun syndication division of RCA/NBC actually either withdrew or downplayed the marketing of many 1950's and early 60's era programs previously *OWNED/PRODUCED* by NBC-TV, or previously acquired for rerun syndication by NBC-Films, because these programs were filmed in (gasp) MONOCHROME! Of course, RCA/NBC wanted to "push" COLOR all the way ... RCA owning the NBC Television Network *AND* the RCA Victor equipment division ... But color did *NOT* completely obsolete/eliminiate B&W. FM has *NOT* eliminated AM. Most AM broadcasts are still in MONAURAL rather than Stereo (even if the signal is technically capable of stereo), there's STILL dialpulse service acceptable in MOST central offices even though there's touchtone as well ... ISDN never really caught on for the masses (true, many big or high-tech corporations and such usually have some form of ISDN), but for the residential market, xDSL or Cable Modems have become the norm -- NOT ISDN for high-speed broadband data. But WHY are we being sold this "bill of goods" about (H)DTV over NTSC. If it ain't broke (NTSC), why "fix" (tamper with) it!? It looks more like a "sweetheart" arrangement between big government and big-media/ business (again I say, the "entertainment/copyright police"). ISDN was frequently ragged as "innovations subscribers don't (really) need. Apparantly HDTV is intended as High Dollar *COST* Tele Vision ... If worse comes to worse, I could just simply endlessly watch my VHS tapes of movies/TV from the "good-old-days" (from the 1930's thru 60's), because I just don't care one iota about contemporary (1980's/ 90's/etc. and even many 1970's era) TV programs. However, in a forced HDTV world, as for the *real* news events, there are still newspapers, *AM* radio (i.e., REAL COMMERCIAL radio, as bad as it has become, as compared with GOVERNMENT run NPR), and even with the damned cookies/ java/popups/ads/etc., there's also the web for keeping up with the news. mjc ------------------------------ Date: Thu, 29 Aug 2002 22:15:45 -0400 From: Ed Ellers Subject: Re: Cell/Mobile Phone Jamming Devices Organization: TELECOM Digest John Higdon wrote: > Let's see ... people are sick to death of people using phones on the > street, on public transit, in their cars, sitting on a park bench, > in a restaurant, in any public gathering, in airport waiting areas, > and even when standing in lines outside of theaters. The word > "oversensitive" comes to mind. Sounds like the movie "Crazy People" (http://us.imdb.com/Details?0099316), where the main character (played by Dudley Moore) becomes angry when, while stuck in traffic on a bridge, he hears the driver of another car(!) talking on a mobile phone. He goes over, grabs the handset out of the guy's hand, rips it out of the car and throws it into the river, saying, "People who use cell phones annoy other drivers!" ------------------------------ Date: Thu, 29 Aug 2002 22:07:41 -0500 From: Kenneth P. Stox Subject: Re: No-Dial-Tone on HP Fax Organization: Imaginary Landscape, LLC. I notice that one thing was never mentioned, have you tried reversing the polarity of the line? Shouldn't be the case, these days, but it wouldn't hurt to check. ------------------------------ Date: Thu, 29 Aug 2002 01:20:48 -0400 From: Monty Solomon Subject: News Headlines of Interest 8/30/02 Organization: TELECOM Digest August 29, 2002 When the Cellphone Is the Home Phone By SIMON ROMERO WHEN my wife and I moved recently from the Upper West Side of Manhattan to a larger apartment in Harlem, it was a short hop on the map. Technologically, however, it was a journey to the heart of the current turmoil in the telecommunications industry. Of all the troubles associated with a move, we expected phone service to be the least of them: a routine order for a telephone line and two jacks. But when I called Verizon Communications, our local phone company, I was told that it would take a week and a half to fulfill the request, at a cost of $250. Other companies now offer local phone service, but they would need to have authorization from Verizon to make a connection to our apartment. So faced with unanticipated cost and delay, we took a step that would have been unthinkable just a few years ago: we decided to abandon conventional phone service altogether - and we are not alone. In what may be the start of an alarming trend for the nation's largest telephone companies, the total number of business and residential telephone lines declined last year for the first time since the Depression - to 192.3 million at year's end from 192.6 million a year earlier, according to the Federal Communications Commission. http://www.nytimes.com/2002/08/29/technology/circuits/29PHON.html Cell phones set to ring up sales rebound By Matthew Broersma Special to CNET News.com August 28, 2002, 11:12 AM PT The worldwide mobile phone industry is back on its feet, and new products and services will lead to a sales rebound late this year, a new report predicts. Gartner Dataquest's study found that mobile phone sales totaled 98.7 million units in the second quarter, an 0.8 percent increase from the same period last year. But this figure disguises other signs that the industry is positioned for stronger growth, said the research company, which predicts 5 percent growth for the year. Key to increased sales will be a slew of new product lines featuring color displays, built-in cameras and picture messaging, Gartner said. What's more, these devices are being priced to encourage entry-level buyers, as well as those looking to upgrade their existing handsets. http://news.com.com/2100-1033-955753.html New patent will 'revolutionize e-mail' by Dennis Sellers August 26, 2002 9:45 am ET A company called Mail Registry has received a U.S. patent (number 6,427,164) for the automatic forwarding of e-mail from an old address to a new address, and several associated processes. Bob Reilly, president of the three-year-old development-stage company specializing in e-commerce consulting, said that this patent will revolutionize e-mail mobility, accessibility and availability. ... The patent provides for the automatic delivery of e-mail that has been returned (bounced) with a non-delivery notice (NDR) from the receiving e-mail server, providing that the address was correct at one time, but the account is now inactive or for any other reason not accepting e-mail. Unlike other approaches to this problem, the patent employs a protocol-oriented process to correctly forward this e-mail and requires only that the intended recipient register his new address with Mail Registry, Reilly said. http://maccentral.macworld.com/news/0208/26.email.php Apple invites open source to Rendezvous By Ian Fried Staff Writer, CNET News.com August 29, 2002, 4:10 PM PT Apple Computer doesn't want its Rendezvous to be cloaked in secrecy. The Mac maker said it plans by next month to release to the open-source community the technology it calls Rendezvous, a technique for allowing networked devices to automatically find each other. http://news.com.com/2100-1040-955988.html DoCoMo to fight cell phone scams By Reuters August 29, 2002, 12:21 PM PT NTT DoCoMo plans to combat computer-generated one-ring calls that lead cell phone users to adult services, the company said Thursday. DoCoMo, Japan's largest wireless carrier, was forced to take action after telephone communications in Japan's industrial region of Osaka were crippled twice in July because of a flood of calls generated automatically by a single caller. The caller was believed to be a company that rings random mobile phone numbers very briefly and then hangs up, generating a missed-call message. In many cases, those who unwittingly return such calls are charged only to hear obscene messages. http://news.com.com/2100-1033-955958.html Nickel and Diming Cellphone Users The telecom meltdown is about to take a bigger chunk of your cellphone bill. Having already scaled back bargain-basement plans, wireless carriers are rolling out fees and restrictions that will raise monthly payments for many users. http://online.wsj.com/article/0,,SB1030562907899838515,00.html Speedy service options broaden Woodstock firm offers satellite Net connections By Jon Van Chicago Tribune staff reporter August 26, 2002 New broadband options keep popping up for Chicago-area residents. The latest is a satellite connection launched last month by an Internet service provider based in Woodstock with a starting price of $30 a month. Larry O'Connor, founder of Other World Computing, said the new satellite service is ideal for customers who cannot get digital subscriber line service. http://www.chicagotribune.com/technology/chi-0208260236aug26.story ------------------------------ Date: 30 Aug 2002 10:59:34 -0700 From: shiphen@yahoo.com (shiprath henethe) Subject: Re: Cell/Mobile Phone Jamming Devices Organization: http://groups.google.com/ Ed Ellers wrote in message news:: > David B. Horvath wrote: >> Why do you think you have the right to micro-manage the behavior of >> others in a public space (where there is not the *expectation* of >> quiet -- like in a theater/theatre)? > Excellent point. However ... >> If hearing their personal information really annoys you, start >> commenting about it while they're on the phone. A few comments like >> "your prostate is bothering you? My (adult male relative/friend/ >> coworker) had the same problem and the doctors had to rip it out, >> now he has a case ED that even viagra won't fix" or "I wouldn't buy >> stock X, you should buy (really bad but don't tell them) stock Y" or >> "hey you work for company X and you just did Y? I wonder what the >> regulators (or newspaper or stockholders or boss) or the appropriate >> equivalent will get them to speak quietly or even end the >> conversation until they can be private. > This could also cost you a few teeth, or worse. Exactly! It all boils down to a *gross* lack of consideration for others. A short phone call is fine. If they leave the carriage, that's fine. Go to the toilet to make the call maybe? Fine. Or talking quietly to the phone, fine. And if I cant buy one of these jammers, then I'll probably go ahead and build one myself. And I'll tell you what, if I could build a machine to jam the sound of squeeling kids I'd bl**dy well jam them too! Not continually/perman- ently, but just enough to get 5 minutes kip when I need it. I often do use ear plugs, but even the wax ones cant keep out a loud phone user against a quiet background. I also use a mobile myself. But I do it *discretely*. In Canadian law courts they have a rubber device that fits around the mouth, that enable a note-taker /scribe to precis the proceedings into a microphone, without disturbing the law court. Interestingly it seemed to work completely. So when are the Mobile manufacturers going to build something similar? I can see I've touched a raw nerver here. But I'm not backing down. The *judicious* use of a jammer would be a major public service. And if someone didn't like me using it then they could politely ask *me* to stop using it. The bottom line is that these people are insensitive to the point of utter selfishness. And they should be stopped. Most decent people have the common sense not to irritate an entire railway carriage/restaurant etc when everyone else is clearly enjoying a bit of peace and quiet. It's just damned rude. We dont need *laws* against people being rude but dont expect not to get a reaction either. If they were to run up and down the railway carriage tickling or spitting on other innocent passengers, then yes they should be stopped. And yes I'd do it. My only concession is that maybe jammers should have a delayed-repeat button, whereby you could only jam for say 10 seconds in every minute. But I also think it would be great if the devices transmissed a message saying words to the effect of "Your conversation is too loud and irritating someone near you. Please terminate your conversation as soon as convenient." I do like the idea of scaring of other peoples kids by discussing sex, though. Excellent idea! Strangely enough I think what is *so* rude about a mobile is that it's so exclusive. It sort of implies that isn't sufficiently interesting or important as their world. The cell-phone user walks around in a plastic bubble of a life, perpetually irrritating other people. Even walking down the street by themselves, when they say something loud and for a second you think that they are talking to you. Tiresome. And dangerous, as a cyclist/biker I keep nearly running them down because they *never* take care when crossing the road. And the latest research is that they are actually more likely to have an accident driving a car than a drunk driver! Hang 'em. Hang 'em high. Ship Shiperton Henethe ------------------------------ Date: Fri, 30 Aug 2002 14:10:21 EDT From: TELECOM Digest Editor Subject: Shareware Day Once Again Organization: TELECOM Digest We've come to the end of another month once again, and like those software programs you download but then don't pay for, you begin getting a 'nag' notice on a regular basis. I know many of you have in fact contributed greatly from time to time for the upkeep of this Digest, and I do appreciate your effort. The problem is that during the summer months, so many readers/writers/contributors here are on extended vacations; away from school, etc. So as a result, contributions to the Digest -- as a not-for-profit, spam-free, newsgroup mostly on telecommunications topics is down about twenty percent over where I feel it should be. Since my brain aneurysm in November, 1999, this Digest has been almost my entire income, since I am pretty much confined to my home and immediate surroundings. Those of you who hae been readers here for many years know that for the first fifteen or so years of this Digest I rarely asked for anything financial, but in those days I had 'regular employment' other than working on this Digest even though in those days it also took a lot of time in addition to my various for-pay jobs. Right now I am (1) working on a new CD Rom of the archives, since the last one is several years old and badly out of date. I expext in a month or so to have it out and (2) on my book 'Genesis 39' which I hope will be available on the net at no charge by the end of the year. Whatever you can/wish to do will be greatly appreciated as always. On our web site http://telecom-digest.org at the very bottom of the first page is a PayPal form for donations via credit card. Look at /index.html there, or /donations and do what you feel is best. If you prefer to send a check/money order that's okay also. Write to: Telecom PO Box 50 Indepedence, KS 67301-0050 And thanks very much!!! Patrick Townson Moderator/Editor/Archivist TELECOM Digest ------------------------------ TELECOM Digest is an electronic journal devoted mostly but not exclusively to telecommunications topics. It is circulated anywhere there is email, in addition to various telecom forums on a variety of networks such as Compuserve and America On Line, 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: 620-870-9697 Fax 1: 775-255-9970 Fax 2: 775-306-8390 Fax 3: 530-309-7234 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 second 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) Email <==> FTP: telecom-archives@telecom-digest.org Send a simple, one line note to that automated address for a help file on how to use the automatic retrieval system for archives files. You can get desired files in email. ************************************************************************* * 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. Access to Premium (P) links requires upgrade to a paid subscription. One click a day feeds a person a meal. Go to http://www.thehungersite.com Only subscribers or registered users of ICB Toll Free News web site will be able to access all or some of the full text of URLs provided. LEGAL STUFF: TELECOM Digest (sm) is owned by Patrick Townson. Copyright 2000 ICB, Inc. and TELECOM Digest. All rights reserved. Our attorney is Bill Levant, of Blue Bell, PA. --------------------------------------------------------------- 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 twenty 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 V22 #16 ***************************** From editor@telecom-digest.org Sat Aug 31 13:12:12 2002 Received: from localhost (localhost [[UNIX: localhost]]) by massis.lcs.mit.edu (8.11.3nb1/8.11.3) id g7VHCCc13713; Sat, 31 Aug 2002 13:12:12 -0400 (EDT) Date: Sat, 31 Aug 2002 13:12:12 -0400 (EDT) From: editor@telecom-digest.org Message-Id: <200208311712.g7VHCCc13713@massis.lcs.mit.edu> X-Authentication-Warning: massis.lcs.mit.edu: ptownson set sender to editor@telecom-digest.org using -f To: ptownson Approved: patsnewlist Subject: TELECOM Digest V22 #17 TELECOM Digest Sat, 31 Aug 2002 13:08:00 EDT Volume 22 : Issue 17 Inside This Issue: Editor: Patrick A. Townson Re: (H)DTV vs. NTSC (John Hines) Re: (H)DTV vs. NTSC (Mark Roberts) Re: (H)DTV vs. NTSC (Robert Bonomi) Re: (H)DTV vs. NTSC (Kim Brennan) Re: (H)DTV vs. NTSC (Garrett Wollman) Re: Cell/Mobile Phone Jamming Devices (Robert Dover) Re: Cell/Mobile Phone Jamming Devices (Wes Leatherock) Re: Cell/Mobile Phone Jamming Devices - Legal In UK? (Ron Bean) Re: Telephone Surge Suppressor (Marcus Didius Falco) Re: Telephone Surge Suppressor (Dr. Joel M. Hoffman) Re: Converting Copper to Fiber From Telco (Wes Leatherock) Re: Fine For Text Message Spam (Wes Leatherock) Re: Caller ID Spoof? (Wes Leatherock) Re: AT&T Didn't Honor Their Rates (John Hines) Re: Payphones (Dr. Joel M. Hoffman) Is it Feasible to Transmit Data via Telephone Line in a House (S. Punjab) Shareware Day Once Again (TELECOM Digest Editor) 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. WE DO NOT PERMIT NAME/EMAIL ADDRESS HARVESTING FROM THIS JOURNAL. 'SALTED' EMAIL ADDRESSES APPEAR HEREIN TO VERIFY THIS. YOU GET SUED IN SMALL CLAIMS COURT IF YOU GET CAUGHT SPAMMING OR SENDING VIRUSES. DON'T DO IT. See the bottom of this issue for subscription and archive details and the name of our lawyer; other stuff of interest. ---------------------------------------------------------------------- From: John Hines Subject: Re: (H)DTV vs. NTSC Date: Fri, 30 Aug 2002 20:01:52 -0500 Organization: http://extra.newsguy.com Reply-To: john@jhines.org Mark J Cuccia wrote: > Is is possible that all of these classic movies and TV shows will > simply "disappear" from regular broadcast/cablecast/sat-cast? And WHY > in the *&!@ should we be expected to have to PAY to upgrade to > entirely new equipment (or at least HOPEFULLY a low-cost > Digital-to-NTSC converter, that is, if the "entertainment/copyright > police" will "allow" us such converters), whether or not classic > movies/TV filmed (or taped) in 3x4 is "allowed" to continue in the > "new-and-improved" (GAG) digital world? My understanding is that a station like PAX, which broadcasts a lot of old material, uses the Digital broadcast format to transmit like 6 channels worth of the old stuff at once. Not having a DTV, I don't know for sure. So the broadcasters can either send a single hi res show, or multiple lo-res shows. ------------------------------ From: markrobt@hotmail.com (Mark Roberts) Subject: Re: (H)DTV vs. NTSC Date: Fri, 30 Aug 2002 20:12:43 -0000 Organization: 1.94 meters [taking the comments out of order but hopefully not out of context] Mark J Cuccia had written: > But WHY are we being sold this "bill of goods" about (H)DTV over NTSC. Because the FCC is looking (eventually) at auctioning off some of the UHF (and perhaps VHF) spectrum. That's the ultimate driver behind the transition. 3G, 3.5G, 4G, 19G, name your generation. By the time they get around to the auction(s) though, the telecom bubble will have been well burst. > So, does anyone care to make a guess as to what will become of the > THOUSANDS of hours of TV programming of the 1940's thru 1980's, filmed > or pre-taped (or kinescoped) in 3x4 format? They'll still be around on multiple channels on TV LAND? Mark Roberts | "This is local television. Get off your high horse!" Oakland, Cal.| -- Gary Radnich to Wendy Tokuda on KRON-TV's NO HTML MAIL | 9 pm newscast (said in jest), August 9, 2002 ------------------------------ Subject: Re: (H)DTV vs. NTSC Organization: Not Much From: bonomi@c-ns (Robert Bonomi) Date: Sat, 31 Aug 2002 15:01:36 GMT In article , Mark J Cuccia wrote: > So, does anyone care to make a guess as to what will become of the > THOUSANDS of hours of TV programming of the 1940's thru 1980's, filmed > or pre-taped (or kinescoped) in 3x4 format? Similarly, what will > broadcasters do with movies that were NOT filmed in CinemaScope, > VistaVision, PanaVision, etc., mostly made before the 1950's/60's? It's simple. There are several possible solutions existant. One involves a little bit of 'smarts' in the set (already there, to display POTV images) where the _set_itself_ reduces the horizontal scan width to the 4:3 format, based on an 'indicator bit' in the transmitted signal. Alternatively, it can be done entirely at the transmitting end. Either in real-time, or via 'pre-processing'. Where each scan-line is 'padded' with black, before and after the POTV image data. One could also 'scan double' and/or interpolate, to provide increased image 'quality', at the same time. It'd be similar to "letterbox" presentation of wide-screen movies on a conventional TV. I'd expect that the 'owner' of the old programming would pay for the 'conversion' -- for two 'pragmatic' reasons. 1) that way, the conversion only has to be done _once_, and can thereafter be distributed in HD form, 2) _when_ HD has become ubiquitous, the presense of the material in an "HD-compatible" form enhances the 'saleability' of the programming. It's really a no-brainer. As long as 'I Love Lucy' royalties are low enough, and the show draws enough of an audience to sell commercials, it *WILL* remain on the air. The fact that the originals are on _film_ -- and virtually none of the stations carrying it today have *film*projection* equipment -- illustrates the point quite nicely. > But color did *NOT* completely obsolete/eliminiate B&W. FM has *NOT* > eliminated AM. Most AM broadcasts are still in MONAURAL rather than > Stereo (even if the signal is technically capable of stereo), there's > STILL dialpulse service acceptable in MOST central offices even though > there's touchtone as well ... Sometimes 'upgrades' can be done in a backwards compatible manner, Sometimes they can *not*. Radio 'channel spacings' change, obseleting existant equipment. In some frequency allocations, modulation schemes have changed (e.g., from wide-band FM, to narrow-band FM), obseleting existant equipment. > ISDN never really caught on for the masses (true, many big or > high-tech corporations and such usually have some form of ISDN), but > for the residential market, xDSL or Cable Modems have become the norm > -- NOT ISDN for high-speed broadband data. Blame the telco's for that. They got greedy. And priced the service at too much of a premium to *apparent* 'costs'. For running -any- kind of phone service, there's a cost for the physical wire-plant, and a cost for the switching fabric. POTS incurs 1 wire-plant unit, and 1 switching unit. ISDN BRI _should_ incur 1 wire-plant unit, and 2 switching units (assuming 2B service). One can argue ad nauseum about business service subsidizing residential, the core relationship above remains, in the eyes of the residential customer. with 2B ISDN priced at circa 3.5x POTS, *plus*useage*charges*, it is not the least surprising that hardly anybody jumped on the bandwagon. If one looks at Europe, where 1B ISDN is priced competitively with analog POTS, one discovers a _very_high_ degree of penetration. I wonder _why_. *sigh* > But WHY are we being sold this "bill of goods" about (H)DTV over NTSC. > If it ain't broke (NTSC), why "fix" (tamper with) it!? It looks more > like a "sweetheart" arrangement between big government and big-media/ > business (again I say, the "entertainment/copyright police"). A serious answer, disregarding all your hyperbole, is that NTSC _is_ 'broken', by modern standards. Customer 'quality' expectations are , in general, *much* higher than they were 10, or even 5 years ago. The personal cpmputer 'revolutaion' gets a lot of the blame (or credit, depending on your viewpoint) for this. The masses have been exposed to the existance of 'quality' imagry on _affordable_ hardware. One can buy computer displays with TEN TIMES the resolution, and nearly three-times faster refresh, at a 'premium' of about US$60 (19" screen) to what is sold for broadcast television reception. There is, unfortunately, no _efficient, *compatible*, means for delivering an 'enhanced' signal to capable receivers, while maintaining support for 'dinosaur' systems. It _would_ be 'nice' to maintain said backwards comp- atibility, but, on a long-term basis, the resource dmands for doing so _are_ excessive. One can justify the 'cost' for a "moderate" transition period, but -not- indefinitely. Thus, either one _never_ moves forward, or there _will_ be some dislocation. > ISDN was frequently ragged as "innovations subscribers don't (really) > need. Apparantly HDTV is intended as High Dollar *COST* Tele Vision ... > If worse comes to worse, I could just simply endlessly watch my VHS > tapes of movies/TV from the "good-old-days" (from the 1930's thru > 60's), because I just don't care one iota about contemporary (1980's/ > 90's/etc. and even many 1970's era) TV programs. However, in a forced > HDTV world, as for the *real* news events, there are still newspapers, > *AM* radio (i.e., REAL COMMERCIAL radio, as bad as it has become, as > compared with GOVERNMENT run NPR), and even with the damned cookies/ > java/popups/ads/etc., there's also the web for keeping up with the news. ------------------------------ From: kimbrennan@aol.comfrtz.com (KimBrennan) Date: 31 Aug 2002 06:45:54 GMT Organization: AOL http://www.aol.com Subject: Re: (H)DTV vs. NTSC > Mark J Cuccia scribes: > So, does anyone care to make a guess as to what will become of the > THOUSANDS of hours of TV programming of the 1940's thru 1980's, filmed > or pre-taped (or kinescoped) in 3x4 format? Similarly, what will > broadcasters do with movies that were NOT filmed in CinemaScope, > VistaVision, PanaVision, etc., mostly made before the 1950's/60's? > Is is possible that all of these classic movies and TV shows will > simply "disappear" from regular broadcast/cablecast/sat-cast? Why does anything have to happen to them? HDTV is a broadcast medium. It is still possible to take that which was broadcast before and transfer it over to the new medium. Happens all the time. DVD, as an example. Lots of TV programming from the 50s, 60s, and later, is available on DVD right now. I Love Lucy, I Spy, The Honeymooners, Star Trek, The Prisoner, Secret Agent Man, The Avengers. PAX in my area (Washington DC) broadcasts Bonanza daily ... on their DTV broadcast. As to paying to upgrade, well, I paid to upgrade ... to a new car. Its got leather, airbags, cushy ride, very quiet. Much better than the 72 VW Super Beetle I used to have. I could still be driving that 72 VW (which this year would finally NOT have to pass emissions testing) except for the minor detail that it burned up in an engine fire. TVs break. (Last one I had that did was a Sony Trinitron from the 80s, one day, poof, the tube was gone.) VCRs break. Continue using what you have. In time, you'll need to replace it, and when you do, you'll probably be able to see why a few of us are so enthusiatic about HDTV. "I'm sorry, all my money is tied up in currency." W.C.Fields ------------------------------ From: wollman@khavrinen.lcs.mit.edu (Garrett Wollman) Subject: Re: (H)DTV vs. NTSC Date: 31 Aug 2002 05:28:20 GMT Organization: MIT Laboratory for Computer Science In article , Mark J Cuccia wrote: > there's the mega-merged entity of CBS-Viacom-Paramount-Westwood-Infinity- > Mutual-etc, Slight correction: Westwood One is a separate company (traded under ticker symbol `WON'). Having said that, the operations of Westwood One are conducted by Infinity (a subsidiary of Viacom) subject to a management agreement. (I suspect, but cannot prove, that Viacom may own or control the 20% of Westwood One that isn't part of the public float. Certainly the officers don't, according to public records.) -- Garrett A. Wollman | [G]enes make enzymes, and enzymes control the rates of wollman@lcs.mit.edu | chemical processes. Genes do not make ``novelty- Opinions not those of| seeking'' or any other complex and overt behavior. MIT, LCS, CRS, or NSA| - Stephen Jay Gould (1941-2002) ------------------------------ From: Robert Dover Subject: Re: Cell/Mobile Phone Jamming Devices Date: Fri, 30 Aug 2002 15:56:48 -0500 Organization: Nortel shiprath henethe wrote... > And I'll tell you what, if I could build a machine to jam the sound of > squeeling kids I'd bl**dy well jam them too! OhGod, yes! Put me down for one! Gimme, gimme, gimme!!!! ------------------------------ From: wesrock@aol.com (Wes Leatherock) Date: 30 Aug 2002 23:49:50 GMT Organization: AOL http://www.aol.com Subject: Re: Cell/Mobile Phone Jamming Devices On 30 Aug 2002 10:59:34 -0700 shiphen@yahoo.com (shiprath henethe) wrote: [ ... ] > And the latest research is that they are actually more likely to have > an accident driving a car than a drunk driver! Drivers are even more likely to have an accident when distacted by the kids, eating, putting on makeup, and a myriad of other activities than they are using a cellphone. Not that I don't object to people driving and talking on the phone, but it is less hazardous than many other distractions. Wes Leatherock wesrock@aol.com wleathus@yahoo.com ------------------------------ Date: Sat, 31 Aug 2002 02:23:03 -0500 From: Ron Bean Subject: Re: Cell/Mobile Phone Jamming Devices John Higdon writes: > How about showing a little backbone and politely asking the person who > is talking so loud to tone it down just a little? This kind of social interference is a calculated risk. Most people don't know the odds of getting the desired response without causing even greater commotion, so they just assume the risk isn't worth it (they're probably wrong, but I can't prove it). > ... until it was clearly observed that the > person was, in fact, using a public phone that was mounted on the wall > just around from where the person was standing. The problem here is not the presence of a phone, but the absence of a phone booth. This problem predates cellphones. ------------------------------ Date: Sat, 31 Aug 2002 01:09:45 -0400 From: Marcus Didius Falco Subject: Re: Telephone Surge Suppressor Leonard Erickson wrote about Telephone Surge Suppressor > I'm looking for a standalone surge suppressor (or I'll even settle for > one in a power strip) that'll work with RJ-14 (2 line) wired cables. > It's a real pain splitting things to two lines, running them thru *two* > separate suppressors, then recombining them again. > And since I live in an apartment, I can't wire something in at the > demarc. > Oh, as long as I'm asking, are there any for RJ-25 (3 line) cables. I > don't need one of those, but it'd be nice to know, just in case. I have an ancient Heathkit that does this. Simply, it is a box with a short two-pair cable and standard plug for input. Then it terminates these wires on a strip and puts three Metal Oxide Varistors (MOVs), tip to ring, tip to ground, ring to ground, on each line. Then it connects to a plug. The ground goes through some 10-guage solid copper wire to the nearest cold water pipe, which is a nearly perfect ground if you're on city water (provided you've properly jumpered around the main water valve and [if it's in the house] the water meter -- anyhow, a good earth ground). You can get all the needed parts, including MOVs, at any electronics store including Radio Shack. Use the biggest MOVs you can get. Obviously, you could easily build one for any number of pairs of wires, including 25-pair cables. However there may be pre-assembled surge suppressors for these. The place to check for professional-quality telephone stuff is Graybar Electric, if there's a branch near you. They used to be the reseller to the trade for Western Electric (before the 1956 Consent Decree), and then were and still are a general jobber to the telephone industry. Back in the late 1920s they were spun off from Western Electric. Graybar comes from Gray and Barton, the original name of the company that, when taken over by Western Union in the 1880s, became Western Electric. Gray is Elisha Gray, who got to the patent office a bit later than Alexander Graham Bell. AT&T acquired Western Electric about 1906, when it was trying to acquire Western Union. (The Justice Department later required AT&T to divest Western Union, but Western Electric stayed behind.) Gary Novosielski then responded: > On Sat, 24 Aug 2002, Leonard Erickson wrote: >> I'm looking for a standalone surge suppressor (or I'll even settle for >> one in a power strip) that'll work with RJ-14 (2 line) wired cables. >> ... >> And since I live in an apartment, I can't wire something in at the >> demarc. > I think this has been discussed here in the past, but it was always my > understanding (from professional phone "men") that: > a) there should already BE an effective surge suppressor built into the > demarc; and The surge suppressor is typically a carbon block, rather than the much more effective gas discharge tube. I am aware of many cases in which people have had phones, modems, and even motherboards fried by surges through the phone line. The carbon block is probably adequate in cities. In suburbs, and particularly in rural areas, much more effective protection is required. It is, perhaps, significant in this respect that REA requirements for lightning protection were higher than Bell System Standards. You can buy gas discharge tubes at Graybar, and install them yourself either at the Demarc or just inside the demarc, but this works best if you live in a single family house. I'm not certain it would be possible in an apartment house. > b) adding a cheap power-strip suppressor (or ANY phone line suppressor > that plugs into an AC outlet, or uses the AC ground wire for surge > dissipation) will ultimately do more harm than good, since it vastly > increases the chances that an AC surge (far more common than phone > line surges) will be back-fed INTO the phone line THROUGH the > suppressor circuitry itself, on the wrong side of the phone demarc, > thereby increasing the likelihood of damage to phone equipment where > none would have occurred if the customer had simply kept his fingers > in his pockets. I am not aware of this happening. I did have my surge protectors burned out when the power company went overvoltage for a sustained period. My computer was protected and suffered no apparent damage, and the phones and faxes connected through the surge protectors also suffered no apparent damage. The power company bought me two new surge protectors. However, I have heard that it is possible for a larger surge, possibly from a lightning strike, to be diverted into the common ground. This might affect the telephones depending on how good the earth ground of the common ground is. (It's notoriously poor in rural areas, particularly where non-metallic cold water pipes are used -- see older editions of Richter's book on home electric wiring, or any good commentary on the National Electric Code.) The question is how good your ground is. I know of one local person who used to insist on tying his phone lines directly to the earth ground; in the phone system the grounded wire is actually typically "floating." He claimed that getting a real ground improved sound quality, perhaps by avoiding ground loops. Anyhow, if your house is actually hit by lightning, all bets are off, and your electronics are probably mostly history. Jerry Pournelle had a near-miss some years ago and wrote about it in Byte. A 62,000 volt AC line fell across the lower voltage (240 volt) lines feeding his house and some neighboring houses, and did a lot of damage. I've also known people living near the end of the rural power line who frequently have severe electrical damage if the line is hit by lightning. > It makes a lot of sense to me. From what little I know of surge > suppression, it is important that the ground wire be tied back to a > common earth ground point. Under heavy current conditions, such as > during a surge-suppression discharge event, even the small resistances > between the ground terminal of an electrical outlet and the actual > earth ground (at the demarc) could cause voltage differentials high > enough to fry sensitive phone circuitry. > So my rule of thumb has always been to keep phone surge suppression > and AC surge suppression strictly separate, for the most part leaving > the former entirely up to the telco, and I have never had occasion to > regret it. Can anyone else comment? Yes, the surge suppression should be separate, though most modern power strips have built-in surge suppressors for a phone line (usually a single line). I assume these are electrically separate from the AC surge suppressors (it would probably be a violation of the National Electric Code if they were not). However, they probably use the electric system's ground wire (accessed through the ground wire in the surge suppressor's power cord) for the ground. Direct replies are unlikely to be read. To reply use the address below: falco_marcus_didius yahoo.co.uk ------------------------------ Subject: Re: Telephone Surge Suppressor Organization: Excelsior Computer Services From: joel@exc.com (Dr. Joel M. Hoffman) Date: Sat, 31 Aug 2002 14:18:02 GMT > So my rule of thumb has always been to keep phone surge suppression > and AC surge suppression strictly separate, for the most part leaving > the former entirely up to the telco, and I have never had occasion to > regret it. Can anyone else comment? OTOH, in a rural setting, I've had three computers destroyed via surges in the phone line. I had surge protectors (and then UPS's) for the computer, but nothing for the phone line. On three separate occasions, the computer was destroyed, and I could see the burn marks on the phone equipment. Now I just unplug everything, including the modem, before a storm approaches. (As a side note, I also had a computer destroyed while completely unplugged. I'd heard stories of this, but never believed it. Now I know. It CAN happen.) -Joel [TELECOM Digest Editor's Note: All the utilities here in Independence (SWB Telco, cable, satellite *all* ground everything with big stakes they drive in the ground with little clamps on the top of them. When my satellite dish was installed some time ago, the guy came out (the same guy I told about once before who offered me all sorts of free programs if I would authorize him to remove the cable line and have the cableco cancel my service) and he clamped a ground wire on to this large stake, about five feet long which he then drove into the ground so only a few inches of it was above ground level with that little clamp with the wire attached. I since have found at the phone demarc on the side of the house a similar green colored wire which goes down to the ground and is buried there. The last time the cable guy was in the alley working on his wires I asked him where the ground wire was and he pointed at a little conduit attached to the telephone pole where the cable wires are (right underneath the phone wires) and he said the ground went through that. But lightening can do some terrible damage. As you might imagine, we have some *very high* television antennas attached to chimneys and whatnot for people who insist on watching whatever they can over the air, especially in the rural area outside of town where the cable does not reach. Last April, lightening struck a TV antenna in such a situ- ation on top of a barn outside of town. The entire barn burned down, and in the Independence Reporter the next day (talking about the barn fire, with pictures, etc) the Fire Inspector reported that the antenna being ungrounded had caused the fire to start. The electricity traveled down the coax as well and blew the guy's TV set up pretty bad, even though the coax run (and his house) were several yards away. PAT] ------------------------------ From: wesrock@aol.com (Wes Leatherock) Date: 31 Aug 2002 00:00:15 GMT Organization: AOL http://www.aol.com Subject: Re: Converting Copper to Fiber From Telco On Fri, 30 Aug 2002 08:57:06 -0700 Bill bill190nospam@yahoo.com wrote: > ... May want to borrow from the security industry and have the > second cable enter the building at a different location. You may not > need this for security reasons, but sometimes contractors will > accidentally cut a cable. This would give you a backup if one was > cut. A number of years ago a customer required that their private line circuits between Fort Worth and Tulsa be routed not only to different entrance points, but by two separate physical routes -- geographically separated -- between their installations in those two cities. Yes, they were willing to pay. They required to know exactly what the two routes were, in detail. Wes Leatherock wesrock@aol.com wleathus@yahoo.com ------------------------------ From: wesrock@aol.com (Wes Leatherock) Date: 31 Aug 2002 00:06:05 GMT Organization: AOL http://www.aol.com Subject: Re: Fine For Text Message Spam [Pat wrote:] > It seems that 8 bit ASCII (a full 255 > characters including British pound signs and even a few simple graphic > characters) does not work very well when converted to 7 bits (127 > character ASCII) for this two-bit Digest. Actually, ASCII defines only characters 0-127 (7-bit, as you say). So-called high-ASCII is not uniformly defined, and there are several different sets in general use for 128-255. That's why many Usenet newsgroups and mailing lists are limited to the 7-bit characters, which are a standard. Wes Leatherock wesrock@aol.com wleathus@yahoo.com ------------------------------ From: wesrock@aol.com (Wes Leatherock) Date: 31 Aug 2002 00:10:24 GMT Organization: AOL http://www.aol.com Subject: Re: Caller ID Spoof? On Fri, 30 Aug 2002 14:32:17 GMT joel@exc.com (Dr. Joel M. Hoffman) wrote: > Here's a tricky caller ID spoof, of sorts. Happened to me just a few > weeks ago. I got a call from a GSM phone user from overseas, who was > roaming here. The CID came through, but started with her country > code, and listed exactly 10 digits. So I got a call from what looked > like area code 972 (which doesn't exist). I suppose if you cared > enough, you could find a cell phone with a country code that matched a > real area code ... Area code 972 certainly does exist. It is one of the two area codes in the Dallas metropolitan area, along with 214. I believe a third area code is now being introduced in that area. Wes Leatherock wesrock@aol.com wleathus@yahoo.com ------------------------------ From: John Hines Subject: Re: AT&T Didn't Honor Their Rates Date: Fri, 30 Aug 2002 20:01:54 -0500 Organization: http://extra.newsguy.com Reply-To: john@jhines.org joel@exc.com (Dr. Joel M. Hoffman) wrote: > 2. Now that I think about it, the rep's response about my having > received a written notice was "canned." It was too > rehearsed. AT&T must have had a problem with their employees > promising lower rates than AT&T was offering. Now AT&T has a > standard non-answer answer. My neighbor signed up for AT&T local phone service, was misled about the rates by the sales rep, and when they called about it "yeah, we have a bunch of complaints about that rep". Sounds like it goes much deeper than that. ------------------------------ Subject: Re: Payphones Organization: Excelsior Computer Services From: joel@exc.com (Dr. Joel M. Hoffman) Date: Sat, 31 Aug 2002 14:22:22 GMT > [re payphones rejecting 800- calls] > calling card customers); etc. Most of these messed-up phones are > owned by payphone owners, often very small one-person COCOT companies Er, not to be pedantic, but every payphone is owned by a payphone owner ... :-) ------------------------------ From: piclistguy@yahoo.com (Sanjay Punjab) Subject: Is it Feasible to Transmit Data via Telephone Line in a House? Date: 30 Aug 2002 16:23:48 -0700 Organization: http://groups.google.com/ I have an application where I need a PC to communicate with a device in another room in a residential home. Running a cable is not practical for this application and wireless RS-232 is cost prohibitive for my application. I am considering using the local phone wiring in the house for data transmission between the PC and the device, implementing a pseudo RS-232 protocol. Since the phone line is 48v when the line is on-hook and 10v when off hook, I am considering modulating data off of the digital transition from one state to another. While this communication would not work if the phone line is in use or when a ring signal is present, this is not an issue for application. The only problem that I may be underestim- ating is the transition delay and rise and fall time from one voltage state to another on the phone line. This will of course limit my baud rate, although I only need between a 300-2400 baud rate. And I also need to find the appropriate means of simulating an "off hook" condition to drop the voltage from 48v to 10v. I need some advice on how to do this electronically. I am assuming that consumer telephones do this via loading the secondary side of a isolating telephone transformer, but I am not certain. I would appreciate any advice on the feasibility of what I am proposing. Thanks. ------------------------------ Date: Sat, 31 Aug 2002 14:10:21 EDT From: TELECOM Digest Editor Subject: Shareware Day Once Again Organization: TELECOM Digest We've come to the end of another month once again, and like those software programs you download but then don't pay for, you begin getting a 'nag' notice on a regular basis. I know many of you have in fact contributed greatly from time to time for the upkeep of this Digest, and I do appreciate your effort. The problem is that during the summer months, so many readers/writers/contributors here are on extended vacations; away from school, etc. So as a result, contributions to the Digest -- as a not-for-profit, spam-free, newsgroup mostly on telecommunications topics is down about twenty percent over where I feel it should be. Since my brain aneurysm in November, 1999, this Digest has been almost my entire income, since I am pretty much confined to my home and immediate surroundings. Those of you who hae been readers here for many years know that for the first fifteen or so years of this Digest I rarely asked for anything financial, but in those days I had 'regular employment' other than working on this Digest even though in those days it also took a lot of time in addition to my various for-pay jobs. Right now I am (1) working on a new CD Rom of the archives, since the last one is several years old and badly out of date. I expext in a month or so to have it out and (2) on my book 'Genesis 39' which I hope will be available on the net at no charge by the end of the year. Whatever you can/wish to do will be greatly appreciated as always. On our web site http://telecom-digest.org at the very bottom of the first page is a PayPal form for donations via credit card. Look at /index.html there, or /donations and do what you feel is best. If you prefer to send a check/money order that's okay also. Write to: Telecom PO Box 50 Indepedence, KS 67301-0050 And thanks very much!!! Patrick Townson Moderator/Editor/Archivist TELECOM Digest ------------------------------ TELECOM Digest is an electronic journal devoted mostly but not exclusively to telecommunications topics. It is circulated anywhere there is email, in addition to various telecom forums on a variety of networks such as Compuserve and America On Line, 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: 620-870-9697 Fax 1: 775-255-9970 Fax 2: 775-306-8390 Fax 3: 530-309-7234 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 second 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) Email <==> FTP: telecom-archives@telecom-digest.org Send a simple, one line note to that automated address for a help file on how to use the automatic retrieval system for archives files. You can get desired files in email. ************************************************************************* * 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. Access to Premium (P) links requires upgrade to a paid subscription. One click a day feeds a person a meal. Go to http://www.thehungersite.com Only subscribers or registered users of ICB Toll Free News web site will be able to access all or some of the full text of URLs provided. LEGAL STUFF: TELECOM Digest (sm) is owned by Patrick Townson. Copyright 2000 ICB, Inc. and TELECOM Digest. All rights reserved. Our attorney is Bill Levant, of Blue Bell, PA. --------------------------------------------------------------- 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 twenty 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 V22 #17 ***************************** From editor@telecom-digest.org Sun Sep 1 15:37:21 2002 Received: from localhost (localhost [[UNIX: localhost]]) by massis.lcs.mit.edu (8.11.3nb1/8.11.3) id g81JbLY19754; Sun, 1 Sep 2002 15:37:21 -0400 (EDT) Date: Sun, 1 Sep 2002 15:37:21 -0400 (EDT) From: editor@telecom-digest.org Message-Id: <200209011937.g81JbLY19754@massis.lcs.mit.edu> X-Authentication-Warning: massis.lcs.mit.edu: ptownson set sender to editor@telecom-digest.org using -f To: ptownson Approved: patsnewlist Subject: TELECOM Digest V22 #18 TELECOM Digest Sun, 1 Sep 2002 15:36:00 EDT Volume 22 : Issue 18 Inside This Issue: Editor: Patrick A. Townson Re: Is it Feasible to Transmit Data via Phone in House (Paul Coxwell) Re: (H)DTV vs. NTSC (Dave Garland) Re: (H)DTV vs. NTSC (Ed Ellers) Re: (H)DTV vs. NTSC (Mark Roberts) Re: (H)DTV vs. NTSC (obsidian) Re: Telephone Surge Suppressor (w_tom) Re: Cell/Mobile Phone Jamming Devices (John Higdon) Re: Banning Cell Phone Use in Theaters (Henry E Schaffer) Re: Payphones (Steven Lichter) Re: Caller ID (Chris Williams) Re: No-Dial-Tone on HP Fax (Chris Williams) Re: Is it Feasible to Transmit Data via Phone in House (Tom Schmidt) TECHtionary (TC) Labor Day, 2002 (TELECOM Digest Editor) 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. WE DO NOT PERMIT NAME/EMAIL ADDRESS HARVESTING FROM THIS JOURNAL. 'SALTED' EMAIL ADDRESSES APPEAR HEREIN TO VERIFY THIS. YOU GET SUED IN SMALL CLAIMS COURT IF YOU GET CAUGHT SPAMMING OR SENDING VIRUSES. DON'T DO IT. See the bottom of this issue for subscription and archive details and the name of our lawyer; other stuff of interest. ---------------------------------------------------------------------- From: PaulCoxwell@aol.com Date: Sat, 31 Aug 2002 14:03:12 EDT Subject: Re: Is it Feasible to Transmit Data via Telep > for my application. I am considering using the local phone wiring in > the house for data transmission between the PC and the device, > implementing a pseudo RS-232 protocol. > Since the phone line is 48v when the line is on-hook and 10v when off > hook, I am considering modulating data off of the digital transition > from one state to another. While this communication would not work if > the phone line is in use or when a ring signal is present, this is not > an issue for application. The only problem that I may be underestim- > ating is the transition delay and rise and fall time from one voltage > state to another on the phone line. This will of course limit my baud > rate, although I only need between a 300-2400 baud rate. And I also > need to find the appropriate means of simulating an "off hook" > condition to drop the voltage from 48v to 10v. I need some advice on > how to do this electronically. I am assuming that consumer telephones > do this via loading the secondary side of a isolating telephone > transformer, but I am not certain. I would appreciate any advice on > the feasibility of what I am proposing. A regular telephone creates an off-hook condition by just placing a DC path of appropriate resistance across the line. The 10V you are seeing is a result of the potential divider formed by your telephone's resistance and that of the coils feeding 48V to the line in the central office, combined with the resistance of the line. Trying to transmit data in this way is going to bring you nothing but trouble and I would suggest you look for a better alternative. Apart from any technical problems, the phone company will not take too kindly to what your signals will do to their equipment. Do you already have four-wire telephone cable throughout your house? If so and you only have a single phone line, you might be able to use the spare pair (yellow/black if you're in the U.S.) if you really can't run another cable. You could either send low-speed data directly, if uni-directional transfer with no handshaking is acceptable, or you could wire it as a dedicated circuit between two modems. The latter would need only the provision of a suitable DC power source. Paul Coxwell Eccles-On-Sea Norfolk, U.K. ------------------------------ From: Dave Garland Subject: Re: (H)DTV vs. NTSC Organization: Wizard Information Date: Sat, 31 Aug 2002 13:09:22 -0500 It was a dark and stormy night when Mark J Cuccia wrote: > So, does anyone care to make a guess as to what will become of the > THOUSANDS of hours of TV programming of the 1940's thru 1980's, > filmed or pre-taped (or kinescoped) in 3x4 format? Oh, they'll still be available. But, even better, the broadcasters will have a way to prevent you from taping them off-air. ------------------------------ From: Ed Ellers Subject: Re: (H)DTV vs. NTSC Date: Sat, 31 Aug 2002 21:10:07 -0400 Robert Bonomi wrote: > It's simple. There are several possible solutions existant. One > involves a little bit of 'smarts' in the set (already there, to > display POTV images) where the _set_itself_ reduces the horizontal > scan width to the 4:3 format, based on an 'indicator bit' in the > transmitted signal. I don't know of anybody doing this -- all the 16:9 sets I've seen digitally shrink the 4:3 picture to fit in the 16:9 frame, often with gray (rather than black) bars at the sides. > Alternatively, it can be done entirely at the transmitting > end. Either in real-time, or via 'pre-processing'. Where each > scan-line is 'padded' with black, before and after the POTV image > data. One could also 'scan double' and/or interpolate, to provide > increased image 'quality', at the same time. It'd be similar to > "letterbox" presentation of wide-screen movies on a conventional TV. That's already being done when stations simulcast their regular programming on their DTV transmitters, at times when network programming isn't being offered in HD. ------------------------------ From: markrobt@hotmail.com (Mark Roberts) Subject: Re: (H)DTV vs. NTSC Date: Sat, 31 Aug 2002 22:18:57 -0000 Organization: 1.94 meters John Hines had written: > So the broadcasters can either send a single hi res show, or multiple > lo-res shows. In 2001, KRON-DT in San Francisco was simulcasting KRON-TV as well as its 51%-owned cable news-and-information channel, Bay TV, on its SDTV channels. BayTV was dissolved about a year ago when AT&T, its 49% owner, declared the channel dead and replaced it with the Food Channel on all its Bay Area systems (where Bay TV was on channel 35). It was reported that, for a while after NBC changed affiliations to San Jose's KNTV on New Years Day 2002, thereby making NBC programming unavailable over-the-air in substantial portions of the Bay Area, KBWB-DT in San Francisco was simulcasting KNTV on one of its SDTV channels. NBC has since acquired KNTV from Granite Broadcasting, which still owns KBWB, and as far as I know, the simulcast was discontinued. Mark Roberts | "This is local television. Get off your high horse!" Oakland, Cal.| -- Gary Radnich to Wendy Tokuda on KRON-TV's NO HTML MAIL | 9 pm newscast (said in jest), August 9, 2002 ------------------------------ From: obsidian Subject: Re: (H)DTV vs. NTSC Date: Sun, 1 Sep 2002 18:17:07 +0200 Organization: -= Skynet Usenet Service =- NTSC = Never Twice Same Colour ------------------------------ From: w_tom Subject: Re: Telephone Surge Suppressor Date: Sun, 01 Sep 2002 08:52:46 -0400 Organization: Posted via Supernews, http://www.supernews.com A plug in surge protector has all but no earth ground; therefore provided no common mode surge protection. The manufacturer does not even claim to provide that protection. Your computer damage only proves that point. Surges typically enter on AC electric that has no 'whole house' surge protection. Once inside the building, a surge seeks paths, destruct- ively, to earth ground. One excellent earth ground is provided by the telco installed 'whole house' surge protector. Yes, the phone lines typically have surge protectors installed free by the telco. But the surge was already inside the building. An excellent path to earth is through computer, down phone line, to earth ground in the NID (premise interface). Even worse, a plug-in surge protector next to that powered off computer can even make damage more likely. Surge protection is about earthing a surge before it can enter the building. So effective is the technique that your local phone company does not turn off phone service during thunderstorms to protect their $multi-million computer. Emergency response operators need not remove headsets to protect themselves from direct lightning strikes. 'Whole house' protection is that effective and has been proven since the 1930s. The quality of that earth ground that determines quality of surge protection. A 'whole house' surge protector for each incoming utility must be earthed to the same, central earth ground AND by a connection that is less than 10 feet long. No, a telephone pole ground wire is not sufficient. YOUR central earth ground must be at the service entrance where wires enter the building, must be earthed in conductive soil (or the ground network must be expanded), and must connect less than 10 feet to every incoming utility -- either by direct wire or via a surge protector. Even wire inside a metallic conduit, with sharp bends or splices, or bundled with other non-grounding wires is not acceptable. There are specific electrical requirements for that earth ground connection to make 'whole house' surge protection effective. But plug-in surge protectors don't even claim to provide protection from the destructive common mode surge - obviously. Plugs don't provide the necessary earthing. No earth ground means no effective surge protection. A surge protector is only as effective as its earth ground. Significant technical detail was discussed in the newsgroup misc.rural in two threads: "Storm and Lightning damage in the country" starting 28 Jul 2002 "Lightning Nightmares!!" starting 10 Aug 2002 Dr. Joel M. Hoffman wrote: > OTOH, in a rural setting, I've had three computers destroyed via > surges in the phone line. I had surge protectors (and then UPS's) for > the computer, but nothing for the phone line. On three separate > occasions, the computer was destroyed, and I could see the burn marks > on the phone equipment. Now I just unplug everything, including the > modem, before a storm approaches. > > (As a side note, I also had a computer destroyed while completely > unplugged. I'd heard stories of this, but never believed it. Now I > know. It CAN happen.) > -Joel > [TELECOM Digest Editor's Note: All the utilities here in Independence > (SWB Telco, cable, satellite *all* ground everything with big stakes > they drive in the ground with little clamps on the top of them. When > my satellite dish was installed some time ago, the guy came out (the > same guy I told about once before who offered me all sorts of free > programs if I would authorize him to remove the cable line and have > the cableco cancel my service) and he clamped a ground wire on to > this large stake, about five feet long which he then drove into the > ground so only a few inches of it was above ground level with that > little clamp with the wire attached. I since have found at the phone > demarc on the side of the house a similar green colored wire which > goes down to the ground and is buried there. The last time the cable > guy was in the alley working on his wires I asked him where the ground > wire was and he pointed at a little conduit attached to the telephone > pole where the cable wires are (right underneath the phone wires) and > he said the ground went through that. > But lightening can do some terrible damage. As you might imagine, we > have some *very high* television antennas attached to chimneys and > whatnot for people who insist on watching whatever they can over the > air, especially in the rural area outside of town where the cable does > not reach. Last April, lightening struck a TV antenna in such a situ- > ation on top of a barn outside of town. The entire barn burned down, > and in the Independence Reporter the next day (talking about the barn > fire, with pictures, etc) the Fire Inspector reported that the antenna > being ungrounded had caused the fire to start. The electricity traveled > down the coax as well and blew the guy's TV set up pretty bad, even > though the coax run (and his house) were several yards away. PAT] ------------------------------ Date: Sat, 31 Aug 2002 12:36:07 -0700 Subject: Re: Cell/Mobile Phone Jamming Devices From: John Higdon Organization: Green Hills and Cows In article telecom22.16.16@telecom-digest.org, shiprath henethe wrote: > And if I cant buy one of these jammers, then I'll probably go ahead > and build one myself. So jammers are OK? What do you think of this real-life situation: A neighbor some houses away works in his yard and plays a radio so loud that it is obnoxious in my front yard and even a bit annoying in my sound-treated home theater. Sitting in my own garage is a Harris THE-1 FM exciter, which I could fire up on the frequency of the station to which he is listening (and aurally re-broadcasting to the neighborhood). With no modulation, it would capture his radio which would then go silent. As an added touch, I could play any audio I wished through his radio, e.g. "turn your radio down, you inconsiderate SOB." As with the jamming of wireless phones, it is illegal as hell, but is there any moral reason I shouldn't do this? Remember, it would wipe out any other person's reception of that station within the radius of my attack. Would these considerations apply to the jamming of wireless phone signals? Why or why not? (As I sit typing this message, "classic rock" is once again assailing my ears.) John Higdon | Email Address Valid | SF: +1 415 428-COWS +1 408 264 4115 | Anytown, USA | FAX: +1 408 264 4407 ------------------------------ From: hes@hes01.unity.ncsu.edu (Henry E Schaffer) Subject: Re: Banning Cell Phone Use in Theaters Date: Sat, 31 Aug 2002 20:32:49 +0000 (UTC) Organization: North Carolina State University In article , John Higdon wrote: > Folks have long since learned to use the vibrate mode on pagers, so it > has been a long time since a pager has intruded into my entertainment > space. It is just a matter of time before cellphone use matures into a > non-issue disturbance-wise. Last year I got a Sanyo SCP-4500 cell phone (to use with Sprint PCS service). It's a very nice phone BUT setting it to silent/vibrate mode resets all the notification tones to default. I asked customer service, and they said it does work that way. What a boneheaded design! henry schaffer hes@ncsu.edu ------------------------------ From: stevenl11@aol.com (Steven Lichter) Date: 31 Aug 2002 23:24:55 GMT Organization: AOL http://www.aol.com Subject: Re: Payphones I know that COTS are given an extra $.25 per call, but I thought that LECs did not charge extra. I got a free calling card the other day from Sprint and used it on a PacBell payphone and the recording said that by FCC rules a $.25 would be added to the charge. Apple Elite II 909-359-5338. Home of GBBS/LLUCE, support for the Apple II 24 hours 2400/14.4. An OggNet Server. The only good spammer is a dead one!!! Have you hunted one down today? (c) Kill Spammers, Inc. A Hope You Roast In Hell Company. ------------------------------ Date: Sun, 01 Sep 2002 01:24:22 -0500 From: Chris Williams Organization: Software Consulting & Design Subject: Re: Caller ID Joseph Singer wrote: > Consider yourself fortunate. Last call return is a subscribed service > for which telco makes money either as a monthly line item as a service > on your bill or charged a la carte at the rate of $.75 per successful > call back. Here in Qwest land, they charge you $.75 regardless of success. The times I've tried to use Last Call Return, I've gotten a message that "the number is not available" and there's still been a charge on the bill. I guess that helps to pay executive salaries. Chris Williams ------------------------------ Date: Sun, 01 Sep 2002 03:18:06 -0500 From: Chris Williams Organization: Software Consulting & Design Subject: Re: No-Dial-Tone on HP Fax Jeffrey L. Hook wrote: > On this house's first line (which is used primarily for voice > communication), there was only an irregular clicking, with a very > faint background hiss. The clicking sounded as if someone was > depressing and releasing the switch hook of a phone, rapidly, in a > random sequence. That persisted for far less than a minute, and then > only the faint hissing continued. The HP fax was intended for use on > that first line. > On this house's second line (which is primarily dedicated to a PC > modem, a Zoom 3048L external V.92 model) there'd be silence at length > (nearly a full minute), then two rings, and then a recorded > announcement which featured the well-known "shrieking" static and then > the phone company female voice which announces, "We're sorry; your > call could not be completed as dialed." The system works other places but not when connected to your "baseboard phone jack" with the splitter. Your problem may be something as simple as a cheap splitter that is out of spec or wires in the jack that are just bent down enough that they aren't making a solid contact with the wires in the plug from the fax. Try replacing either the splitter and/or the fax's phone cord. Intermittent contacts from this would explain the clicking sound you report as well as the mis-dialed number reported by the telco recording. Chris Williams ------------------------------ Reply-To: Tom Schmidt From: Tom Schmidt Subject: Re: Is it Feasible to Transmit Data via Telephone Line in a House? Date: Sat, 31 Aug 2002 19:09:19 GMT Sanjay Punjab wrote in message news:telecom22.17.16@telecom-digest.org... > I have an application where I need a PC to communicate with a device > in another room in a residential home. Running a cable is not > practical for this application and wireless RS-232 is cost prohibitive > for my application. I am considering using the local phone wiring in > the house for data transmission between the PC and the device, > implementing a pseudo RS-232 protocol. > Since the phone line is 48v when the line is on-hook and 10v when off > hook, I am considering modulating data off of the digital transition > from one state to another. While this communication would not work if > the phone line is in use or when a ring signal is present, this is not > an issue for application. The only problem that I may be underestim- > ating is the transition delay and rise and fall time from one voltage > state to another on the phone line. This will of course limit my baud > rate, although I only need between a 300-2400 baud rate. And I also > need to find the appropriate means of simulating an "off hook" > condition to drop the voltage from 48v to 10v. I need some advice on > how to do this electronically. I am assuming that consumer telephones > do this via loading the secondary side of a isolating telephone > transformer, but I am not certain. I would appreciate any advice on > the feasibility of what I am proposing. You are going to run into lots of problems. The Telco's and FCC don't like loops going off-hook unless a call is about to be placed, since is ties up CO common equipment. Most homes are wired with two pair phone wiring. Assuming you only have one active line why not just use the idle second pair? Tom ------------------------------ From: TC Subject: TECHtionary Date: Sat, 31 Aug 2002 08:32:33 -0700 Greetings: We hope you will consider TECHtionary (www.techtionary.com) the World's First Animated Dictionary (vendor-neutral) as a FREE glossary to help users, students, staff, customers, investors and others. TECHtionary has been selected by Business Communications Review, X-change Magazine, Phone+ magazine, Telecom Agent Association, TechBiz magazine, ComputorEdge magazine, ISPworld, Competitive Telecommunications Association, Colorado Telecommunications Association, Society of Cable Television Engineers, ISIM University, Virtual High Schools of America, Maine Telecommunications Association, Missouri Telecommunications Association, CABA (Continental Automated Buildings Association), Telecommunications Agent Association, International Center for Standards Research, The Educators' Website for Information Technology, Broadband Wireless Online, Society of Telecommunications Consultants and many others as their glossary. With more new terms everyday and more than 800+ terms and 500,000+ Macromedia Flash animation effects on telecommunications, data communications, networking and internet technologies, TECHtionary can be accessed anytime-anywhere to learn how things work, view real photos and understand what's-what. www.TECHtionary.com - The World's First and Largest Animated Dictionary on Technology See TECHtionary at: Channel Partners Conference - September 8-10 - South Miami Beach - www.phoneplusmag.com/channelpartners Next Generation Networks - October 14-18 - Boston - www.bcr.com Corporate University Xchange - October 20-23 - Washington, D.C. - www.corpu.com ------------------------------ Date: Sun, 1 Sep 2002 14:53:57 -0400 (EDT) From: TELECOM Digest Editor Subject: Labor Day, 2002 Often times on Labor Day in the USA (first Monday of September each year) I comment on something or other. This year, because of the MCI/Worldcom spectacle, and the in general poor condition of the economy and the fact that so many telecom workers are out of a job, I think you should give thanks if you still have a job at all! Many people don't have one, and while that could be regarded as a victory for management, I prefer to think of it as a victory for HONEST labor, i.e. the Enron debacle and the MCI/Worldcom mess. But even then, the messes and debacles and spectacles were largely caused by dishonest management, weren't they? If you have not yet had an opportunity this year to pay *me* for my labor here, PLEASE do so now, if you feel this Digest is worth what you pay for it. I won't be mentioning this any further until next month, but if you will, please go to http://telecom-digest.org and look at the very bottom of the first page. All the way at the bottom ... where a donation button appears for PayPal, with the credit cards of your choice. Or if you prefer checks/money orders/cash, then the address to use is: TELECOM Digest PO Box 50 Independence, KS 67301-0050 Thanks very much! Patrick Townson ------------------------------ TELECOM Digest is an electronic journal devoted mostly but not exclusively to telecommunications topics. It is circulated anywhere there is email, in addition to various telecom forums on a variety of networks such as Compuserve and America On Line, 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: 620-870-9697 Fax 1: 775-255-9970 Fax 2: 775-306-8390 Fax 3: 530-309-7234 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 second 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) Email <==> FTP: telecom-archives@telecom-digest.org Send a simple, one line note to that automated address for a help file on how to use the automatic retrieval system for archives files. You can get desired files in email. ************************************************************************* * 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. Access to Premium (P) links requires upgrade to a paid subscription. One click a day feeds a person a meal. Go to http://www.thehungersite.com Only subscribers or registered users of ICB Toll Free News web site will be able to access all or some of the full text of URLs provided. LEGAL STUFF: TELECOM Digest (sm) is owned by Patrick Townson. Copyright 2000 ICB, Inc. and TELECOM Digest. All rights reserved. Our attorney is Bill Levant, of Blue Bell, PA. --------------------------------------------------------------- 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 twenty 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 V22 #18 ***************************** From editor@telecom-digest.org Mon Sep 2 15:33:17 2002 Received: from localhost (localhost [[UNIX: localhost]]) by massis.lcs.mit.edu (8.11.3nb1/8.11.3) id g82JXHV25496; Mon, 2 Sep 2002 15:33:17 -0400 (EDT) Date: Mon, 2 Sep 2002 15:33:17 -0400 (EDT) From: editor@telecom-digest.org Message-Id: <200209021933.g82JXHV25496@massis.lcs.mit.edu> X-Authentication-Warning: massis.lcs.mit.edu: ptownson set sender to editor@telecom-digest.org using -f To: ptownson Approved: patsnewlist Subject: TELECOM Digest V22 #19 TELECOM Digest Mon, 2 Sep 2002 15:33:00 EDT Volume 22 : Issue 19 Inside This Issue: Editor: Patrick A. Townson Tampering With Payphones? (Greg) Re: Cell/Mobile Phone Jamming Devices (Hudson Leighton) Re: Cell/Mobile Phone Jamming Devices (Mike Hartley) Re: Is it Feasible to Transmit Data via Phone Line in House (John Levine) Re: Is it Feasible to Transmit Data via Phone Line in House (T. Horsley) Re: Caller ID (joe@obilivan.net) News Headlines of Interest 9/2/02 (Monty Solomon) Domains Have Held Their Value Better Than Blue Chips (Tina Lotis) Re: Illinois LATA and Exchange (Clarence Dold) ISDN Sniffer (lucky) For Sale: Station Antenna 8 Meters (Maria) Ringing a Phone (Jim Thompson) 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. WE DO NOT PERMIT NAME/EMAIL ADDRESS HARVESTING FROM THIS JOURNAL. 'SALTED' EMAIL ADDRESSES APPEAR HEREIN TO VERIFY THIS. YOU GET SUED IN SMALL CLAIMS COURT IF YOU GET CAUGHT SPAMMING OR SENDING VIRUSES. DON'T DO IT. See the bottom of this issue for subscription and archive details and the name of our lawyer; other stuff of interest. ---------------------------------------------------------------------- From: lovemozart@hotmail.com (Greg) Subject: Tampering With Payphones? Date: 1 Sep 2002 23:57:01 -0700 Organization: http://groups.google.com/ Hello, I got an odd question, but maybe someone can explain to a telco novice what might be going on ... I work as a night janitor for extra cash and one of the buildings I clean every week is an expo building at the city fairgrounds. Now this particular building only gets used one or two times a week this time of the year (the fairgrounds are pretty much dead during the off-season), so there's not a lot of activity. Outside the front doors to this building is a bank of three payphones. Every time I've cleaned this building for the past month, I've noticed that the handsets for two of these adjoining payphones are "connected" together in a way that the earpiece of one is coupled to the microphone end of the other. A thick piece of black rubber is used to hold these together. I assumed that these payphones only operated during the fair, so a few times my curiosity got me and I took the handsets apart and listened to each. The first time I did this, I heard nothing, but the second time (a week later) I heard the sound computers talking (like modems). Both times I just hung up each handset and threw the coupler in the trash. I notified the fairgrounds general office and they said they would check it out. But the following week I found the same two phones coupled together, so I called them back and they said they've never found any such tampering. Should I notify the phone company anyway or just mind my own business? Any ideas what might be going on with these payphones? If some phreakers/hackers are behind this, what could they possibly be doing? Thanks! [TELECOM Digest Editor's Note: It sounds to me like someone has an accoustic-style modem-device there where incoming calls (to the earpeice of the one phone) are being retransmitted to the outgoing line (mouthpiece) of the other phone. It doesn't sound terribly legal to me, and either the person doing it is too cheap to pay for another regular phone line and 'real' modem, or maybe the idea is to throw off track anyone who is investigating them. Are these phones (and the associated expo building in a relatively deserted area of the park at night? You could tell the phone company, but it is doubtful you would be allowed to speak with anyone who would have any idea what was going on, and you would waste your time by calling telco. The fairgrounds authority does not seem to care either. My suggestion is to disconnect it each time you go by and see it, and *take the coupler piece with you, not just throw it away.* Whoever it is is not supposed to tie up two telephones like that in any event when others want to use them. Just consider it part of your janitorial duties to make sure the phones are 'clean' and in good working order for the public. Let them take their scam to someplace other than 'your' park. PAT] ------------------------------ From: hudsonl@skypoint.com (Hudson Leighton) Subject: Re: Cell/Mobile Phone Jamming Devices Date: Sun, 01 Sep 2002 15:51:34 -0500 Organization: MRRP In article , John Higdon wrote: > In article telecom22.16.16@telecom-digest.org, shiprath henethe wrote: >> And if I cant buy one of these jammers, then I'll probably go ahead >> and build one myself. > So jammers are OK? What do you think of this real-life situation: A > neighbor some houses away works in his yard and plays a radio so loud > that it is obnoxious in my front yard and even a bit annoying in my > sound-treated home theater. Sitting in my own garage is a Harris THE-1 > FM exciter, which I could fire up on the frequency of the station to > which he is listening (and aurally re-broadcasting to the > neighborhood). With no modulation, it would capture his radio which > would then go silent. As an added touch, I could play any audio I > wished through his radio, e.g. "turn your radio down, you > inconsiderate SOB." snip > (As I sit typing this message, "classic rock" is once again assailing my > ears.) 99 millawatts and a beam antenna? Hudson http://www.skypoint.com/~hudsonl ------------------------------ From: Mike Hartley Subject: Re: Cell/Mobile Phone Jamming Devices Date: Mon, 2 Sep 2002 01:38:16 +0100 >> And if I cant buy one of these jammers, then I'll probably go ahead >> and build one myself. > So jammers are OK? Rhetorical question, I hope. Of course they're not. > What do you think of this real-life situation: of stereo> It's very unfortunate. I don't know about your local laws but here in the UK there is an) escalation path which allows you to report people like this to the local authorities. Eventually they can end up in very deep sh*t indeed if they don't desist, but most offenders stop once the local environmental heath officers turn up -- threats of confiscation of equipment are quite effective. > As with the jamming of wireless phones, it is illegal as hell, but is > there any moral reason I shouldn't do this? Remember, it would wipe > out any other person's reception of that station within the radius of > my attack. I don't think you have any more moral right to jam than the offender has to disturb you. To look at it another way, if I don't like a particular website, is there a moral reason why I shouldn't launch a DOS attack? big ol' can of worms > Would these considerations apply to the jamming of wireless > phone signals? Why or why not? Can you morally make a decision on jamming communication based on your own interpretation of value/legitimacy? Isn't this what the FCC is for? In the final analysis is freedom of expression the same as freedom of communication? > (As I sit typing this message, "classic rock" is once again assailing > my ears.) My commiserations. IMO classic rock sucks, unless it falls within my own definition of 'classic' that is ;+) Sadly I don't think that personal taste or aural overload gives you the right to jam, tempting though it may be. How about calling the station and asking them to name and shame the person, or even knocking on his/her door and asking him/her to turn it down? Mike ------------------------------ Date: 1 Sep 2002 22:38:51 -0400 From: johnl@iecc.com (John R. Levine) Subject: Re: Is it Feasible to Transmit Data via Telephone Line in a House? Organization: I.E.C.C., Trumansburg NY USA > I have an application where I need a PC to communicate with a device > in another room in a residential home. Running a cable is not > practical for this application and wireless RS-232 is cost prohibitive > for my application. I am considering using the local phone wiring in > the house for data transmission between the PC and the device, > implementing a pseudo RS-232 protocol. Rather than rolling your own, you might buy a couple of HomePNA boxes which give you Ethernet over your home phone wiring. They're more expensive than wired Ethernet, but probably a lot less hassle than trying to invent your own. John R. Levine, IECC, POB 727, Trumansburg NY 14886 +1 607 387 6869 johnl@iecc.com Village Trustee and Sewer Commissioner http://iecc.com/johnl Member, Provisional board, Coalition Against Unsolicited Commercial E-mail ------------------------------ Subject: Re: Is it Feasible to Transmit Data via Telephone Line in a House? From: tom.horsley@att.net (Thomas A. Horsley) Organization: AT&T Worldnet Date: Sun, 01 Sep 2002 20:24:45 GMT If you want to get lots of data over phone lines, check out something like the Netgear PE 102 ethernet to phoneline bridge. I've got a couple of them hooking up two halves of my home lan on opposite sides of the house, and they work great. Never had any problems (unlike wireless which I tried and found horribly unreliable at distances greater than about 6 inches :-). >>==>> The *Best* political site >>==+ email: Tom.Horsley@worldnet.att.net icbm: Delray Beach, FL | Free Software and Politics <<==+ ------------------------------ From: joe@obilivan.net Subject: Re: Caller ID Date: Mon, 02 Sep 2002 12:16:40 GMT Organization: Cox Communications Chris Williams wrote: > Joseph Singer wrote: >> Consider yourself fortunate. Last call return is a subscribed service >> for which telco makes money either as a monthly line item as a service >> on your bill or charged a la carte at the rate of $.75 per successful >> call back. > Here in Qwest land, they charge you $.75 regardless of success. The > times I've tried to use Last Call Return, I've gotten a message that > "the number is not available" and there's still been a charge on the > bill. I guess that helps to pay executive salaries. I guess the moral to the story is to never use the feature. It is almost useless in any case, because it will return calls only to those made within your LATA. And, if the call was delivered without calling party identifcation information it obviously cannot work even for calls that originated within your LATA. ------------------------------ Date: Sun, 1 Sep 2002 22:02:59 -0400 From: Monty Solomon Subject: News Headlines of Interest 9/2/02 Just Shut Up! A Fairfax company's technology blocks cell phone signals, but approval won't be easy By Ben Hammer Washington Techway Staff Writer Friday, August 30, 2002; 7:46 AM When an enjoyable dinner at an expensive restaurant was ruined by cell phone chatter, J. David Derosier came up with the idea of developing a technology to block cell phone signals. "Cell phones are being abused," says Derosier, co-founder and CEO of Fairfax-based Cell Block Technologies. "It's just a matter of time with or without our help that something is done." Derosier forecasts a commercial market of roughly a half a billion dollars over the next three to five years from places such as restaurants and movie theaters to hospitals, where cell phone signals can interfere with medical devices. Government agencies and businesses that want to block cell phone signals in secure facilities to protect classified information or trade secrets could generate another $40 million to $60 million in sales, he estimates. But there's one big problem: The Federal Communications Commission has ruled that it's illegal to block the wireless spectrum. "If it is a device designed to interfere with cellular service, then it's illegal," says Julius Knapp, the FCC's deputy chief of engineering, who has not reviewed Cell Block's technology. The ruling "doesn't apply to government use of technology in a security setting," he adds. http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/articles/A15369-2002Aug30.html STARTS & STOPS Mystery of dead transponder batteries solved By Mac Daniel, 9/1/2002 Like beached whales or mob graveyards, a mystery surrounded a rash of dead or dying Fast Lane transponders. We got mail galore, tales of woes about the dead plastic boxes racking up hundreds of dollars in turnpike toll fines -- all post mortem. The culprits: small batteries that communicate with a radio signal at the toll booths. Some batteries, juiced for 10 years of toll taking, were petering out after a year. Bob Bliss at the Massachusetts Turnpike Authority said this week that some 40,000 Fast Lane transponders have 'prematurely passed on,' small bones when you consider there are 603,000 transponders in the system. Still -- 40,000 -- that's a sold-out English soccer match. And the failure rate is notching upwards, with more dead transponders knocking on the Turnpike Authority's door. All are being replaced free of charge, Bliss said. But still, why? The blame, or some of it, falls squarely on the annoyingly small shoulders of digital wireless technology. Seems the E-ZPass toll transponders, which are failing at a rate of 1,300 a month, were being killed by a certain type of digital wireless phone. Calls from or to these phones apparently activate the transponders' batteries and drain them. Who's spying on my Hotmail? With new spyware, even your private Yahoo, Hotmail e-mails can be seen By Bob Sullivan MSNBC Aug. 28 - Think using Yahoo or Hotmail e-mail at work protects you from your boss' prying eyes? Think again. New spy software essentially lets employers or parents co-pilot virtually any kind of e-mail account, including private Web-based e-mail accounts like Yahoo and Hotmail. A new version of eBlaster spyware will secretly forward all e-mail coming and going through such Web-based accounts to a spy's e-mail, allowing anyone to "ride-along" even the supposedly private e-mail. http://www.msnbc.com/news/800409.asp You're not paranoid, you are being watched As tracking tools improve, true privacy may be lost ASSOCIATED PRESS NEW YORK, Sept. 1 - Computer databases already have a lot on us: Credit cards keep track of airline ticket purchases and car rentals. Supermarket discount programs know our eating habits. Libraries track books checked out. Schools record our grades and enrollment. On top of that, government agencies generate amass information on large cash transfers, our taxes and employment, driving history -- and visas, if we're a foreign citizen. http://www.msnbc.com/news/800957.asp Verizon Helps Find Anyone, Anywhere With a Phone Number New Service Available to Rhode Island, Massachusetts, Maine, New Hampshire Customers by Dialing 411 NEW YORK, Aug. 30 /PRNewswire/ -- Tracking down an address for an invitation or figuring out where a business has moved can be time-consuming. But Verizon customers can find out the name and address that go with a phone number in seconds with a new "reverse directory assistance" service from Verizon, now available in four New England states. Starting Sept. 2, the service is available to customers in Rhode Island, Massachusetts, Maine, and New Hampshire by dialing 411. http://finance.lycos.com/home/news/story.asp?story=28511168 Why do cell phones make us stupid? Hit 'send' and the whole world just disappears By Lisa Napoli MSNBC CONTRIBUTOR Sept. 1 - Amsterdam Avenue and 93rd Street on the Upper West Side of Manhattan, a lazy summer midday. Young woman in belly shirt, standing at the southwest corner, steps off sidewalk to cross against the light. A massive truck, speeding, turns the corner, just narrowly averting squishing her like a bug. Young woman doesn't flinch or even seem to notice; she's yapping on her cell phone like it was the most important conversation in the world. http://www.msnbc.com/news/800979.asp September 2, 2002 U.S. Cellphone Users Don't Seem to Get Message About Messaging By JOHN MARKOFF SAN FRANCISCO, Sept. 1 - What if they had pounded the golden spike into the continental railroad and nobody noticed? That is essentially what happened in the United States cellular telephone world last spring. Since April it has been possible for the customers of any of the major United States cellular carriers to send one another short text messages, but most customers still have no idea the service exists. The service, known as S.M.S. (for short message service), is already wildly popular in Europe and Asia, but it has been delayed in the United States -- partly because it had been impossible to send messages among carriers and partly because it has not been marketed well by the cellphone companies. http://www.nytimes.com/2002/09/02/technology/02MESS.html Handspring: Don't touch that download By Ian Fried Staff Writer, CNET News.com August 30, 2002, 4:58 PM PT Handspring is warning customers outside of certain geographical areas to not install a software upgrade that allows its Treo Communicator to run on next-generation cell phone networks. The handheld maker has released an upgrade for Treo owners in New Zealand and Singapore only. The software, available from one of Handspring's Asian distributors, is designed to allow faster data access using new always-on GPRS (General Packet Radio Service) networks. http://news.com.com/2100-1040-956180.html?tag ------------------------------ Reply-To: From: Subject: Domains Have Held Their Value Better Than Blue Chips Date: Mon, 02 Sep 2002 06:01:37 -0200 LATEST NEWS: The new domain names are finally available to the general public at discount prices. Now you can register one of the exciting new .BIZ or .INFO domain names, as well as the original .COM and .NET names for just $14.95. These brand new domain extensions were recently approved by ICANN and have the same rights as the original .COM and .NET domain names. The biggest benefit is of-course that the .BIZ and .INFO domain names are currently more available. i.e. it will be much easier to register an attractive and easy-to-remember domain name for the same price. Visit: http://www.affordable-domains.com today for more info. Register your domain name today for just $14.95 at: http://www.affordable-domains.com/ Registration fees include full access to an easy-to-use control panel to manage your domain name in the future. Sincerely, Domain Administrator Affordable Domains [TELECOM Digest Editor's Note: I thought this spam was important for us to look at. Judith Oppenheimer may know the answer on this: has ICANN approved the use of '.biz' and '.info' name spaces? I thought I read that these 'alternate roots' didn't work very well. Who can comment? Also in her subject line she tells us that 'domain names held their value better than blue-chip stocks'. Is that true? I sort of doubt it. PAT] ------------------------------ From: dold@83.usenet.us.com Subject: Re: Illinois LATA and Exchange Date: 2 Sep 2002 15:49:05 GMT Organization: Wintercreek Data Paul Cook wrote: > Does anyone know where I can find detailed maps showing LATA (MSA) and > exchange area boundaries for the state of Illinois? If your really want actual maps of exchange boundaries, the only source that I know of is http://www.mapinfo.com They offer lots of information, all mappable, but it is not cheap. Clarence A Dold - dold@email.rahul.net - Hidden Valley (Lake County) CA. ------------------------------ From: lucky.lu@jumpy.it (lucky) Subject: ISDN Sniffer Date: 2 Sep 2002 10:42:54 -0700 Organization: http://groups.google.com/ I need to 'hear' B and D channels on S bus interface. The scope is to record phone conversations on a PC. Does anybody know the way for do it? Thanks a lot. lucky lucky.lu@jumpy.it ------------------------------ From: marg@km0.com (maria) Subject: For Sale Station Antenna 8 Meters Date: 2 Sep 2002 11:55:12 -0700 Station Antenna 8 mtrs. - Andrew- Cassegrain. Tracking. 12 pieces. Band Ku/C, Good condition. Contact me for details, pricing, etc. ------------------------------ From: Jim Thompson Subject: Ringing a Phone?? Organization: EasyNews, UseNet made Easy! Date: Mon, 02 Sep 2002 18:56:48 GMT What does it really take to ring a modern electronic phone? Do you need the high voltage or is it the frequency that causes ringing? | James E.Thompson, P.E. | mens | | Analog Innovations, Inc. | et | | Analog/Mixed-Signal ASIC's and Discrete Systems | manus | | Phoenix, Arizona Voice:(480)460-2350 | | | Jim-T@analog_innovations.com Fax:(480)460-2142 | Brass Rat | | http://www.analog-innovations.com | 1962 | For proper E-mail replies SWAP "-" and "_" I love to cook with wine. Sometimes I even put it in the food. ------------------------------ TELECOM Digest is an electronic journal devoted mostly but not exclusively to telecommunications topics. It is circulated anywhere there is email, in addition to various telecom forums on a variety of networks such as Compuserve and America On Line, 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: 620-870-9697 Fax 1: 775-255-9970 Fax 2: 775-306-8390 Fax 3: 530-309-7234 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 second 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) Email <==> FTP: telecom-archives@telecom-digest.org Send a simple, one line note to that automated address for a help file on how to use the automatic retrieval system for archives files. You can get desired files in email. ************************************************************************* * 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. Access to Premium (P) links requires upgrade to a paid subscription. One click a day feeds a person a meal. Go to http://www.thehungersite.com Only subscribers or registered users of ICB Toll Free News web site will be able to access all or some of the full text of URLs provided. LEGAL STUFF: TELECOM Digest (sm) is owned by Patrick Townson. Copyright 2000 ICB, Inc. and TELECOM Digest. All rights reserved. Our attorney is Bill Levant, of Blue Bell, PA. --------------------------------------------------------------- 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 twenty 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 V22 #19 ***************************** From editor@telecom-digest.org Tue Sep 3 02:01:05 2002 Received: from localhost (localhost [[UNIX: localhost]]) by massis.lcs.mit.edu (8.11.3nb1/8.11.3) id g83615J27974; Tue, 3 Sep 2002 02:01:05 -0400 (EDT) Date: Tue, 3 Sep 2002 02:01:05 -0400 (EDT) From: editor@telecom-digest.org Message-Id: <200209030601.g83615J27974@massis.lcs.mit.edu> X-Authentication-Warning: massis.lcs.mit.edu: ptownson set sender to editor@telecom-digest.org using -f To: ptownson Approved: patsnewlist Subject: TELECOM Digest V22 #20 TELECOM Digest Tue, 3 Sep 2002 02:00:00 EDT Volume 22 : Issue 20 Inside This Issue: Editor: Patrick A. Townson Call for Submissions - On the Netizen (Ronda Hauben) South Carolina Judges Seek to Ban Secret Settlements (Monty Solomon) Re: Ringing a Phone?? (Wes Leatherock) Re: Ringing a Phone?? (John Higdon) Re: Domains Have Held Their Value Better Than Blue Chips (John Higdon) Re: .biz and .info (j.oppenheimer@att.net) Re: New Domains (John R. Levine) Re: Is it Feasible to Transmit Data via Phone Line in a House (C. Dold) Re: Telephone Surge Suppressor (Ken Abrams) Re: Cell/Mobile Phone Jamming Devices (Gail M. Hall) Re: Cell/Mobile Phone Jamming Devices (John Higdon) 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. WE DO NOT PERMIT NAME/EMAIL ADDRESS HARVESTING FROM THIS JOURNAL. 'SALTED' EMAIL ADDRESSES APPEAR HEREIN TO VERIFY THIS. YOU GET SUED IN SMALL CLAIMS COURT IF YOU GET CAUGHT SPAMMING OR SENDING VIRUSES. DON'T DO IT. See the bottom of this issue for subscription and archive details and the name of our lawyer; other stuff of interest. ---------------------------------------------------------------------- From: Ronda Hauben Subject: Call for Submissions - On the Netizen Date: Tue, 3 Sep 2002 03:21:52 UTC Organization: PANIX Public Access Internet and UNIX, NYC The emergence of the netizen was formulated by Michael Hauben as part of the online research he was doing in 1992/1993. He recognized that there were people online who considered themselves to be citizens of the net (net.citizen). These users were seeking to spread access for all to the Net. They understood the importance of the Net in spreading human to human computer facilitated communication. These users recognized the need to contribute to make the Net a valuable resource for all. Michael formulated the concept in an introduction to the new world that was being born online. (See introduction and conclusion to "The Net and the Netizen: The Impact the Net has on People's Lives", first posted in 1993, and then published in a print edition in 1997 and also available online: http://www.columbia.edu/~hauben/netbook ) Some of Michael's early research appeared on Usenet and then in the Amateur Computerist newsletter. His research inspired others to apply or develop the concept of netizen. It is now 10 years later. We would like to document the further development and application of the concept of netizen (and of the vision of the future of the net) that developed since Michael's research in 1992/1993. Also we want to project into the future about what the emergence of the netizen can mean to the further development of the Internet and of our society in general. We are seeking submissions, including articles, poems, cartoons, stories, plays etc. that develop or explore the concept of Netizen that has emerged along with the development of the Internet and Usenet. Submissions are due Sept 30, 2002. Please write and let us know if you will have a submission or if you have an idea/interest/suggestion for the upcoming issue. Long live the netizen and netizenship. Send submissions to jrh@ais.org ronda@ais.org Ronda Hauben Editor The Amateur Computerist http://www.ais.org/~jrh/acn [TELECOM Digest Editor's Note: I personally would like to see all the regular contributors here get essays into Ronda ASAP for this upcoming issue of ACN. She and Michael are good people to have around. Their book a few years ago, 'Netizens' was widely read and admired by many of us. Do what you can for her please. PAT] ------------------------------ Date: Mon, 2 Sep 2002 23:07:24 -0400 From: Monty Solomon Subject: South Carolina Judges Seek to Ban Secret Settlements South Carolina Judges Seek to Ban Secret Settlements By ADAM LIPTAK South Carolina's 10 active federal trial judges have unanimously voted to ban secret legal settlements, saying such agreements have made the courts complicit in hiding the truth about hazardous products, inept doctors and sexually abusive priests. "Here is a rare opportunity for our court to do the right thing," Chief Judge Joseph F. Anderson Jr. of United States District Court wrote to his colleagues, "and take the lead nationally in a time when the Arthur Andersen/Enron/Catholic priest controversies are undermining public confidence in our institutions and causing a growing suspicion of things that are kept secret by public bodies." If the court formally adopts the rule, after a public comment period that ends Sept. 30, it will be the strictest ban on secrecy in settlements in the federal courts. Mary Squiers, who tracks individual federal courts' rules for the United States Judicial Conference, said only Michigan had a similar rule, which unseals secret settlements after two years. The conference is the administrative body for federal courts. Judge Anderson said the new rule might save lives. http://www.nytimes.com/2002/09/02/national/02JUDG.html [TELECOM Digest Editor's Note: This is another piece of good news for everyone, isn't it. PAT] ------------------------------ From: wesrock@aol.com (Wes Leatherock) Date: 03 Sep 2002 00:34:10 GMT Organization: AOL http://www.aol.com Subject: Re: Ringing a Phone?? On Mon, 02 Sep 2002 18:56:48 GMT Jim Thompson Jim-T@analog_innovations.com.easynews.com wrote: > What does it really take to ring a modern electronic phone? Do you > need the high voltage or is it the frequency that causes ringing? If you're talking about on a line connected to a central office switch, the question is really irrelevant. Ihere are still a lot of mechanical ringers out there and the telco has no way of knowing whether or if there are such on the line. And it may change from time to time -- as, for example, when I turn the key to disconnect one of my mechanical ringers from my POTS line, and later turn it back on again. Wes Leatherock wesrock@aol.com wleathus@yahoo.com ------------------------------ Date: Mon, 02 Sep 2002 19:38:31 -0700 Subject: Re: Ringing a Phone?? From: John Higdon Organization: Green Hills and Cows In article telecom22.19.12@telecom-digest.org, Jim Thompson wrote: > What does it really take to ring a modern electronic phone? Do you > need the high voltage or is it the frequency that causes ringing? Yes, you need the voltage. Otherwise, the phone would chirp and squeak when other phones on the line when on and off hook. John Higdon | Email Address Valid | SF: +1 415 428-COWS +1 408 264 4115 | Anytown, USA | FAX: +1 408 264 4407 ------------------------------ Date: Mon, 02 Sep 2002 12:49:13 -0700 Subject: Re: Domains Have Held Their Value Better Than Blue Chips From: John Higdon Organization: Green Hills and Cows In article telecom22.19.8@telecom-digest.org, tina_lotis@australia.edu spammed (on which the Moderator responded): > [TELECOM Digest Editor's Note: I thought this spam was important for > us to look at. Judith Oppenheimer may know the answer on this: has > ICANN approved the use of '.biz' and '.info' name spaces? I thought > I read that these 'alternate roots' didn't work very well. Who can > comment? Also in her subject line she tells us that 'domain names > held their value better than blue-chip stocks'. Is that true? I sort > of doubt it. PAT] I'm starting to see senders with .biz and .info TLDs. This is manna from heaven. Whatever else you do against spam, all you have to do is write in one more rule: block all *.biz and *.info email. It's all spam, anyway. I have no idea if any of them are actually routable to whom they claim to be. No one, and I mean NO ONE who is a real net.person would touch these TLDs with a ten-foot Lithuanian. "Exciting new domains" my posterior! John Higdon | Email Address Valid | SF: +1 415 428-COWS +1 408 264 4115 | Anytown, USA | FAX: +1 408 264 4407 ------------------------------ From: j.oppenheimer@att.net Subject: .biz and .info Date: Mon, 02 Sep 2002 20:09:45 +0000 Patrick, .biz and .info are two of the seven new tlds approved by ICANN - .biz was awarded to Neustar (see http://www.icannwatch.org/article.php?sid=643) and .info to Afilias (see http://www.icannwatch.org/article.php? sid=404). Afilias is ISOC's partner on .org. (see http://www.icann.org/tlds/org/preliminary-evaluation- report-19aug02.htm). :-) Judith Oppenheimer http://JudithOppenheimer.com http://ICBTollFreeNews.com http://WhoSells800.com 212 684-7210, 1 800 The Expert > Reply-To: > From: > Subject: Domains Have Held Their Value Better Than Blue Chips > Date: Mon, 02 Sep 2002 06:01:37 -0200 > LATEST NEWS: > The new domain names are finally available to the general public at > discount prices. Now you can register one of the exciting new .BIZ or > .INFO domain names, as well as the original .COM and .NET names for > just $14.95. These brand new domain extensions were recently approved > by ICANN and have the same rights as the original .COM and .NET domain > names. The biggest benefit is of-course that the .BIZ and .INFO domain > names are currently more available. i.e. it will be much easier to > register an attractive and easy-to-remember domain name for the same > price. Visit: http://www.affordable-domains.com today for more info. > Register your domain name today for just $14.95 at: > http://www.affordable-domains.com/ Registration fees include full > access to an easy-to-use control panel to manage your domain name in > the future. ------------------------------ Date: 2 Sep 2002 22:38:22 -0400 From: johnl@iecc.com (John R. Levine) Subject: Re: New Domains Organization: I.E.C.C., Trumansburg NY USA > has ICANN approved the use of '.biz' and '.info' name spaces? Yes. Here's the rundown on new domains in the real root: biz nominally businesses, in practice anyone info information something or other, permits anyone name supposed to be your name like john@smith.name Those three are available through pretty much any registrar who handles com, org, and net, although the companies handling the underlying databases are different. The other four are all "sponsored" which means you have to demonstrate that you're whatever the domain is supposed to be about in order to register aero airlines and the like. coop cooperatives. museum museums. pro professionals, like kildare.med.pro. The pro domain hasn't gotten their act together yet, the other three are active, e.g. www.aeroflot.aero. Also, the .us domain has been opened up so that anyone in the US can register blah.us domains as well as the traditional name.city.st.us domains. That's unrelated to the fake .usa domain being pitched by spamming crooks. John R. Levine, IECC, POB 727, Trumansburg NY 14886 +1 607 387 6869 johnl@iecc.com Village Trustee and Sewer Commissioner http://iecc.com/johnl Member, Provisional board, Coalition Against Unsolicited Commercial E-mail [TELECOM Digest Editor's Note: My thanks to the two Johns and Judith for clarifying all this. As John Higdon suggested, letters sent from the .biz and .info domains are probably 99.44 percent spam and can be filter-ruled as such. I'll adjust my rules tonight. I wonder why in the setting up of these new domains they did not start one known as '.spam' to put them all in, or would that simply be too brazen and rude or crude? Thanks also to johnl for explaining about the differ- ence between '.us' and '.usa' domain names. I imagine most of the '.usa' names can also be filter-ruled if you can write the rule without harming good '.us' mail in the process. As for .aero .coop and .pro we will just have to watch and see how abusive they become in the next few months. If ICANN wanted to make themselves useful, maybe they could pass a new condition in their contracts for users that anyone caught spamming or virus-writing had to have their domain name moved to .biz and now that I think about it, why isn't there a new '.virus' domain for the writers/spreaders of same? (pause for laughter). :) PAT] ------------------------------ From: dold@70.usenet.us.com Subject: Re: Is it Feasible to Transmit Data via Telephone Line in a House? Date: 2 Sep 2002 19:42:24 GMT Organization: Wintercreek Data Sanjay Punjab wrote: > I have an application where I need a PC to communicate with a device > in another room in a residential home. Running a cable is not > practical for this application and wireless RS-232 is cost > prohibitive for my application. I am considering using the local > phone wiring in the house for data transmission between the PC and > the device, implementing a pseudo RS-232 protocol. Rather than messing with the two wires currently used by the phone (which I think is fraught with peril), you should check to see if there is an unused pair already run. As I sit here, I have just finished doing exactly that. I had one phoine line appearing on jacks throughout the house. Another line only appeared on one jack, for the computer. I wanted it at the opposite end of the house. The red/green pair was used for the existing phone line for each jack. A yellow/black pair was unused at each jack. Because there was no "home run" back to the entry point, I just started at the entry point, tying yellow/black to the "modem" line, and then tied blacks and yellows together at each jack until I had the second line present at the far end of the house. Now I need to stop reading news and move the computer. Clarence A Dold - dold@email.rahul.net - Hidden Valley (Lake County) CA. ------------------------------ From: Ken Abrams Subject: Re: Telephone Surge Suppressor Date: Mon, 2 Sep 2002 15:37:47 -0500 w_tom wrote: > Surge protection is about earthing a surge before it can enter the > building. So effective is the technique that your local phone company > does not turn off phone service during thunderstorms to protect their > $multi-million computer. Emergency response operators need not remove > headsets to protect themselves from direct lightning strikes. 'Whole > house' protection is that effective and has been proven since the > 1930s. While much of what you say is (substantially) true, the above is total drivel. To perpetuate this is downright dangerous. The surge suppression provided by the Telco is crude and generally ineffective, regardless of the quality of the ground provided. What HAS been proven since the 1930's is that people are injured and killed every year while talking on the phone during a thunderstorm. How do I know this? I worked at a telco for 22 years, as a craftsman, supervisor and engineer. The "multi-million" dollar computers are not immune either. I have, on several occasions, worked for days repairing damage to them caused by lightening. [TELECOM Digest Editor's Note: But explain this to me then. How do 911 operators function in bad storms in that case (of poor or ineffectual) grounds? They have to stay on the phone don't they? Back in May, when we had a very severe rainstorm and flood one day, AND the emergency sirens around town went off by accident it left the 911 operator totally swamped. Instead of getting possibly one call in a few hours, she got several calls per minute while the rain and lightening were so bad *until* they figured out how to shut off those sirens. I guess everyone assumed the sirens meant a tornado was coming or had hit town, so they called to get the scoop on it. People are a little sensitive about that since two years ago a tornado landed in the little town of Parsons, Kansas near here and besides wiping out a large part of the business district it completely demolished the city hall/police/fire station there. Parsons called for help on the police radio; Independence, Coffeyville and Fredonia responded and took over the Parsons emergency functions overnight. They had a new PD/FD built in about three weeks, with construction 24 hours per day. But based on what you said, how do they manage? PAT] ------------------------------ From: Gail M. Hall Subject: Re: Cell/Mobile Phone Jamming Devices Date: Mon, 02 Sep 2002 17:28:11 -0400 Reply-To: gmhall@apk.net On Mon, 2 Sep 2002 01:38:16 +0100, in comp.dcom.telecom, you (Mike Hartley ) wrote: >>> And if I cant buy one of these jammers, then I'll probably go ahead >>> and build one myself. >> So jammers are OK? > Rhetorical question, I hope. Of course they're not. >> What do you think of this real-life situation: > of stereo> > It's very unfortunate. I don't know about your local laws but here in > the UK there is an) escalation path which allows you to report people > like this to the local authorities. Eventually they can end up in very > deep sh*t indeed if they don't desist, but most offenders stop once > the local environmental heath officers turn up -- threats of > confiscation of equipment are quite effective. This discussion seems to have gone into two types of cases where people might want to block disturbing wireless phone use (public places and then relatively private places) and even wandered off to the subject of blocking radio reception by a neighbor's loud radios. Getting back to the situation of public places such as theaters or concert halls, I think that any establishment that purposely blocks wireless phone reception should provide FREE phones capable of dialing out to local numbers and/or an area in the building without blocked reception. This would allow those people such as emergency workers, medical service people, etc., to still have communication with their contacts. A lot of people have got wireless phones because it is harder and harder to find pay phones. If people have already paid for alternative methods for communication, it isn't fair to block those without giving them free or very inexpensive alternative methods for communicating. Another idea I have wondered about. Since reception isn't always available to wireless services, how about the wireless companies also providing phone cards with very inexpensive long-distance calling available? Wireless phones don't work from my father's house, but as close as a mile closer to town, people can use their wireless phones. It would be a nice additional service if the wireless companies could sell us a certain number of minutes on a phone card for less cost per minute than other companies selling phone cards. >> As with the jamming of wireless phones, it is illegal as hell, but is >> there any moral reason I shouldn't do this? Remember, it would wipe >> out any other person's reception of that station within the radius of >> my attack. > I don't think you have any more moral right to jam than the offender > has to disturb you. To look at it another way, if I don't like a > particular website, is there a moral reason why I shouldn't launch a > DOS attack? big ol' can of worms A better comparison would be spam mail. Web sites don't barge in on you unrequested the way loud radios can. I hate having all those porn sites barging into my mailbox. Fortunately, I DO have the right to pitch junk snailmail into the wastebasket and delete all the spam email I don't want to read without having to read it first. >> Would these considerations apply to the jamming of wireless >> phone signals? Why or why not? > Can you morally make a decision on jamming communication based on your > own interpretation of value/legitimacy? Isn't this what the FCC is for? There are laws about noise in most cities here, so if the noise level is over the amount permitted by law, then we can call the cops. We don't have the right to go into their houses or cars and bust up their sound systems or use some other method to block their reception as well as the reception for innocent neighbors. Jamming of radio signals was a technique used by both sides during the cold war. We must ask ourselves if we are really ready to declare war on our fellow customers at concerts (including innocent ones) or our own customers (if you are the one giving the concert or play performance. How about developing a technique to detect wireless phones left on? As customers pass through the door, the detector would note which patrons have left their phones on, and the ushers could double check with them to make sure the ringers are turned off and politely remind them that if they need to talk on their phones, they should leave the auditorium and go into the lobby or other designated place in the hall. Gail from Ohio USA ------------------------------ Date: Mon, 02 Sep 2002 19:37:04 -0700 Subject: Re: Cell/Mobile Phone Jamming Devices From: John Higdon Organization: Green Hills and Cows In article telecom22.19.3@telecom-digest.org, Mike Hartley wrote: > My commiserations. IMO classic rock sucks, unless it falls within my > own definition of 'classic' that is ;+) Sadly I don't think that > personal taste or aural overload gives you the right to jam, tempting > though it may be. How about calling the station and asking them to > name and shame the person, or even knocking on his/her door and asking > him/her to turn it down? This is the USA. One does not knock on the door of a stranger and (even politely) suggest that he alter his behavior in any way unless there is imminent danger of death or property destruction. The station to which he listens is a client of mine. It would be a simple matter to have something said over the air. The programming people would probably love to be very creative and clever. The point I was trying to make (and you helped make it for me) is that it really IS wrong to interfere with others when one person is being inconsiderate. Jamming all the cellphones in a theater or restaurant inconveniences all those phone users in the establishment for nothing more than a pre-emptive strike on the one inconsiderate person who MIGHT become an irritant. For the record: jamming is something that should never be tolerated on any band for any reason. It is prohibited by Federal law, and rightly so. If I ever detected such a device in use anywhere, I would move heaven and earth to have its owner prosecuted. And with thirty-five years of experience, I know how to get the FCC's attention! John Higdon | Email Address Valid | SF: +1 415 428-COWS +1 408 264 4115 | Anytown, USA | FAX: +1 408 264 4407 ------------------------------ TELECOM Digest is an electronic journal devoted mostly but not exclusively to telecommunications topics. It is circulated anywhere there is email, in addition to various telecom forums on a variety of networks such as Compuserve and America On Line, 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: 620-870-9697 Fax 1: 775-255-9970 Fax 2: 775-306-8390 Fax 3: 530-309-7234 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 second 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) Email <==> FTP: telecom-archives@telecom-digest.org Send a simple, one line note to that automated address for a help file on how to use the automatic retrieval system for archives files. You can get desired files in email. ************************************************************************* * 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. Access to Premium (P) links requires upgrade to a paid subscription. One click a day feeds a person a meal. Go to http://www.thehungersite.com Only subscribers or registered users of ICB Toll Free News web site will be able to access all or some of the full text of URLs provided. LEGAL STUFF: TELECOM Digest (sm) is owned by Patrick Townson. Copyright 2000 ICB, Inc. and TELECOM Digest. All rights reserved. Our attorney is Bill Levant, of Blue Bell, PA. --------------------------------------------------------------- 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 twenty 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 V22 #20 ***************************** From editor@telecom-digest.org Tue Sep 3 13:29:14 2002 Received: from localhost (localhost [[UNIX: localhost]]) by massis.lcs.mit.edu (8.11.3nb1/8.11.3) id g83HTE701749; Tue, 3 Sep 2002 13:29:14 -0400 (EDT) Date: Tue, 3 Sep 2002 13:29:14 -0400 (EDT) From: editor@telecom-digest.org Message-Id: <200209031729.g83HTE701749@massis.lcs.mit.edu> X-Authentication-Warning: massis.lcs.mit.edu: ptownson set sender to editor@telecom-digest.org using -f To: ptownson Approved: patsnewlist Subject: TELECOM Digest V22 #21 TELECOM Digest Tue, 3 Sep 2002 13:29:00 EDT Volume 22 : Issue 21 Inside This Issue: Editor: Patrick A. Townson Telecom Update (Canada) #347, September 3, 2002 (Angus TeleManagement) Re: Telephone Surge Suppressor (w_tom) Re: Record Labels Sue Internet Providers Over Site (Steve Brack) Re: South Carolina Judges Seek to Ban Secret Settlements (Paul Wallich) Legit .info Users, was Re: Domains Have Held Their Value (Danny Burstein) Re: Domains Have Held Their Value (Fred R. Goldstein) Finding CO? (Ray) 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. WE DO NOT PERMIT NAME/EMAIL ADDRESS HARVESTING FROM THIS JOURNAL. 'SALTED' EMAIL ADDRESSES APPEAR HEREIN TO VERIFY THIS. YOU GET SUED IN SMALL CLAIMS COURT IF YOU GET CAUGHT SPAMMING OR SENDING VIRUSES. DON'T DO IT. See the bottom of this issue for subscription and archive details and the name of our lawyer; other stuff of interest. ---------------------------------------------------------------------- Date: Tue, 03 Sep 2002 11:07:13 -0400 From: Angus TeleManagement Subject: Telecom Update (Canada) #347, September 3, 2002 ************************************************************ TELECOM UPDATE ************************************************************ published weekly by Angus TeleManagement Group http://www.angustel.ca Number 347: September 3, 2002 Publication of Telecom Update is made possible by generous financial support from: ** BELL CANADA: http://www.bell.ca ** CISCO SYSTEMS CANADA: http://www.cisco.com/ca/letstalk ** CYGCOM INTEGRATED TECHNOLOGIES: http://www.cygcom.com ** ERICSSON CANADA: http://www.ericsson.ca ** JUNIPER NETWORKS: http://www.juniper.net ** PRIMUS CANADA: http://www.primustel.ca ** Q9 NETWORKS: http://www.Q9.com ** TELUS: http://www.telus.com ************************************************************ IN THIS ISSUE: ** AT&T Appeals Price Cap Ruling ** Nortel Laying Off Another 7,000 ** Aliant Files Tariffs for Disputed Services ** Globalstar Cuts Satellite-Phone Rates ** CRTC Dismisses Quebecor Complaint Against BCE ** LD Marketer Faces Charges ** SaskTel Must File Quality Reports ** Telus Claim Delays 360 Plan ** Group Telecom Delays Results ** C-Com Joins Hughes Applications Alliance ** Bell Mobility Expands Service in West ** Gilfillan to Join CRTC ** Brascan Rep Named to AT&T Board ** Com Dev Restructuring Continues ** Cisco Deconstructs the PBX ** Last Chance for IP-PBX Book ============================================================ AT&T APPEALS PRICE CAP RULING: AT&T Canada has formally petitioned the Federal Cabinet to change parts of the CRTC's recent price caps decision. AT&T asks Cabinet to direct the Commission to: ** Foster competition in telecom, not "merely ... 'facilities-based' competition"; ** Ensure that competitors have "competitively neutral access" to network facilities and services from the incumbents; ** On an interim basis, reduce the rate paid by competitors for telco services and facilities by 50%, retroactive to June 1; ** Create and implement a "transparent and auditable costing methodology" for services used by competitors, by the end of June 2003. NORTEL LAYING OFF ANOTHER 7,000: Nortel Networks says its third quarter sales will be about 10% below the previous quarter's US$2.7 billion, mainly because of lower spending by U.S. carriers. Nortel is eliminating another 7,000 jobs, to reduce its work force to 35,000 and bring its "quarterly breakeven cost structure" below $2.6 billion. ALIANT FILES TARIFFS FOR DISPUTED SERVICES: Aliant has filed new tariffs for two services recently turned down by the CRTC. The telco won competitive bids by promising both services to customers for September, and has asked the Commission for expedited approval. ** Aliant Tariff Notice #42 offers Nova Scotia colleges and universities in Halifax and Truro a bundled local phone, TV, and high-speed Internet service for students, at $45/month each (see Telecom Update #346). http://www.crtc.gc.ca/8740/eng/2002/a53.htm#42 ** TN #43 offers Centrex service to health and education customers in St. John's Newfoundland with 2,800 lines or more for $20.75/month on a three-year contract (eliminating the one-kilometre requirement that the CRTC objected to -- see Telecom Update #345). http://www.crtc.gc.ca/8740/eng/2002/a53.htm#43 GLOBALSTAR CUTS SATELLITE-PHONE RATES: Globalstar Canada has reduced airtime prices for satellite calling 25%-75%. Price for 150 minutes: $99.95; for 1,250 minutes: $399.95. Handsets are listed at $995, a one-third reduction. CRTC DISMISSES QUEBECOR COMPLAINT AGAINST BCE: The CRTC says Quebecor subsidiary Videotron failed to demonstrate that BCE's 80%-owned sports network, RDS, has charged Bell ExpressVu less for programming than it charges Videotron. ** In a second decision, the CRTC said Videotron violated broadcasting regulations by unilaterally reducing its payments to RDS, and ordered Videotron to pay all accumulated amounts owed. http://www.crtc.gc.ca/archive/ENG/Decisions/2002/db2002-254.htm http://www.crtc.gc.ca/archive/ENG/Decisions/2002/db2002-255.htm LD MARKETER FACES CHARGES: The Competition Bureau has charged All Communications Network of Canada with deceptive marketing and operating an illegal pyramid scheme. ACN, which has "World Headquarters" in Michigan, sells long-distance, Internet, paging, and natural gas contracts in Canada through an office in Mississauga. SASKTEL MUST FILE QUALITY REPORTS: As one of the final steps in moving SaskTel to federal regulation, the CRTC has ordered the telco to file the same quality of service reports as the other major ILECs, beginning in 4Q 2002, and invites comments by September 30 on whether it should be subject to the same penalties if it fails to meet standards. http://www.crtc.gc.ca/archive/ENG/Decisions/2002/dt2002-53.htm TELUS CLAIM DELAYS 360 PLAN: A last minute challenge by Telus has delayed BC Supreme Court action on the restructuring plan submitted by 360networks. Telus says 360networks has not resolved a $25 million claim Telus made for a Vancouver-Seattle fibre link that was never completed. GROUP TELECOM DELAYS RESULTS: Group Telecom, whose creditor protection currently extends to September 10, has postponed filing its April-June financial results 30 days, to September 30. (See Telecom Update #339) C-COM JOINS HUGHES APPLICATIONS ALLIANCE: C-Com Satellite Systems has been selected to join the Hughes Broadband Partnership, which will develop applications for Hughes' next-generation satellite network. BELL MOBILITY EXPANDS SERVICE IN WEST: Bell Mobility now offers Solo prepaid wireless service in Alberta and British Columbia. GILFILLAN TO JOIN CRTC: Fiona Gilfillan, VP Regulatory Affairs at Group Telecom, is leaving to become Director of Telecommunications Decisions, Planning, and Operations at the CRTC on September 16. BRASCAN REP NAMED TO AT&T BOARD: AT&T Canada has named Jeffrey Blidner, Vice-Chairman of Brascan Financial Corp, to its Board of Directors. He replaces Marc Fortier, who has resigned. COM DEV RESTRUCTURING CONTINUES: Com Dev International says that it will downsize its corporate head office and eliminate 45 staff positions. With broadband and wireless units now discontinued, Com Dev's Space division accounted for all its May-July revenues of $28.2 million (down from $30.4 million a year ago). Net loss: $22.5 million. ** Com Dev chief executive Keith Ainsworth retires October 31; his replacement is COO John Keating. CISCO DECONSTRUCTS THE PBX: In just three years, Cisco Systems has shaken up the PBX industry with a new communications architecture based on client-server computing and LAN-IP distribution. In the September Telemanagement, available today, Ian Angus evaluates Cisco's IP Telephony offering, and explains why it has so quickly become a prime contender for every new PBX installation. ** Single copies of Telemanagement #198 are $75 each -- call 905-686-5050 ext 500 and charge to Visa, American Express, or Mastercard. Save 49% with a 10-issue subscription -- go to http://www.angustel.ca/teleman/tm-sub.html. LAST CHANCE FOR IP-PBX BOOK: Subscribe to Telemanagement now and receive the "IP PBX Revolution" anthology as a free bonus. This offer expires September 6. Download full information at: http://www.angustel.ca/teleman/tm-IP_PBX_Bonus.pdf ============================================================ HOW TO SUBMIT ITEMS FOR TELECOM UPDATE E-MAIL: editors@angustel.ca FAX: 905-686-2655 MAIL: TELECOM UPDATE Angus TeleManagement Group 8 Old Kingston Road Ajax, Ontario Canada L1T 2Z7 =========================================================== HOW TO SUBSCRIBE (OR UNSUBSCRIBE) TELECOM UPDATE is provided in electronic form only. There are two formats available: 1. The fully-formatted edition is posted on the World Wide Web on the first business day of the week at http://www.angustel.ca 2. The e-mail edition is distributed free of charge. To subscribe, send an e-mail message to: TelecomUpdate@add.postmastergeneral.com To stop receiving the e-mail edition, send an e-mail message to: TelecomUpdate@remove.postmastergeneral.com Sending e-mail to these addresses will automatically add or remove the sender's e-mail address from the list. Leave subject line and message area blank. We do not give Telecom Update subscribers' e-mail addresses to any third party. For more information, see http://www.angustel.ca/update/privacy.html. =========================================================== COPYRIGHT AND CONDITIONS OF USE: All contents copyright 2002 Angus TeleManagement Group Inc. All rights reserved. For further information, including permission to reprint or reproduce, please e-mail rosita@angustel.ca or phone 905-686-5050 ext 500. The information and data included has been obtained from sources which we believe to be reliable, but Angus TeleManagement makes no warranties or representations whatsoever regarding accuracy, completeness, or adequacy. Opinions expressed are based on interpretation of available information, and are subject to change. If expert advice on the subject matter is required, the services of a competent professional should be obtained. ============================================================ ------------------------------ From: w_tom Subject: Re: Telephone Surge Suppressor Date: Tue, 03 Sep 2002 10:22:20 -0400 Organization: Posted via Supernews, http://www.supernews.com Since the mid-1980's, telephone surge protection has been installed to shunt surges direct to earth ground. That is surge protection from the direct lightning strike without damage. The surge protector installed in an NID is substantial and sufficient for residential phone service protection. However that surge protection is only as effective as its earth ground. Some residences have woefully inadequate earthing -- that no telco provided surge protector is going to solve. Furthermore, surge protection demands that all incoming wires be properly earthed. Again, that telephone surge protectors does little if the other incoming wires are also not properly surge protected. Therein lies one way a human on a phone can be shocked. Incoming on AC electric. Outgoing on phone line. A classic mistake is to install an incoming phone line to an earth ground separate from the central earth ground. Nothing the phone company does is going to solve that home owner's or builder's created problem. The point remains that lightning damage - and even shock from a telephone - are directly traceable to human failure. A surge protector may be provided by the telco that is sufficient. But the surge protector is only as effective as its earth ground. That earth ground is ultimately the homeowner's responsibility. Earth ground determines quality of surge protection. A 'whole house' surge protector for each incoming utility must be earthed to the same, central earth ground AND by a connection that is less than 10 feet long. Ken Abrams wrote: > w_tom wrote: >> Surge protection is about earthing a surge before it can enter the >> building. So effective is the technique that your local phone company >> does not turn off phone service during thunderstorms to protect their >> $multi-million computer. Emergency response operators need not remove >> headsets to protect themselves from direct lightning strikes. 'Whole >> house' protection is that effective and has been proven since the >> 1930s. > While much of what you say is (substantially) true, the above is total > drivel. To perpetuate this is downright dangerous. The surge > suppression provided by the Telco is crude and generally ineffective, > regardless of the quality of the ground provided. What HAS been > proven since the 1930's is that people are injured and killed every > year while talking on the phone during a thunderstorm. How do I know > this? I worked at a telco for 22 years, as a craftsman, supervisor > and engineer. The "multi-million" dollar computers are not immune > either. I have, on several occasions, worked for days repairing > damage to them caused by lightening. ------------------------------ From: Steve Brack Subject: Re: Record Labels Sue Internet Providers Over Site Organization: Society for the Preservation of Steve Brack Date: Tue, 03 Sep 2002 14:36:41 GMT In this specific case, we are speaking of the Internet backbone providers. I can see not treating an ISP like AOL as a common carrier when it provides value-added services, but I can't see the same treatment for a backbone provider (Sprint/Alter/etc.) where their sole contribution is hauling and routing bits from node to node. If backbone providers can be hauled into court for what's carried by their backbone, then if I send infringing music over my DSL line, then the recording industry could sue Ameritech. This doesn't track with how we treat other omnibus services. So, here's the $64 dollar question: When Sprint carries voice bits, it's a common carrier and insulated from content issues, but when Sprint carries data bits (which look and feel the same as voice bits), it's suddenly responsible, according to the recording industry? Steve Brack John R Levine wrote in message news:telecom22.4.1@telecom-digest.org: >> I don't think we are officially categorized as common carriers, but >> our status is very similar. I think there was a court case earlier >> this year that decided that we aren't responsible for content that we >> don't actually produce. > ISPs are not common carriers, they're value added networks or enhanced > service providers or something like that, even if the ISP is a > subsidiary of a phone company. That's the reason the "modem tax" > never anywhere, since the access charge the telcos wanted to charge > applies only to common carriers. > Section 230(c)(1) of the reviled Communication Decency Act says: > Treatment of publisher or speaker. No provider or user of an > interactive computer service shall be treated as the publisher > or speaker of any information provided by another information > content provider. > It's in with stuff about porn filtering, but it means what it says, > you can't be sued for libel for something your users say. The legal > challenge to the CDA wasn't about that part, so it's fully in effect. > I don't know whether it's been used in court yet. >> I think the only Internet provider that was ever required to exercise >> control was the old Prodigy system. > That's the Stratton-Oakmont case. The CDA section was specifically to > reverse that. ------------------------------ From: Paul Wallich Subject: Re: South Carolina Judges Seek to Ban Secret Settlements Date: Tue, 03 Sep 2002 11:05:50 -0400 Organization: PANIX Public Access Internet and UNIX, NYC In article , Monty Solomon wrote: > South Carolina Judges Seek to Ban Secret Settlements > By ADAM LIPTAK > South Carolina's 10 active federal trial judges have unanimously > voted to ban secret legal settlements, saying such agreements have > made the courts complicit in hiding the truth about hazardous > products, inept doctors and sexually abusive priests. > "Here is a rare opportunity for our court to do the right thing," > Chief Judge Joseph F. Anderson Jr. of United States District Court > wrote to his colleagues, "and take the lead nationally in a time when > the Arthur Andersen/Enron/Catholic priest controversies are > undermining public confidence in our institutions and causing a > growing suspicion of things that are kept secret by public bodies." > If the court formally adopts the rule, after a public comment period > that ends Sept. 30, it will be the strictest ban on secrecy in > settlements in the federal courts. Mary Squiers, who tracks > individual federal courts' rules for the United States Judicial > Conference, said only Michigan had a similar rule, which unseals > secret settlements after two years. The conference is the > administrative body for federal courts. > Judge Anderson said the new rule might save lives. > http://www.nytimes.com/2002/09/02/national/02JUDG.html > [TELECOM Digest Editor's Note: This is another piece of good news > for everyone, isn't it. PAT] (Well, it might not be a piece of good news for _everyone_ because it changes the risk-benefit equation for the people being sued in a way that could make them more likely to try and strangle plaintiffs with pretrial maneuvering. Right now, if you're a big evil-doer, and someone sues you for robbing or maiming them, an out-of-court settlement buys both an end to one suit and knowledge that the information gathered in that suit won't be used to bolster a dozen or a thousand others. Without secret settlements, paying off one litigant puts you in only a slightly better position -- with respect to future suits -- than you would have been had you lost at trial. So the calculation changes, and some big defendants may be more willing to take the chance that they can outspend their opposition, or traumatize enough complainants on the witness stand that a jury won't see clear and convincing liability, and other potential plaintiffs will be scared off. Of course the ones that lose that gamble will lose even bigger, but it will mean that some deserving injured parties won't get compensated, or will get compensated much later than they otherwise would. I think the new rule is a really really good idea, but it should be recognized that the gains will have at least some price.) [TELECOM Digest Editor's Note: I still think overall, weighing the gains and the costs, it still is a good deal. After all, if Megacorp and First Megachurch had *even tried to be more accountable* to the people they serve most of these problems would not have come up. I can tell you at least regards the Catholic Church, their problem largely arose because of the high regard with which their parishoners hold their priests, and the polity, or government structure of the church. My Catholic friends who have been absolutely mortified by events in recent months think they are an exception. Not at all! Protestant churches have this 'problem' all the time also. But unlike the central structure of the Catholic Church and the way people revere the priests, the members of the protesting churches (that's how we got the name 'Protestant' because of our protests several centuries ago) don't have the same kind of central structure, nor do we give a damn about the preacher/pastor. Catholic people, listen up: Many's the time a protestant pastor has 'gotten in trouble' for the same kind of thing and typically the Board of Directors or Trustees call him into a private, hush-hush meeting and tell him point blank 'you are out! on your ass! today. Then fire him, pay off the plaintiff(s) and hope things quiet down before the whole congregation finds out. And the matter is *never* mentioned publicly at all. The directors or board hires a new pastor and hope they have better luck with that one. PAT] ------------------------------ From: danny burstein Subject: Legit .info Users, was Re: Domains Have Held Their Value Date: Tue, 3 Sep 2002 06:22:10 UTC Organization: PANIX Public Access Internet and UNIX, NYC In John Higdon writes: > I'm starting to see senders with .biz and .info TLDs. This is manna > from heaven. Whatever else you do against spam, all you have to do is > write in one more rule: block all *.biz and *.info email. It's all > spam, anyway. I have no idea if any of them are actually routable to > whom they claim to be. > No one, and I mean NO ONE who is a real net.person would touch these > TLDs with a ten-foot Lithuanian. "Exciting new domains" my posterior! While they don't (afaik) use it for e-mail purposes, the Metropolitan Transportation Authority for the NYC area, which (to loosely and not quite precisely explain it) is the NY State agency that kind-of runs the NYC subway, the Long Island Railroad, the Metro-North RR [a], and lots and lots of buses ... picked up the domain name mta.info. (Most of the individual groups do, indeed, have their own domains as well. For example, lirr.org (not com) gets you the long island rr.) Going to http://www.mta.info gets you to their main index page, and they've done a very credible job of getting information out there. [a] Oh, can't forget ... they also run the Staten Island Rapid Transit Operating Authority, whose likely domain, sirtoa.com, seems to have been grabbed by a fan of that minimalist rail system. danny " clang, clang, clang, went the trolley " burstein Knowledge may be power, but communications is the key dannyb@panix.com [to foil spammers, my address has been double rot-13 encoded] [TELECOM Digest Editor's Note: I thought these days, with ICANN in charge of things, all Megacorp had to do was file a complaint about squatters and ICANN would promptly take away the domain name from whoever had it and turn it over to the corporation. The contract they make domain name users sign has that provision, that you do not own your domain name, they (ICANN) own it. Judith, has that provision in the contract been changed? I cannot imagine MTA being any differ- ent than the hicago ransit trocity in that respect. CTA wanted 'chicagobusroutes.com' and got it taken away from the guy who was using it. They said he was a cyber-squatter and ICANN bought it without any questions. It seems he was highly critical of the bus schedules and the cleanlieness of the vehicles, and the Authority took umbrage about his criticisms. PAT] ------------------------------ Date: Tue, 03 Sep 2002 09:47:58 -0400 From: Fred R. Goldstein Subject: Re: Domains Have Held Their Value Better Than Blue John Higdon wrote, > I'm starting to see senders with .biz and .info TLDs. This is manna > from heaven. Whatever else you do against spam, all you have to do is > write in one more rule: block all *.biz and *.info email. It's all > spam, anyway. I have no idea if any of them are actually routable to > whom they claim to be. Not so fast. The .biz domain is also an alternative for real users whose .com was busy. The company I work for, TIAX LLC, was created a few months ago, in order to acquire (at auction) an operating unit of the bankrupt Arthur D Little Corp. The unit continues to operate as TIAX. But it turns out that "Tiax" is a character in the computer game Baldur's Gate. And somebody in Korea is sitting on tiax.com. So TIAX the company uses tiax.biz as its primary domain, including http://www.tiax.biz as its home page and @tiax.biz for mail. I think that was the original intent of the new domains anyway, to create more name space. Of course it has been abused, and a .biz address is generally blocked when a real company, copyright claimant, or anything pretending to be either has a claim on the name. But there are millions of vanity and otherwise unprotected .com names languishing in the root, so .biz is a real way to get a company name that overlaps those into a second-level domain. [TELECOM Digest Editor's Note: But in actual practice, what John Higdon says is correct. They are mostly all spam names. There are exceptions, as you point out, but not many. 99.44 percent pure spam, with a few inert ingredients tossed in. Instead of having to expand the .com domain by starting .biz why not instead expand .org or .net for NON-SPAM, NON-VIRUS WRITING uses? PAT] ------------------------------ Reply-To: Ray From: Ray Subject: Finding CO? Organization: WEBUSENET.com Date: Tue, 3 Sep 2002 09:52:56 -0400 Is there a way to find out exactly where a CO is located in any given city? Thanks. ------------------------------ TELECOM Digest is an electronic journal devoted mostly but not exclusively to telecommunications topics. It is circulated anywhere there is email, in addition to various telecom forums on a variety of networks such as Compuserve and America On Line, 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: 620-870-9697 Fax 1: 775-255-9970 Fax 2: 775-306-8390 Fax 3: 530-309-7234 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 second 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) Email <==> FTP: telecom-archives@telecom-digest.org Send a simple, one line note to that automated address for a help file on how to use the automatic retrieval system for archives files. You can get desired files in email. ************************************************************************* * 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. Access to Premium (P) links requires upgrade to a paid subscription. One click a day feeds a person a meal. Go to http://www.thehungersite.com Only subscribers or registered users of ICB Toll Free News web site will be able to access all or some of the full text of URLs provided. LEGAL STUFF: TELECOM Digest (sm) is owned by Patrick Townson. Copyright 2000 ICB, Inc. and TELECOM Digest. All rights reserved. Our attorney is Bill Levant, of Blue Bell, PA. --------------------------------------------------------------- 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 twenty 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 V22 #21 ***************************** From editor@telecom-digest.org Tue Sep 3 19:02:03 2002 Received: from localhost (localhost [[UNIX: localhost]]) by massis.lcs.mit.edu (8.11.3nb1/8.11.3) id g83N23V03692; Tue, 3 Sep 2002 19:02:03 -0400 (EDT) Date: Tue, 3 Sep 2002 19:02:03 -0400 (EDT) From: editor@telecom-digest.org Message-Id: <200209032302.g83N23V03692@massis.lcs.mit.edu> X-Authentication-Warning: massis.lcs.mit.edu: ptownson set sender to editor@telecom-digest.org using -f To: ptownson Approved: patsnewlist Subject: TELECOM Digest V22 #22 TELECOM Digest Tue, 3 Sep 2002 18:02:00 EDT Volume 22 : Issue 22 Inside This Issue: Editor: Patrick A. Townson Call For Papers - First Intl. Conference on Mobile Systems (Alex Walker) Alternative Local Dialtones (JPVENEZIA) Re: New Domains (Dave Mausner) Re: .biz and .info (Jeremy Lee) Get Bent - .info People are Not Spammers (Joey Lindstrom) Bending Further (Joey Lindstrom) Re: Domains Have Held Their Value Better Than Blue (John Higdon) Domain Revocation, DNS Control, etc. (Judith Oppenheimer) Re: Finding CO? (John Higdon) Re: Finding CO? (joe@obilivan.net) Re: Finding CO? (Nathan Stratton) Norstar ICS 4.0 (Justin) Re: Telephone Surge Suppressor (Ken Abrams) Want to Buy XL Software (Al Niven) 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. WE DO NOT PERMIT NAME/EMAIL ADDRESS HARVESTING FROM THIS JOURNAL. 'SALTED' EMAIL ADDRESSES APPEAR HEREIN TO VERIFY THIS. YOU GET SUED IN SMALL CLAIMS COURT IF YOU GET CAUGHT SPAMMING OR SENDING VIRUSES. DON'T DO IT. See the bottom of this issue for subscription and archive details and the name of our lawyer; other stuff of interest. ---------------------------------------------------------------------- Date: Tue, 03 Sep 2002 13:33:05 -0700 From: Alex Walker Reply-To: alex@usenix.org Organization: USENIX Subject: Call For Papers - First Intl Conference on Mobile Systems Submit your paper to the First International Conference on Mobile Systems, Applications, and Services (MobiSys 2003). The program committee currently seeks papers on innovative and significant research in the area of mobile systems. Areas of interests include, but are not limited to: - Design, implementation and evaluation of mobile systems - Operating systems for small devices - System level energy management for mobile devices - Middleware and service architectures for mobile applications - Systems for location awareness and determination - Data management and databases - Personal area networks and systems - Nomadic computing, applications and services supporting the mobile user - Services and resource discovery - Personal Mobility - Web browsing and notification services for wireless and mobile clients - Disconnected and weakly connected operation - Security, Privacy, Authorization, and Billing - Infrastructure support for mobility - Proxies and data adaptation - Wearable and handheld devices - Social and economic aspects of mobility - Mobile Agents - User Interfaces, programming interfaces, and applications for small devices - Context mobility Submissions are due October 7, 2002. For detailed information, please visit: http://www.usenix.org/events/mobisys03/cfp/index.html MobiSys, May 5-8, 2003 San Francisco, CA http://www.usenix.org/events/mobisys03/ MobiSys 2003, jointly sponsored by ACM SIGMOBILE and The USENIX Association, In cooperation with ACM SIGOPS, will be a 2.5-day conference, featuring refereed paper presentations, demos, poster sessions, and Birds-of-a-Feather sessions. ------------------------------ From: jpvenezia@veneziainc.com (JPVENEZIA) Subject: Alternative Local Dialtones Date: 3 Sep 2002 10:39:54 -0700 Organization: http://groups.google.com/ I have a company named Choras coming in to try to switch me away from Verizon for my local Dialtone. Does anyone have any stories/issues from switching to an alternate provider/reseller of local dialtone? ------------------------------ Reply-To: Dave Mausner From: Dave Mausner Subject: Re: New Domains Organization: Prodigy Internet http://www.prodigy.com Date: Tue, 03 Sep 2002 16:46:17 GMT I read thru the new-domain literature regarding the arguments pro&con various alternatives. but i still do not understand why a corporate- identity approach was NOT taken (it was in fact debated and turned down): in addition to .com, why not .inc, .ltd, .llc, .corp, .gmbh, and the like, so that domain identification looks more like statutory identification? for example, there's a firm called IBM Corp., which could be domain ibm.corp. but why not? Dave Mausner / v.+1-708-848-2775 / f.+1-708-848-2569 / c.+1-312-wake-my-i ------------------------------ From: Jeremy Lee Subject: Re: .biz and .info Date: Tue, 3 Sep 2002 15:28:52 -0400 Organization: University of Maryland, Baltimore County .info site good for all on this NG http://datacompression.info/ wrote in message news:telecom22.20.6@telecom-digest.org: > Patrick, .biz and .info are two of the seven new tlds approved by > ICANN - .biz was awarded to Neustar (see > http://www.icannwatch.org/article.php?sid=643) and .info to Afilias > (see http://www.icannwatch.org/article.php? sid=404). > Afilias is ISOC's partner on .org. (see > http://www.icann.org/tlds/org/preliminary-evaluation- > report-19aug02.htm). ------------------------------ From: Joey Lindstrom Date: Tue, 03 Sep 2002 11:42:40 -0600 Reply-To: Joey Lindstrom Subject: Get Bent - .info People Are Not Spammers On Tue, 3 Sep 2002 02:01:05 -0400 (EDT), John Higdon wrote: > I'm starting to see senders with .biz and .info TLDs. This is manna > from heaven. Whatever else you do against spam, all you have to do is > write in one more rule: block all *.biz and *.info email. It's all > spam, anyway. I have no idea if any of them are actually routable to > whom they claim to be. > No one, and I mean NO ONE who is a real net.person would touch these > TLDs with a ten-foot Lithuanian. "Exciting new domains" my posterior! I resemble that remark. Thank you for ably demonstrating the fact that "opinions are like rectums. Every asshole has one." I am a real "net.person" and I own not one but two .info domains, with email addresses to go with them. In both cases I am using them as intended: I've set up "info" websites with them. Additionally, Dave Leibold's World Telephone Numbering Guide website is at www.wtng.info -- you're telling me he's nothing but a spammer? Get bent, John. DO NOT make blanket claims like this unless you are prepared to back them up. Sincerely, joey@garynuman.info http://www.garynuman.info (and a whole lotta other websites tied to that same domain name) Joey Lindstrom - Laird's Flooring joey@lairdsflooring.com ------------------------------ From: Joey Lindstrom Date: Tue, 03 Sep 2002 12:07:00 -0600 Reply-To: Joey Lindstrom Subject: Bending Further On Tue, 3 Sep 2002 02:01:05 -0400 (EDT), editor@telecom-digest.org wrote: > [TELECOM Digest Editor's Note: My thanks to the two Johns and Judith > for clarifying all this. As John Higdon suggested, letters sent from > the .biz and .info domains are probably 99.44 percent spam and can > be filter-ruled as such. Excuse me, but can you produce some evidence to back up this outrageous claim? Show me 10,000 emails from people in .info and .biz domains, and then show me that 9944 of them are spam. Hell, you've probably already had more than 56 from me from my joey@garynuman.info address alone. > I'll adjust my rules tonight. And I am asking you to adjust 'em right back to how they were. This is a forum about telecommunications -- emphasis on communications. For you to outright ban anybody from using this forum simply because they've chosen to register a domain name in a TLD you don't approve of -- but one which *IS* an official TLD - is completely outrageous and is completely opposed to what this group is all about. Pat, this is no different than banning posts from .za email addresses because they're 99.44% black. Actually, a better example: a whole lotta spam has @hotmail.com and @yahoo.com return addresses. So, I guess we better automatically filter out both domains, regardless of whether or not any legitimate users are posting from there, and REGARDLESS OF THE FACT THAT MOST SUCH RETURN ADDRESSES ARE BOGUS - which, I posit, is the case with the .info and .biz spams you've seen. Indeed, I dunno where you're getting your spam from but it looks like yer on different spamlists than I am. I average about 60 spams a day these days -- maybe one or two of them have a .biz return address. I've seen one -- and only one -- .info address. I've received far, far more legitimate email from .info users. > I wonder why in the setting up of these new domains they did not > start one known as '.spam' to put them all in, or would that simply > be too brazen and rude or crude? Thanks also to johnl for > explaining about the difference between '.us' and '.usa' domain > names. I imagine most of the '.usa' names can also be filter-ruled > if you can write the rule without harming good '.us' mail in the > process. As for .aero .coop and .pro we will just have to watch and > see how abusive they become in the next few months. Again, anybody can put anything they want in as the return address. So you're going to boycott every airline, museum (I presume your failure to include .museum was an oversight), professional, and cooperative in the world because some unscrupulous spammers decide to try to cash in on the good reputations they have (had)? C'mon Pat this just isn't fair. Joey@garynuman.info (and joey@telussuck.info too, heh heh) Joey Lindstrom - Laird's Flooring joey@lairdsflooring.com [TELECOM Digest Editor's Note: No, my failure to include .museum was not an oversight. I've never had any spam from a museum and can't imagine I would get any. You know, for many years in the 1960's when I was working in Chicago for the UC and Amoco/Standard Oil I lived on East 56th Street directly across the street from Museum of Science and Industry, a lovely old building which dated back to the Columbian Exposition in the 1890's. Founded by Julius Rosenwald (of Sears, Roebuck) and endowed by both himself and John Rockefeller, I should think spam email and get rich quick on the net schemes would be the last thing they, or their present-day employees would consider. And regards South Africa and the .za netizens, their nationality or ethninticity don't impress me either. What does impress me is the fact that my inbox here at massis sometimes has a couple *hundred* spams and viruses *each day* of the week. John Levine (who routes mail addressed to the alias telecom- digest.org) can't control it; he does not even see the mail (originally and first) addressed to massis.lcs.mit.edu, which is also mostly used. Of course I could start refusing all mail addressed to massis and only accept mail via telecom-digest, (so John could auto- screen most of the junk stuff, and it all comes to this same box anyway) but then a lot of good netizens who write with questions via massis would not get through, but I would hate doing that. So I just sit here for several minutes each session zapping all the mail over a hundred thousand bytes in size (all viruses in the form of binaries and resembling core-dumps) and the mail which is html/mime spam ads, and the mail with non-ASCII subject headers, and the mail telling me about 'powful (sic) new tool', 'my first game, hope you will enjoy it', 'amusing new web site', and the dozen or so Nigerian-spam letters that arrive daily. Then I go into the archives and clean out things there. There is one VERY SECRET email address which arrives here, runs through a script and inserts its contents directly into the archives, filed in order. Damned if I am gonna tell you what it is. But the *one person* I did tell this to three or four years ago used it with my permission once back then to put in some files while I was gone for the day. He left that address in his addressbook and a virus latched on to it. I told this person 'I think you have a virus' but his answer has been no, no, he does not have any virus; his sysadmin prevents all that from happening. So every day that secret address gets a virus sent to it; I go in and clean that out from the two pre-assigned places where it always lands. I get it before one of you, purusing the archives, sees it and takes it away with you spreading it further. No Joey, I have not filter-ruled out .biz and .info . I lied when I said that the other day. This old bully is going to go on trying to save the world, as you warned me I could not do. I'll just add those two domains as things to be manually scanned when their email comes in via massis instead of aliased to telecom-digest.org . I'm not so sure John Levine is as guilt-ridden as myself however where email to telecom-digest.org is concerned. He'll probably just send it all straight to hell without a second thought, and pass on only the real mail. He's a Unitarian you know, not a heathen bully like myself. PAT] ------------------------------ Date: Tue, 03 Sep 2002 11:05:51 -0700 From: no-spam@amadeus.kome.com (John Higdon) Subject: Re: Domains Have Held Their Value Better Than Blue Organization: Green Hills and Cows In article , Fred R. Goldstein wrote: > Not so fast. The .biz domain is also an alternative for real users > whose .com was busy. The company I work for, TIAX LLC, was created a > few months ago, in order to acquire (at auction) an operating unit of > the bankrupt Arthur D Little Corp. The unit continues to operate as > TIAX. But it turns out that "Tiax" is a character in the computer > game Baldur's Gate. And somebody in Korea is sitting on tiax.com. > So TIAX the company uses tiax.biz as its primary domain, including > http://www.tiax.biz as its home page and @tiax.biz for mail. Point taken. If I ever do business with TIAX, I'll enter an exception in the ruleset in my spam filters. > [TELECOM Digest Editor's Note: But in actual practice, what John > Higdon says is correct. They are mostly all spam names. There are > exceptions, as you point out, but not many. 99.44 percent pure spam, > with a few inert ingredients tossed in. Instead of having to expand > the .com domain by starting .biz why not instead expand .org or .net > for NON-SPAM, NON-VIRUS WRITING uses? PAT] There is another issue, yet unmentioned: If a particular "dot.com" doesn't work when someone is looking for a web page or whatever, who is going to think to use one of the new TLDs? We have that problem even now with the ..org and .net TLDs. Just see what you get when you go to "whitehouse.com". How many folks say, "Oh, yeah, I meant 'whitehouse.gov'"? I'll tell you this: if the company I'm looking for has a .biz domain, some flags will go up. The scrutiny will increase by an order of magnitude. John Higdon | Email Address Valid | SF: +1 415 428-COWS +1 408 264 4115 | Anytown, USA | FAX: +1 408 264 4407 [TELECOM Digest Editor's Note: I was in the Independence Public Library the other day when this old, prissy lady librarian was on duty. She has been there for many years. There suddenly comes some giggling from around the computer terminals area, where people go to search the Internet, etc. She walked over there to see what the commotion was about; some middle-school students had been working on their school assignments, which included some research on the White House. Well, the kids had been introduced to the First Lady on whitehouse.com in her natural state. Miss Prissy marched over there and with a stern look on her face rebooted all the terminals on the spot! People are always getting .com and .gov mixed up it seems ... PAT] ------------------------------ From: j.oppenheimer@att.net Subject: Domain Revocation, DNS Control, etc. Date: Tue, 03 Sep 2002 18:53:26 +0000 Pat, I assume you're being facetious - the very real annoyance of spam notwithstanding, the ability to censure content via domain revocation is not a good thing. Michael Froomkin writes, "... ICANN imposed its [UDRP] rules on registrants by contract... The critical issue is who ... drafts the UDRP and who administers it. The key effect of the DNS code here is that it allows the law that controls to be private law -- contract terms imposed by ICANN... Were it not for the checkpoint, the single point of failure, created by the hierarchy underlying the DNS, then the law would have been public law, imposed either by statute or by an international agreement, which would have required a very different adoption process, and likely would have had a different outcome. Due process, for starters. (see http://www.law.miami.edu/~froomkin/articles/udrp.pdf) BTW, it is this single-point-of-failure by which ICANN controls the DNS, that is largely responsible for all the rhetoric against alt roots. Those whose revenues are derived one way or another from the ICANN system can wax poetic about all the "technical" reasons why alt roots "break" the internet. ICANN Chair Vint Cerf went so far as to testify before Congress that if you modify your own DNS settings from those delivered by the computer manufacturer, you are breaking the internet. Well, color me guilty. All it means is that I can see all the ICANN approved TLD's, and the so-called alt TLD's too. I can't imagine why everyone doesn't do it. (Who'd want to see less rather than more?!) Judith Oppenheimer http://JudithOppenheimer.com http://ICBTollFreeNews.com http://WhoSells800.com 212 684-7210, 1 800 The Expert > [TELECOM Digest Editor's Note: I thought these days, with ICANN in > charge of things, all Megacorp had to do was file a complaint about > squatters and ICANN would promptly take away the domain name from > whoever had it and turn it over to the corporation. The contract > they make domain name users sign has that provision, that you do not > own your domain name, they (ICANN) own it. Judith, has that provision > in the contract been changed? I cannot imagine MTA being any differ- > ent than the hicago ransit trocity in that respect. CTA > wanted 'chicagobusroutes.com' and got it taken away from the guy > who was using it. They said he was a cyber-squatter and ICANN bought > it without any questions. It seems he was highly critical of the > bus schedules and the cleanlieness of the vehicles, and the Authority > took umbrage about his criticisms. PAT] > [TELECOM Digest Editor's Note: But in actual practice, what John > Higdon says is correct. They are mostly all spam names. There are > exceptions, as you point out, but not many. 99.44 percent pure spam, > with a few inert ingredients tossed in. Instead of having to expand > the .com domain by starting .biz why not instead expand .org or .net > for NON-SPAM, NON-VIRUS WRITING uses? PAT] ------------------------------ Date: Tue, 03 Sep 2002 11:14:33 -0700 From: no-spam@amadeus.kome.com (John Higdon) Subject: Re: Finding CO? Organization: Green Hills and Cows In article , Ray wrote: > Is there a way to find out exactly where a CO is located in any given > city? Go to: http://www.mapquest.com/maps/areacode.adp and enter your area code and prefix. Then, zoom in on the map that results from your inquiry. John Higdon | Email Address Valid | SF: +1 415 428-COWS +1 408 264 4115 | Anytown, USA | FAX: +1 408 264 4407 ------------------------------ From: joe@obilivan.net Subject: Re: Finding CO? Date: Tue, 03 Sep 2002 20:41:05 GMT Organization: Cox Communications Other than driving around and finding them, which is fairly easy for a telecom savvy sort of person, I don't think so. I suspect the LECs have a lot of security concerns about such things these days. Ray wrote: > Is there a way to find out exactly where a CO is located in any given > city? ------------------------------ Date: Tue, 3 Sep 2002 13:53:57 -0400 (EDT) From: Nathan Stratton Subject: Re: Finding CO? > Is there a way to find out exactly where a CO is located in any > given city? Well the best place to start is to look in the Local Exchange Routing Guide. If you look in table 6 you should be able to find your NPA-NXX and then the switch that serves it. You can then look in table 7 and find the address for that CO. Nathan Stratton nathan at robotics.net http://www.robotics.net ------------------------------ From: overdrive79@hotmail.com (Justin) Subject: Norstar ICS 4.0 Date: 3 Sep 2002 10:55:51 -0700 Organization: http://groups.google.com/ I am having trouble with a Norstar system in which a hunt group is not ringing when I dial it's extension. Can anyone provide assistance? Thanks in advance, Justin ------------------------------ From: Ken Abrams Subject: Re: Telephone Surge Suppressor Date: Tue, 3 Sep 2002 14:16:16 -0500 w_tom wrote about Re: Telephone Surge Suppressor > Since the mid-1980's, telephone surge protection has been > installed to shunt surges direct to earth ground. That is > surge protection from the direct lightning strike without > damage. Your attitude is: "Don't confuse me with facts, my mind is already made up." As (partially) evidenced by the fact that your return mail address is bogus. The protection BEFORE 1980 also was designed to shunt spikes directly to ground. So what? Your statement above is totally, absolutely and utterly FALSE. Thousands of incidents and thousands of hours of research over the years have proven beyond a shadow of a doubt that NOTHING (short of being a thousand feet underground and encased in steel) will protect humans or equipment from a direct (or even very nearby) lightening strike. Nothing. An electrical source with (often) hundreds of millions of volts and a current capacity of tens of thousands of amps is largely unpredictable. It often travels ON the best ground available only to emerge again hundreds of feet away. It seems like you have a good grasp on the theory of electrical grounding. It is really unfortunate that you do NOT have a good grasp on the characteristics and propagation of lightening. Before you post any more messages combining bad information with good, I suggest that you expand your education and learn the truth. ------------------------------ From: Al Niven Subject: I Want to Buy XL Software Date: Tue, 03 Sep 2002 13:47:18 -0400 Organization: PANIX Public Access Internet and UNIX, NYC 64T EXS is needed. alniven@earthlink.net ------------------------------ TELECOM Digest is an electronic journal devoted mostly but not exclusively to telecommunications topics. It is circulated anywhere there is email, in addition to various telecom forums on a variety of networks such as Compuserve and America On Line, 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: 620-870-9697 Fax 1: 775-255-9970 Fax 2: 775-306-8390 Fax 3: 530-309-7234 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 second 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) Email <==> FTP: telecom-archives@telecom-digest.org Send a simple, one line note to that automated address for a help file on how to use the automatic retrieval system for archives files. You can get desired files in email. ************************************************************************* * 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. Access to Premium (P) links requires upgrade to a paid subscription. One click a day feeds a person a meal. Go to http://www.thehungersite.com Only subscribers or registered users of ICB Toll Free News web site will be able to access all or some of the full text of URLs provided. LEGAL STUFF: TELECOM Digest (sm) is owned by Patrick Townson. Copyright 2000 ICB, Inc. and TELECOM Digest. All rights reserved. Our attorney is Bill Levant, of Blue Bell, PA. --------------------------------------------------------------- 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 twenty 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 V22 #22 ***************************** From editor@telecom-digest.org Wed Sep 4 14:38:11 2002 Received: from localhost (localhost [[UNIX: localhost]]) by massis.lcs.mit.edu (8.11.3nb1/8.11.3) id g84IcBj09425; Wed, 4 Sep 2002 14:38:11 -0400 (EDT) Date: Wed, 4 Sep 2002 14:38:11 -0400 (EDT) From: editor@telecom-digest.org Message-Id: <200209041838.g84IcBj09425@massis.lcs.mit.edu> X-Authentication-Warning: massis.lcs.mit.edu: ptownson set sender to editor@telecom-digest.org using -f To: ptownson Approved: patsnewlist Subject: TELECOM Digest V22 #23 TELECOM Digest Wed, 4 Sep 2002 14:38:00 EDT Volume 22 : Issue 23 Inside This Issue: Editor: Patrick A. Townson Re: Domains Have Held Their Value Better Than Blue Chips (Nathan Strom) Re: Domains Have Held Their Value Better Than Blue (Garrett Wollman) Re: Bending Further (John Higdon) Re: Bending Further (Barry Margolin) Re: New Domains (John R. Levine) Re: Get Bent - .info People Are Not Spammers (John Higdon) Re: Telephone Surge Suppressor (w_tom) Re: Finding CO? (John R. Levine) Re: Finding CO? (Joseph Singer) Re: Finding CO? (Ray) Re: Finding CO? (Clarence Dold) Re: Finding CO? (Wes Leatherock) Re: Banning Cell Phone Use in Theaters (Carl Moore) CTC Communications Group dot-gone? (Tom Betz) Tool to Convert Text Strings to TTY WAV File? (Jeff Lindborg) 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. WE DO NOT PERMIT NAME/EMAIL ADDRESS HARVESTING FROM THIS JOURNAL. 'SALTED' EMAIL ADDRESSES APPEAR HEREIN TO VERIFY THIS. YOU GET SUED IN SMALL CLAIMS COURT IF YOU GET CAUGHT SPAMMING OR SENDING VIRUSES. DON'T DO IT. See the bottom of this issue for subscription and archive details and the name of our lawyer; other stuff of interest. ---------------------------------------------------------------------- From: nstrom@freemail.ph (Nathan Strom) Subject: Re: Domains Have Held Their Value Better Than Blue Chips Date: 3 Sep 2002 14:14:02 -0700 Organization: http://groups.google.com/ wrote in message news:: > [TELECOM Digest Editor's Note: I thought this spam was important for > us to look at. Judith Oppenheimer may know the answer on this: has > ICANN approved the use of '.biz' and '.info' name spaces? I thought > I read that these 'alternate roots' didn't work very well. Who can > comment? Yes, .biz and .info are ICANN approved and operational now, although spammers are likely still trying to trick people into buying domains on their non-working "alternate roots". Info has been delegated to Afilias (http://www.afilias.info/), and Biz to NeuLevel (http://www.neulevel.biz/). These are not part of any alternate root, and should be reachable from your ISP's default name servers. Most of the domains in these TLDs that I've seen personally have been in spam and make-money-fast road signs, etc., but there are some legitimate users. New York City's transportation authority, for example, has started to advertise http://www.mta.info instead of http://www.mta.nyc.ny.us. The .museum TLD has also been activated, but there's not much in it right now. See http://musedoma.museum/. ------------------------------ From: wollman@khavrinen.lcs.mit.edu (Garrett Wollman) Subject: Re: Domains Have Held Their Value Better Than Blue Date: 3 Sep 2002 23:16:47 GMT Organization: MIT Laboratory for Computer Science In article , PAT wrote: > People are always getting .com and .gov mixed up it > seems Those agencies of .gov which insist on registering (and publicizing) .com domains are not helping matters ... Some (most) folks just cannot get it into their heads that the DNS is not repeat *not* a directory service, and no amount of pounding on this particular square peg will make it fit into the triangular hole those people seem to want it to fill. -GAWollman -- Garrett A. Wollman | [G]enes make enzymes, and enzymes control the rates of wollman@lcs.mit.edu | chemical processes. Genes do not make ``novelty- Opinions not those of| seeking'' or any other complex and overt behavior. MIT, LCS, CRS, or NSA| - Stephen Jay Gould (1941-2002) ------------------------------ Date: Tue, 03 Sep 2002 16:26:54 -0700 From: no-spam@amadeus.kome.com (John Higdon) Subject: Re: Bending Further Organization: Green Hills and Cows In article , Joey Lindstrom wrote: > Excuse me, but can you produce some evidence to back up this > outrageous claim? Will you accept 261 emails, 100% of which are spam? > Pat, this is no different than banning posts from .za email addresses > because they're 99.44% black. How about because they are 100% spam? > Actually, a better example: a whole lotta spam has @hotmail.com and > @yahoo.com return addresses. So, I guess we better automatically > filter out both domains, regardless of whether or not any legitimate > users are posting from there, and REGARDLESS OF THE FACT THAT MOST > SUCH RETURN ADDRESSES ARE BOGUS - which, I posit, is the case with the > .info and .biz spams you've seen. Bad example. Very little actual spam comes from those domains. The return addresses used in spam carrying them are usually, if not always forged. That is a different issue entirely, and spam-filtering software can detect the difference. > Indeed, I dunno where you're > getting your spam from but it looks like yer on different spamlists > than I am. I average about 60 spams a day these days -- maybe one or > two of them have a .biz return address. I've seen one -- and only one > -- .info address. I've received far, far more legitimate email from > .info users. How many .biz messages did you get that were legitimate? > Again, anybody can put anything they want in as the return address. Exactly. See above. > So you're going to boycott every airline, museum (I presume your > failure to include .museum was an oversight), professional, and > cooperative in the world because some unscrupulous spammers decide to > try to cash in on the good reputations they have (had)? C'mon Pat > this just isn't fair. If those domain names catch on with legitmate users, obviously my rules will change. The Internet is a dynamic thing. Right now, there seems little point in not applying negative scoring to a trendy, new TLD. -- John Higdon | Email Address Valid | SF: +1 415 428-COWS +1 408 264 4115 | Anytown, USA | FAX: +1 408 264 4407 ------------------------------ From: Barry Margolin Subject: Re: Bending Further Date: Wed, 04 Sep 2002 14:56:38 GMT In article , Joey Lindstrom wrote: > On Tue, 3 Sep 2002 02:01:05 -0400 (EDT), editor@telecom-digest.org > wrote: >> [TELECOM Digest Editor's Note: My thanks to the two Johns and Judith >> for clarifying all this. As John Higdon suggested, letters sent from >> the .biz and .info domains are probably 99.44 percent spam and can >> be filter-ruled as such. > Excuse me, but can you produce some evidence to back up this > outrageous claim? Show me 10,000 emails from people in .info and .biz > domains, and then show me that 9944 of them are spam. Hell, you've > probably already had more than 56 from me from my joey@garynuman.info > address alone. I get an enormous amount of spam, and I can confirm that not much of it is from .info or .biz addresses. On the other hand, I get an awful amount of it *about* these domains. Several messages a day extolling that the new TLDs are available and offering to register domains in them. If I were looking for a domain registrar, I can't imagine a worse choice than a spammer -- not even Network Solutions. -- Barry Margolin, barmar@alum.mit.edu *** DON'T SEND TECHNICAL QUESTIONS DIRECTLY TO ME, post them to newsgroups. Please DON'T copy followups to me -- I'll assume it wasn't posted to the group. ------------------------------ Date: 4 Sep 2002 01:49:15 -0400 From: johnl@iecc.com (John R. Levine) Subject: Re: New Domains Organization: I.E.C.C., Trumansburg NY USA > down): in addition to .com, why not .inc, .ltd, .llc, .corp, .gmbh, > and the like, so that domain identification looks more like statutory > identification? for example, there's a firm called IBM Corp., which > could be domain ibm.corp. but why not? Because it'd be an even bigger can of worms than .com is. In the U.S., you can incorporate in any of 50 states, two territories, a couple of commonwealths, a district, and in rare circumstances directly under the Federal government. This means that it is extremely common to have several corporations with the same name. Which one of them gets whoever.corp? Who decides? On what basis? Similarly, there are lots of places that use various other names for incorporation, with even more name collisions. And besides, .com wasn't for corporations in the first place, it's for commercial enterprises, some of which are corporations but many (probably most) aren't. I think that ICANN's DNS expansion plans are pretty badly screwed up, but .biz and .info are among the less bad results. Look at .aero which has arbitrarily decided that airport management consultants and law firms that represent people who own airplanes can register, but travel agents (who still sell the majority of air tickets) can't. -- John R. Levine, IECC, POB 727, Trumansburg NY 14886 +1 607 387 6869 johnl@iecc.com Village Trustee and Sewer Commissioner http://iecc.com/johnl Member, Provisional board, Coalition Against Unsolicited Commercial E-mail ------------------------------ Date: Tue, 03 Sep 2002 16:12:32 -0700 From: no-spam@amadeus.kome.com (John Higdon) Subject: Re: Get Bent - .info People Are Not Spammers Organization: Green Hills and Cows In article , Joey Lindstrom wrote: >> No one, and I mean NO ONE who is a real net.person would touch these >> TLDs with a ten-foot Lithuanian. "Exciting new domains" my posterior! > I resemble that remark. Your words, not mine. > Thank you for ably demonstrating the fact that "opinions are like > rectums. Every asshole has one." And it was, after all, just an opinion. I find your defensive attitude interesting if not informative. > I am a real "net.person" and I own not one but two .info domains, > with email addresses to go with them. In both cases I am using them > as intended: I've set up "info" websites with them. Additionally, > Dave Leibold's World Telephone Numbering Guide website is at > www.wtng.info -- you're telling me he's nothing but a spammer? If he sends out multi-thousands of unsolicited commercial promotional messages, then YES, he would be nothing but a spammer. If not, the matter is somewhat moot, is it not? What is your definition of a "real net.person"? > Get bent, John. DO NOT make blanket claims like this unless you are > prepared to back them up. The best to you, too. You have not presented a single reason to remove my ..info/.biz filtering. -- John Higdon | Email Address Valid | SF: +1 415 428-COWS +1 408 264 4115 | Anytown, USA | FAX: +1 408 264 4407 ------------------------------ From: w_tom Subject: Re: Telephone Surge Suppressor Date: Tue, 03 Sep 2002 23:32:26 -0400 Organization: Posted via Supernews, http://www.supernews.com My atitude is 'been there; done that' for many decades, even before there was even an IBM PC'. If I am wrong, then I expect facts technical posted accordingly. So far I have been told I am wrong and not even been told why - except that lightning is some mysterious and unpredictable event. Bull. Lightning is statistially predictable. Not a single engineering number has been provided in that accusation. Not one electrical engineering fact has been stated in that accusation. I am an engineer. You are an engineer. If there is something wrong in those statements, then only engineering facts have any relevance here. IOW I am holding your feet to the fire. If there is something wrong, then first, I expect the error to be defined explicitly. Also expect to see an IEEE paper or numbers or another engineer's analysis as to why that error exists. Nothing has been provided. I have posted what is also demonstrated by Polyphaser application notes. As you must know, Polyphaser is considered a benchmark in surge protection: http://www.polyphaser.com/ppc_technical.asp Where am I and Polyphaser in error? Why is earth ground irrelevant to surge protection? Are you also saying that Ben Franklin's lightning rods are also ineffective protection since both Franklin rods and 'whole house' surge protection operate on similar principles? Let's see what professionals say about surge protection: http://scott-inc.com/html/ufer.htm > The land owner warned us that this tower was frequently > struck, and equipment had been repeatedly damaged > despite increased precautions. ... Testimonial > In sixteen months, the site has maintained twenty-four > hour per day operation with ZERO downtime except due to > AC power failure. With equipment so susceptible to > transients, this kind of performance is unusual in this > region, especially on this hill. http://www.harvardrepeater.org/news/lightning.html > Well I assert, from personal and broadcast experience > spanning 30 years, that you can design a system that > will handle *direct lightning strikes* on a routine > basis. It takes some planning and careful layout, but > it's not hard, nor is it overly expensive. http://lists.contesting.com/_towertalk/1997-April/004413.html > The basic scenario is to install a Single Point Ground > System that is installed at the building entry. It shunts > everything to ground before it goes in the building. If you > can keep it outside, then you don't really have to do much > inside. > Broadcast radio stations operate right through numerous > lightning hits with few interruptions, much less damage. Richard Harrison in the newsgroup rec.radio.amatuer.antenna about 21 July 2001 entitled "single point grounding": > I've had no lighting damage other than replacing protectors > at my observatory which contains 25 computers and two > microwave systems in ten years. We receive a couple of > direct lightning hits per year. Louis Boyd in misc.rural on 11 Aug 2002: >> Or maybe it is because there is NOTHING that will >> effectively stop the surge from a close-by (or >> direct) lightening strike. > Really? I beg to differ. My tower gets struck DOZENS > of times during each thunderstorm that goes through the > area. It's 1,926' tall - actual height above ground > level (not sea level, actual ground) - or about 2100' > above average terrain. It is one of the tallest man made > structures on earth. Do you think I'm constantly replacing > the $600,000 worth of equipment attached directly to the > antenna via 8 3/16" transmission line? How many times > have I had to replace equipment due to a lightning strike > to the tower? Zero. Since the facility was built in 1974, > zero problems caused by lightning striking the antenna/tower. > It has lightning protection, it consists of only one thing, > EARTH GROUNDING, and lots of it. No active devices of any > kind. Just earth grounding. > We HAVE replaced dozens of modems from lighting on the phone > lines here though, despite add on surge protection. I > haven't had a telephone problem in the past year since I > installed Polyphaser arrestors grounded to the towers ground > system. J Kelly on 21 Aug 2002 in newsgroup comp.dcom.telecom.tech entitled " Fried modem: Telco responsibility": Are all these people, institutions, and personal testimonies wrong? Did they all really suffer surge damage and not know it? Surge damage from direct strikes is quite easily avoided once a human decides to take charge. Yes, surge damage is directly traceable to human failure. Damage from direct strikes is easily avoided. Which one above do you have problems with - including the 20 something applications notes from Polyphaser? Where are engineering facts to support you assertions? So far I have been called wrong and yet what is in error has not been stated. Where is you engineering analysis? An how are you going to disagree with so many professionals who have extensive experience? It will be interesting to finally learn what it is you disagree with. Ken Abrams wrote: > w_tom wrote about Re: Telephone Surge Suppressor >> Since the mid-1980's, telephone surge protection has been >> installed to shunt surges direct to earth ground. That is >> surge protection from the direct lightning strike without >> damage. > Your attitude is: "Don't confuse me with facts, my mind is already > made up." As (partially) evidenced by the fact that your return mail > address is bogus. > The protection BEFORE 1980 also was designed to shunt spikes directly > to ground. So what? Your statement above is totally, absolutely and > utterly FALSE. Thousands of incidents and thousands of hours of > research over the years have proven beyond a shadow of a doubt that > NOTHING (short of being a thousand feet underground and encased in > steel) will protect humans or equipment from a direct (or even very > nearby) lightening strike. Nothing. An electrical source with > (often) hundreds of millions of volts and a current capacity of tens > of thousands of amps is largely unpredictable. It often travels ON > the best ground available only to emerge again hundreds of feet away. > It seems like you have a good grasp on the theory of electrical > grounding. It is really unfortunate that you do NOT have a good grasp > on the characteristics and propagation of lightening. Before you post > any more messages combining bad information with good, I suggest that > you expand your education and learn the truth. ------------------------------ Date: 4 Sep 2002 02:08:00 -0400 From: johnl@iecc.com (John R. Levine) Subject: Re: Finding CO? Organization: I.E.C.C., Trumansburg NY USA >> Is there a way to find out exactly where a CO is located in any given >> city? > Go to: > http://www.mapquest.com/maps/areacode.adp Its database is pretty good but not perfect. I looked up some prefixes where I happen to know where the CO is located. In most cases it was off by a block or so, in a few cases off by a couple of miles, in one case it got it exactly. -- John R. Levine, IECC, POB 727, Trumansburg NY 14886 +1 607 387 6869 johnl@iecc.com Village Trustee and Sewer Commissioner http://iecc.com/johnl Member, Provisional board, Coalition Against Unsolicited Commercial E-mail ------------------------------ From: Joseph Singer Subject: Re: Finding CO? Date: Wed, 04 Sep 2002 07:36:53 -0700 Organization: Drizzle Reply-To: joeofseattle@yahoo.com On Tue, 03 Sep 2002 20:41:05 GMT, joe@obilivan.net wrote: > Other than driving around and finding them, which is fairly easy for a > telecom savvy sort of person, I don't think so. > I suspect the LECs have a lot of security concerns about such things > these days. It must not be that secure if their are web pages where you can find the COs readily available on the net. On Tue, 3 Sep 2002 09:52:56 -0400, Ray wrote: > Is there a way to find out exactly where a CO is located in any given > city? Don't know about Bell South, but Qwest (nee USWest) has a page that will give the exact street address, the CLLI, the type of equipment (DMS-100, 5E Lucent, etc.) etc. Personal replies most likely will not be read. Please reply in the newsgroup. ------------------------------ Reply-To: Ray From: Ray Subject: Re: Finding CO? Organization: WEBUSENET.com Date: Tue, 3 Sep 2002 20:13:02 -0400 Doesn't quite cut it. All I can see is a star and it's miles from my house. And I do have DSL now. The reason I'd like this info is to see if my future residence passes the DSL "distance from CO" requirement. John Higdon wrote in message news:telecom22.22.9@telecom-digest.org: > In article , Ray > wrote: >> Is there a way to find out exactly where a CO is located in any given >> city? > Go to: > http://www.mapquest.com/maps/areacode.adp > and enter your area code and prefix. Then, zoom in on the map that > results from your inquiry. > John Higdon | Email Address Valid | SF: +1 415 428-COWS > +1 408 264 4115 | Anytown, USA | FAX: +1 408 264 4407 ------------------------------ From: dold@19.usenet.us.com Subject: Re: Finding CO? Date: 4 Sep 2002 01:38:11 GMT Organization: Wintercreek Data joe@obilivan.net wrote: > Other than driving around and finding them, which is fairly easy for a > telecom savvy sort of person, I don't think so. John Higdon mentions Mapquest, certainly cheaper than the "buy the LERG" method. You will still have to wander around and look for a windowless building, though. The Mapquest stuff seems to be derived from V&H coordinates, a little too coarse of a scale (.3miles) to pinpoint a location. The LERG does contain an actual street address, but that doesn't seem to be what MapQuest uses. www.dslreports.com provides addresses, and in one case where MapQuest is off by a couple of blocks, they are right on, but it's tedious to get to the page that exposes the address. In one case that I caught, the address is bogus. MapQuest ... look for the building. PacBell seems less concerned about hiding than they used to be. Clarence A Dold - dold@email.rahul.net - Hidden Valley (Lake County) CA. ------------------------------ From: wesrock@aol.com (Wes Leatherock) Date: 03 Sep 2002 23:43:41 GMT Organization: AOL http://www.aol.com Subject: Re: Finding CO? On Tue, 03 Sep 2002 20:41:05 GMT joe@obilivan.net wrote: > Other than driving around and finding them, which is fairly easy for a > telecom savvy sort of person, I don't think so. > I suspect the LECs have a lot of security concerns about such things > these days. It was a lot easier yet in the days of aerial plant, where you could just follow the concentration of cables. Wes Leatherock wesrock@aol.com wleathus@yahoo.com [TELECOM Digest Editor's Note: Responding only to your final comment on aerial plant ... do you (or any other old time readers here) remember the article in the Digest (quoting Laura Fermi, widow of Enrico Fermi, in a 1963 conversation) telling about how her husband needed to find the location of an old (real old!) telephone central office and the overnight phone operator on the morning of the atomic bomb test explosion in New Mexico that day in 1945? She said he drove in their car up and down several streets in the little town, looking at the overhead wires. Finally he turned sort of abruptly and stopped at a house where a huge cluster of wires came down and went into the side of the house. The front porch light was on, and because of the hot humid weather the front door was open but the screen door was latched from the inside. "Enrico looked inside, and sure enough, over the switchboard which was lit up like a Christmas tree was a small lamp. A radio was softly playing music, and the operator was laying on a sofa nearby sound asleep. Enrico banged on the door a few times and finally the woman woke up and looked at him. Then she looked at the switchboard with all the lights lit up on it, looked again at him with horror in her eyes at first and sat up. She popped a cigarette in her mouth and went over and sat at the board and quickly began answering calls." She continued, "this was about 5 in the morning, we had just had a very heavy rainstorm, and I presume the cool weather overnight from the rain is what had induced the woman to lay down and rest her eyes before accidentally falling asleep." When I read your remarks about aerial plant -- rarely used any longer except in little towns like ours, I recalled that story. Some of you may remember it here also, probably 1989 or 1990. PAT] ------------------------------ Date: Tue, 3 Sep 2002 16:40:59 EDT From: Carl Moore Subject: Re: Banning Cell Phone Use in Theaters I think it has had to become routine, in announcements before the show starts, to ask that cellphones and pagers be muted. Please, no digression to other topics, but that's not the only item where announcements have to be made, or considered, for what should be courtesy. A non-telephone issue I spoke up on when I went to an outdoor theater recently was that people should not use umbrellas during the show (weather was "iffy" at the time) because that blocks much of the view of people sitting further back. And I have yet to mention "no getting up and leaving the show just before the end" (that's happened occasionally indoors and out) -- those people have to understand how annoying that gets just as the show is approaching its climax. ------------------------------ From: Tom Betz Subject: CTC Communications Group dot-gone? Date: Tue, 3 Sep 2002 20:51:48 UTC Having lost more than $35,000,000 per quarter over the last year, and having been de-listed from NASDAQ August 20, I have just heard that CTC is about to go under. Can anyone here fill in the blanks? Thanks. ------------------------------ From: Jeff Lindborg Subject: Tool to Convert Text Strings to TTY WAV File? Date: Tue, 3 Sep 2002 16:00:55 -0700 Organization: Cisco Systems Inc. Hey folks, I'm wondering if anyone knows of a software package out there that can take text and convert it into WAV files of US compliant TTY? I know the US standard is half duplex which makes this possible and going international is going to require a boat-load more work but I'm trying to get a bunch of files generated to make a conversation (we're talking 800+ prompts here). I could just sit at my little TTY set here and type them in and record the output into a WAV file one at a time but that's a lot of manual work that will have to be redone each time the conversation/prompts get updated. Not cool. If there's a software package or an API where I can write my own tool or whatever that can help automate this process, that'd be excellent. Searching on the web I'm not having much luck tracking such a beast down. Thanks much for any help. -Jeff ------------------------------ TELECOM Digest is an electronic journal devoted mostly but not exclusively to telecommunications topics. It is circulated anywhere there is email, in addition to various telecom forums on a variety of networks such as Compuserve and America On Line, 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: 620-870-9697 Fax 1: 775-255-9970 Fax 2: 775-306-8390 Fax 3: 530-309-7234 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 second 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) Email <==> FTP: telecom-archives@telecom-digest.org Send a simple, one line note to that automated address for a help file on how to use the automatic retrieval system for archives files. You can get desired files in email. ************************************************************************* * 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. Access to Premium (P) links requires upgrade to a paid subscription. One click a day feeds a person a meal. Go to http://www.thehungersite.com Only subscribers or registered users of ICB Toll Free News web site will be able to access all or some of the full text of URLs provided. LEGAL STUFF: TELECOM Digest (sm) is owned by Patrick Townson. Copyright 2000 ICB, Inc. and TELECOM Digest. All rights reserved. Our attorney is Bill Levant, of Blue Bell, PA. --------------------------------------------------------------- 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 twenty 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 V22 #23 ***************************** From editor@telecom-digest.org Wed Sep 4 17:27:01 2002 Received: from localhost (localhost [[UNIX: localhost]]) by massis.lcs.mit.edu (8.11.3nb1/8.11.3) id g84LR1w10583; Wed, 4 Sep 2002 17:27:01 -0400 (EDT) Date: Wed, 4 Sep 2002 17:27:01 -0400 (EDT) From: editor@telecom-digest.org Message-Id: <200209042127.g84LR1w10583@massis.lcs.mit.edu> X-Authentication-Warning: massis.lcs.mit.edu: ptownson set sender to editor@telecom-digest.org using -f To: ptownson Approved: patsnewlist Subject: TELECOM Digest V22 #24 TELECOM Digest Wed, 4 Sep 2002 17:25:00 EDT Volume 22 : Issue 24 Inside This Issue: Editor: Patrick A. Townson Re: Finding CO? (John Higdon) Re: Finding CO? (Roy Smith) Re: Alternative Local Dialtones (J Kelly) Re: Alternative Local Dialtones (John Stahl) Re: Alternative Local Dialtones (Rich Greenberg) Re: Alternative Local Dialtones (Joey Lindstrom) Re: Converting Copper to Fiber From Telco (Robert Bonomi) Re: Norstar ICS 4.0 (Dave Phelps) Employment Opportunity: Project Manager - Electrical Engineer (Parrillo) CNA Numbers (forensic) Re: Telephone Surge Suppressor (J Kelly) Re: CTC Communications Group Dot-Gone? (John Stahl) Re: Tampering With Payphones? (Greg) Privacy & Human Rights 2002 (Monty Solomon) 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. WE DO NOT PERMIT NAME/EMAIL ADDRESS HARVESTING FROM THIS JOURNAL. 'SALTED' EMAIL ADDRESSES APPEAR HEREIN TO VERIFY THIS. YOU GET SUED IN SMALL CLAIMS COURT IF YOU GET CAUGHT SPAMMING OR SENDING VIRUSES. DON'T DO IT. See the bottom of this issue for subscription and archive details and the name of our lawyer; other stuff of interest. ---------------------------------------------------------------------- Date: Wed, 04 Sep 2002 12:13:30 -0700 From: no-spam@amadeus.kome.com (John Higdon) Subject: Re: Finding CO? Organization: Green Hills and Cows In article , Ray wrote: > Doesn't quite cut it. All I can see is a star and it's miles from my > house. And I do have DSL now. You can zoom in to any detail you want, including an exact address. In any event, all I pointed you to was a source of information; there was no guarantee that the information would be what you wanted to hear. (Note John Levine's comment regarding accuracy, although I find that for the COs known to me in the SF Bay Area, the responses are quite accurate.) > The reason I'd like this info is to see if my future residence passes > the DSL "distance from CO" requirement. Then you will need to have the line tested. That is how telco determines suitability. John Higdon | Email Address Valid | SF: +1 415 428-COWS +1 408 264 4115 | Anytown, USA | FAX: +1 408 264 4407 ------------------------------ From: Roy Smith Subject: Re: Finding CO? Date: Wed, 04 Sep 2002 15:40:16 -0400 Organization: PANIX Public Access Internet and UNIX, NYC johnl@iecc.com (John R. Levine) wrote: > Its database is pretty good but not perfect. I looked up some > prefixes where I happen to know where the CO is located. In most > cases it was off by a block or so, in a few cases off by a couple of > miles, in one case it got it exactly. Fascinating. I just looked up my home exchange (718-885). It's not even a real CO; it's a single exchange served out of some kind of remote facility. It got it right. I wasn't aware that the locations of such facilities were publicly available. ------------------------------ From: J Kelly Subject: Re: Alternative Local Dialtones Date: Wed, 04 Sep 2002 13:42:30 -0500 Organization: PileofMonkeyCrap On 3 Sep 2002 10:39:54 -0700, jpvenezia@veneziainc.com (JPVENEZIA) wrote: > I have a company named Choras coming in to try to switch me away from > Verizon for my local Dialtone. Does anyone have any stories/issues > from switching to an alternate provider/reseller of local dialtone? I switched from US Worst/Qwest to McLeod USA. It was a joke. Qwest (who was only leasing the line to McLeod) screwed it up so bad that I couldn't make any long distance calls for the first week or so, and messed up the caller id. After giving up and switching back to Qwest they routed my calls to the wrong provider for the next six months despite multiple calls from me requesting they fix it. I finally complained to the PUC and they fixed it, citing "human error" as the cause. My caller ID still doesn't work right. All I get is the last 4 digits of the number on local calls. Long distance calls display correctly. Of course, McLeod is now bankrupt, in large part due to Qworst screwing them over I would guess. Qwest actually had the balls to send me a postcard saying they know I must be having terrible service since switching so why don't I switch back to them ... ------------------------------ Date: Tue, 03 Sep 2002 20:18:45 -0400 From: John Stahl Subject: Re: Alternative Local Dialtones Did a search for Choras which only turned up some locations in the Greek Isles! Could you mean Chorus? I note that there is a www.chorus.net which turns up to be under the TDS telecom group banner when you type this URL in to your browser. Chorus seems to be their Internet portal. John Stahl Telecom/Data Consultant Aljon Enterprises ------------------------------ From: richgr@panix.com (Rich Greenberg) Subject: Re: Alternative Local Dialtones Date: 3 Sep 2002 19:01:34 -0400 Organization: Organized? Me? In article , JPVENEZIA wrote: > I have a company named Choras coming in to try to switch me away from > Verizon for my local Dialtone. Does anyone have any stories/issues > from switching to an alternate provider/reseller of local dialtone? Whatever they promise you, GET IT IN WRITING!!! Rich Greenberg Work: Rich.Greenberg atsign worldspan.com +1 770-563-6656 N6LRT Marietta, GA, USA Play: richgr atsign panix.com +1 770-321-6507 Eastern time zone. I speak for myself & my dogs only. VM'er since CP-67 Canines:Val(Chinook,CGC,TT), Red & Shasta(Husky,(RIP)) Owner:Chinook-L Atlanta Siberian Husky Rescue. www.panix.com/~richgr/ Asst Owner:Sibernet-L ------------------------------ From: Joey Lindstrom Date: Tue, 03 Sep 2002 21:29:30 -0600 Reply-To: Joey Lindstrom Subject: Alternative Local Dialtones On Tue, 3 Sep 2002 19:02:03 -0400 (EDT), jpvenezia wrote: jpvenezia@veneziainc.com (JPVENEZIA) wrote about Alternative Local Dialtones > I have a company named Choras coming in to try to switch me away from > Verizon for my local Dialtone. Does anyone have any stories/issues > from switching to an alternate provider/reseller of local dialtone? Dunno if my example from Canada will help, but I've switched lines from Telus to Sprint Canada on three occasions now: twice with a single residential line, and once with a three-line hunt group at the office where I work. Both of the residential lines were switched without incident of any kind (except with one hitch: on the first one, I didn't port my old number to the new carrier, so the old phone company put an intercept on the old number pointing to the new number with the new carrier. This was in 1998: that intercept is STILL IN PLACE. There were some snags with the business lines, though, owing to them having just implemented a new (and buggy) ordering system at the time my order was placed. This resulted in our lines going in WITHOUT any local calling features such as call forwarding, call display, etc. The call forwarding was critical for us. The lines were switched at 11am and that's when I noticed our features were missing. I called in to complain and was told by the front-line flunky that this would take 2 business days to complete. No it won't, said I. You've just taken AWAY a feature you shouldn't have taken away and you WILL get it back online by the end of business today. And they did, although 15 minutes late (5:15pm). During the following week I had no problem getting everything straightened out: while I've heard many, many horror stories about Sprint's customer service in the USA, Sprint Canada's customer service is TOP NOTCH: they won't let you off the phone until you're satisfied. Oh, and as consolation for the screwup, we got our first month's service free. We've now been with them for about four months and the service has been every bit as good as with the ILEC (Telus) - and cheaper to boot. So anyways, that's my plug for Sprint Canada (I have no connection other than as a happy customer). What you should be looking for, though, is examples SPECIFICALLY about the specific carrier you're talking about, in this case Choras. Just because Sprint Canada is doing an excellent job here in Calgary, doesn't mean you'll get the same level of service. / From the desk of Joey Lindstrom / / When I was in boy scouts, I slipped on the ice and hurt my ankle. A / little old lady had to help me across the street. / --Steven Wright ------------------------------ Subject: Re: Converting Copper to Fiber From Telco From: bonomi@c-ns (Robert Bonomi) Date: Wed, 04 Sep 2002 06:01:45 GMT In article , Wes Leatherock wrote: > On Fri, 30 Aug 2002 08:57:06 -0700 Bill bill190nospam@yahoo.com > wrote: >> ... May want to borrow from the security industry and have the >> second cable enter the building at a different location. You may not >> need this for security reasons, but sometimes contractors will >> accidentally cut a cable. This would give you a backup if one was >> cut. > A number of years ago a customer required that their private > line circuits between Fort Worth and Tulsa be routed not only to > different entrance points, but by two separate physical routes -- > geographically separated -- between their installations in those two > cities. > Yes, they were willing to pay. They required to know exactly > what the two routes were, in detail. I had a client, circa 15 years ago, that had those same requirements for circuits between Chicago, and NYC. Different carriers, making sure they both had their own 'physical plant'. *And* specified geographic routing (primary _and_ fail-over) with _each_ carrier. Was *not* that much more expensive than a 'vanilla' T-1 over that same distance. I think the contract specified that (except for within 15 miles of the end-points of the circuits) neither carrier could use any facilities within 5 miles of the primary route for the other carrier's circuit. With that primary route information being spelled out in gruesome detail. And, on at least two occasions, 'backhoe fade' _did_ impact one of the circuits. I was running the 'data' side of their systems, but -not- voice. Half of each T was a 768 data channel, the other half was used for compressed (32kbit) voice channels. I had, 'with malice aforethought', set up the data stuff as 'paralleled' links -- if either line went down, the -only- downside was reduced bandwidth availability. The voice folks were -not- that paranoid, and proceeded to load up something like 46 _unique_ voice circuits across their 'half' the connection. The first instance of backhoe fade took out the T that was carrying a number of "critical" voice circuits. I'm working in the equipment room at one site, when a whole committee of the brass comes charging in, and goes, en masse, to inspect the cabinet where the incoming circuits terminate. A few minutes later my phone rings, and its the data folks at the 'other end' saying "you know we've lost a T span?" To which I replied, "Yes, I'm aware. we're -not- affected." Fifteen minutes later, they call back and say: "The COO wants to know 'Why _*NOT*_??!!'" First time I ever got in trouble for having a system _not_ go down! (my actual answer was: "Because I planned for that contingency. :) " ------------------------------ From: Dave Phelps Subject: Re: Norstar ICS 4.0 Date: Tue, 3 Sep 2002 23:24:55 -0500 Organization: Posted via Supernews, http://www.supernews.com In article , overdrive79@hotmail.com says: > I am having trouble with a Norstar system in which a hunt group is not > ringing when I dial it's extension. Can anyone provide assistance? Do you have the group set to appear only on the phones? -- Dave Phelps Phone Masters Ltd. deadspam=tippenring ------------------------------ From: strategi@attbi.com (Daniel Parrillo) Subject: Employment Opportunity: Project Manager - Electrical Engineering Date: 3 Sep 2002 16:13:51 -0700 Organization: http://groups.google.com/ Project Manager - Electrical Engineering ALL CANDIDATES MUST HAVE AN "CONSULTING BACKGROUND" DEALING WITH DESIGN & CONSTRUCTION OF ELECTRICAL AND POWER SYSTEMS Number of Openings: 5 total (1 in Las Vegas, 1 in LA, 3 in San Diego) Contract-to-Hire Opportunity Required Skills/Experience: - BS in Electrical Engineering (PE preferred) - 15+ years total experience -with the last 5 years in consulting engineering on BIG projects (at least 50 mil) - Experienced with high volume distributed systems, essential power systems - Healthcare background i strongly preferred; will be flexible if candidate has a LOT of BIG project experiennce in labs/pharmacies - MUST have personable, great relationship mgmt and EXCELLENT communication skills (both verbal and written) - Need to be VERY technical project manager - ideally working in high-rise hospitality (healthcare experience is HIGHLY DESIRED) - Experience with OSHPD (Office of Statewide Health Planning & Development) is a HUGE PLUS for all of these healthcare positions. - Should also be experienced with AutoCAD For IMMEDIATE consideration, please forward a copy of your detailed, chronlogical resume (in MS Word or .RTF format) to: Daniel Parrillo President Strategi LLC Phone #: 415-519-1828 E-mail: strategi-resumes@attbi.com PLEASE - NO THIRD PARTY VENDORS, AGENCIES OR CONSULTING FIRMS PLEASE = ONLY APPLY IF YOU QUALIFY! ------------------------------ Date: Wed, 4 Sep 2002 07:43:33 PDT From: forensic Reply-To: forensic Subject: CNA Numbers Good Morning: I have a listing of CNA numbers of each state in the US that was put out in 1987. I need an updated version of these if at all possible. Would anybody know what route I could take to obtain these numbers? Please contact me at: forensic@ziplip.com . Thank you, Milo Perkins ------------------------------ From: J Kelly Subject: Re: Telephone Surge Suppressor Date: Wed, 04 Sep 2002 13:29:59 -0500 Organization: PileofMonkeyCrap On Tue, 3 Sep 2002 14:16:16 -0500, Ken Abrams wrote: > NOTHING (short of being a thousand feet underground and encased in > steel) will protect humans or equipment from a direct (or even very > nearby) lightening strike. Nothing. Then why has the TV tower where I work (1,900'+ structure) get struck by lightning hundreds of times a year since 1974 with no major damage to the equipment connected to it? Only damage I know of to either tv transmitter or the FM transmitter located on the tower is a few electrolytic filter caps that stopped working after the ac power failed. I have personally seen lightning strike this tower more times than I can count. ------------------------------ Date: Wed, 04 Sep 2002 15:05:47 -0400 From: John Stahl Subject: Re: CTC Communications Group Dot-Gone? Did a search on Yahoo.com, coming up with http://www.ctcnet.com, which gave me their web site. There the "headlines" section gave the news that the NASDAQ has de-listed the stock, which will trade OTC, but in a previous statement, they indicate optimism on their business model noting some revenue increases. Perhaps being de-listed and trading instead in the OTC market might not be all that bad. No news though olding! John Stahl Telecom/Data Consultant Aljon Enterprises ------------------------------ From: lovemozart@hotmail.com (Greg) Subject: Re: Tampering With Payphones? Date: 3 Sep 2002 16:18:35 -0700 Organization: http://groups.google.com/ lovemozart@hotmail.com (Greg) wrote in message news:... Thanks for the reply, Pat! > [TELECOM Digest Editor's Note: It sounds to me like someone has an > accoustic-style modem-device there where incoming calls (to the > earpeice of the one phone) are being retransmitted to the outgoing > line (mouthpiece) of the other phone. It doesn't sound terribly legal > to me, and either the person doing it is too cheap to pay for another > regular phone line and 'real' modem, or maybe the idea is to throw > off track anyone who is investigating them. Just out of curiousity: if this coupling of the handsets is some kind of ruse to prevent a trace, how could two payphones be "activated" for long periods of time? > Are these phones (and the associated expo building) in a relatively > deserted area of the park at night? Yes they are. In fact, I clean around midnight, so I'm thinking that whoever is doing this is driving back to the fairgrounds and removing the coupler before the general office opens at daybreak. This might explain why the grounds manager never found what I reported. > You could tell the phone company, but it is doubtful you would > be allowed to speak with anyone who would have any idea what was going > on, and you would waste your time by calling telco. The display on the dialpads say the phones are owned by Southwestern Bell. Yeah, I wouldn't even know who to begin calling. I jotted down a repair service number, for the heck of it. > The fairgrounds authority does not seem to care either. Yep. I talked to the grounds manager and a security guard (hah) and neither expressed much interest. > My suggestion is to disconnect it each time you go by and see it, > and *take the coupler piece with you, not just throw it away. > Whoever it is is not supposed to tie up two telephones like that > in any event when others want to use them. Just consider it part > of your janitorial duties to make sure the phones are 'clean' and > in good working order for the public. Let them take their scam to > someplace other than 'your' park. PAT] I'll start doing that. Thanks! Greg Bennett [TELECOM Digest Editor's Note: You did not say in this last letter whether or not the situation was still occuring on your most recent visit(s) to the building. We would be interested in knowing if the situation persists. There are two ways it might happen (that the lines stay active). Perhaps the person doing it lives nearby and dials up the one payphone from his home, then drives over to the park while the phone is still ringing, answers it, attaches the piece, then drops coins in the box of the other phone, gets a dial tone on it, and makes a call out. Unless the payphones in your community are set to time out after a certain number of minutes (you would have to make up some ruse to ask the local telco about this), then the connection *should* stay up for at least several hours (or DAYS) as needed. Or maybe he has a confederate who drops coins in one phone, reaches the other party at another phone, then connects the two and drops money in the second phone as well. It seems like a lot of trouble, and rather obvious. An experienced phreak who wanted to bridge the two phones would simply get in the nearby 'phone box' where the two (or did you say there were three?) payphones terminate and add a little jumper wire there. That makes the events HIGHLY illegal (tapping or modifying payphones) but not quite as obvious to an inexperienced observer like yourself. PAT] ------------------------------ Date: Tue, 3 Sep 2002 19:51:07 -0400 From: Monty Solomon Subject: Privacy & Human Rights 2002 Privacy & Human Rights 2002 Sarah Andrews Electronic Privacy Information Center Washington, DC, US Privacy International London, UK This annual report by EPIC and Privacy International reviews the state of privacy in over fifty countries around the world. It outlines legal protections for privacy, new challenges, and summarizes important issues and events relating to privacy and surveillance. The 2002 edition of Privacy and Human Rights examines the impact of government proposals after September 11, 2001 on privacy and civil liberties. The report documents many new anti-terrorism and security measures and identifies key trends including increased communications surveillance, weakening of data protection regimes, and increased profiling and identification of individuals. The 2002 Privacy and Human Rights report finds that laws to protect privacy in the workplace are gaining more support and that efforts to pass new data protection laws are continuing in Eastern Europe, Asia and Latin America. Important debates are also taking place around the world concerning the future of new technologies for identification and surveillance. ... http://www.privacyinternational.org/survey/phr2002/ ------------------------------ TELECOM Digest is an electronic journal devoted mostly but not exclusively to telecommunications topics. It is circulated anywhere there is email, in addition to various telecom forums on a variety of networks such as Compuserve and America On Line, 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: 620-870-9697 Fax 1: 775-255-9970 Fax 2: 775-306-8390 Fax 3: 530-309-7234 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 second 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) Email <==> FTP: telecom-archives@telecom-digest.org Send a simple, one line note to that automated address for a help file on how to use the automatic retrieval system for archives files. You can get desired files in email. ************************************************************************* * 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. Access to Premium (P) links requires upgrade to a paid subscription. One click a day feeds a person a meal. Go to http://www.thehungersite.com Only subscribers or registered users of ICB Toll Free News web site will be able to access all or some of the full text of URLs provided. LEGAL STUFF: TELECOM Digest (sm) is owned by Patrick Townson. Copyright 2000 ICB, Inc. and TELECOM Digest. All rights reserved. Our attorney is Bill Levant, of Blue Bell, PA. --------------------------------------------------------------- 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 twenty 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 V22 #24 ***************************** From editor@telecom-digest.org Wed Sep 4 22:31:58 2002 Received: from localhost (localhost [[UNIX: localhost]]) by massis.lcs.mit.edu (8.11.3nb1/8.11.3) id g852Vw812205; Wed, 4 Sep 2002 22:31:58 -0400 (EDT) Date: Wed, 4 Sep 2002 22:31:58 -0400 (EDT) From: editor@telecom-digest.org Message-Id: <200209050231.g852Vw812205@massis.lcs.mit.edu> X-Authentication-Warning: massis.lcs.mit.edu: ptownson set sender to editor@telecom-digest.org using -f To: ptownson Approved: patsnewlist Subject: TELECOM Digest V22 #25 TELECOM Digest Wed, 4 Sep 2002 22:30:00 EDT Volume 22 : Issue 25 Inside This Issue: Editor: Patrick A. Townson Spamming, etc (Joey Lindstrom) http://www.spammers.getbent (Joey Lindstrom) Sprint RIPOFF Alert: DA is Now $2.49 per Call !!!!!!! (Tim Keating) Re: Caller ID Spoof? (Carl Moore) Re: Finding CO? (Wes Leatherock) Hotmail E-mail Is "Extremely Difficult To Trace" (Monty Solomon) Re: Good Two-Line Phone Jack; Answer Machine Won't Pick Up (A Schnittman) GSM Security (Gareth) Re: Telephone Surge Suppressor (Ken Abrams) Re: Alternative Local Dialtones (GHS) 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. WE DO NOT PERMIT NAME/EMAIL ADDRESS HARVESTING FROM THIS JOURNAL. 'SALTED' EMAIL ADDRESSES APPEAR HEREIN TO VERIFY THIS. YOU GET SUED IN SMALL CLAIMS COURT IF YOU GET CAUGHT SPAMMING OR SENDING VIRUSES. DON'T DO IT. See the bottom of this issue for subscription and archive details and the name of our lawyer; other stuff of interest. ---------------------------------------------------------------------- From: Joey Lindstrom Date: Tue, 03 Sep 2002 21:43:31 -0600 Reply-To: Joey Lindstrom Subject: Spamming, etc On Tue, 3 Sep 2002 19:02:03 -0400 (EDT), Pat wrote: > [TELECOM Digest Editor's Note: No, my failure to include .museum was > not an oversight. I've never had any spam from a museum and can't > imagine I would get any. You know, for many years in the 1960's when > I was working in Chicago for the UC and Amoco/Standard Oil I lived > on East 56th Street directly across the street from Museum of Science > and Industry, a lovely old building which dated back to the Columbian > Exposition in the 1890's. Founded by Julius Rosenwald (of Sears, Roebuck) > and endowed by both himself and John Rockefeller, I should think spam > email and get rich quick on the net schemes would be the last thing > they, or their present-day employees would consider. And > regards South Africa and the .za netizens, their nationality or > ethninticity don't impress me either. Bravo. Clap clap. But you've missed my point Pat, and that is this: most spam comes with a fake return address. The fact that spammers are now also using .info and .biz fake return addresses is immaterial when it comes to the validity of those domains. I get a lot of spam from .jp addresses: does that make all email from Japan automatically spam until proven otherwise? No Pat, it doesn't. VERY VERY FEW SPAMMERS USE A REAL RETURN ADDRESS: NEARLY ALL USE A FAKE ONE. So why punish those who happen also to be VICTIMS of spammers? > What does impress me is the fact that my inbox here at massis > ometimes has a couple *hundred* spams and viruses *each day* of the > week. John Levine (who routes mail addressed to the alias telecom- > digest.org) can't control it; he does not even see the mail > (originally and first) addressed to massis.lcs.mit.edu, which is also > mostly used. Of course I could start refusing all mail addressed to > massis and only accept mail via telecom-digest, (so John could auto- > screen most of the junk stuff, and it all comes to this same box > anyway) but then a lot of good netizens who write with questions via > massis would not get through, but I would hate doing that. So I just > sit here for several minutes each session zapping all the mail over > a hundred thousand bytes in size (all viruses in the form of binaries > and resembling core-dumps) and the mail which is html/mime spam ads, > and the mail with non-ASCII subject headers, and the mail telling me > about 'powful (sic) new tool', 'my first game, hope you will enjoy > it', 'amusing new web site', and the dozen or so Nigerian-spam letters > that arrive daily. Pat, the newest version of my mail server will filter spam based on all of the "Received:" lines present within each message (not just against the IP of the machine that actually delivered it). Therefore, my original offer to you of helping filter SOME of your spam from your stream still stands, and could easily be implemented as follows: 1) You set your system so that all mail for either of the two addresses in question (or three if you wanna add the super-secret one) is automatically forwarded to an address here. For example, "telecom@interocitor.net" (and now that I've used that publicly and the spammers now have it, we won't actually use THAT). 2) You create a brand new address at massis.lcs.mit.edu for the telecom stuff, an address known only to you and me. It should have lots of letters and numbers in it to foil casual dictionary spammers (ie: 69mtq7r3@massis.lcs.mit.edu or something like that). 3) My system takes all of the mail you forward here, filters it (based on the Received: lines present), and sends what passes through back to 69mtq7r3. The result is that a LOT (not all, but a lot - perhaps as much as 80%) of the spam will have been filtered out. My system OCCASIONALLY catches a false positive, which is ok: I do scan through my filtered spam before deleting it and if I spot something that looks legit, I can forward it manually. I'm sure this would work quite well Pat. :-) > No Joey, I have not filter-ruled out .biz and .info . I lied when I > said that the other day. Oh good. > This old bully is going to go on trying to save the world, as you > warned me I could not do. My concern here is throwing the baby out with the bathwater. Filtering those two domains will catch VERY little spam and a LOT of legitimate mail -- as time moves on, more and more legitimate mail. > I'll just add those two domains as things to be manually scanned > when their email comes in via massis instead of aliased to > telecom-digest.org. It makes me feel all warm to know you'll be manually scanning my email. :-) / From the desk of Joey Lindstrom / / It's a good thing we have gravity, or else when birds died they'd just / stay right up there. Hunters would be all confused. / --Steven Wright [TELECOM Digest Editor's Note: I am certainly glad to know I make you feel warm. We need a little more heat at this time of year. It was only 101 degrees here in Independence today. Yesterday it was 105. Not too bad for the start of September is it? The one main problem I see in your proposal to help filter the non-mail I get here is that it will amount to three passes on the mail (John to me, me to you, you back to me). Actually. I guess I could cut John out of the loop; his stuff addressed via @telecom-digest.org is usually pretty clean. I guess it would mostly be massis to me, me to you, you back to me and through my admittedly ineffectual filter-rules. Still, I do not like to see that much additional network traffic, merely because of spam and virus writers/passers. How about instead you give me a copy of your filtering program, and I install it here as a front end 'super- filter' kind of thing? You also commented on the amount of false addresses in spam which I guess is true. I do not see why, however. Spammers usually want to sell something; how can they with no way to reach them in email? I guess we could call their 800 number (!!??#!) if they give one in the message text. I heard some people do that maliciously (grin), but doesn't some or most spam have a good return address if they are trying to sell something? I suppose a good filter might also include a reverse DNS lookup, i.e. a daemon goes to look and finds out through sendmail's VRFY that there is indeed a johnl@iecc.com, but can you imagine how much network time and resources *that* would consume? Well, speaking on the topic of consumption of resources, your next letter, a response to John Higdon, that bitter and frustrated old man (LOL, grin) takes up a lot of space here, so let's get right in to it. PAT] ------------------------------ Date: Wed, 04 Sep 2002 14:41:33 -0600 From: Joey Lindstrom Subject: http://www.spammers.getbent Reply-To: joey@garynuman.info John Higdon wrote: >> Excuse me, but can you produce some evidence to back up this >> outrageous claim? > Will you accept 261 emails, 100% of which are spam? Would you accept 1039 emails from .com, .net, and .org addresses, all received in the last 7 days, by my primary email server? Hey, I think I'll start spam-filtering against anybody in .com, .net, and .org! That's a great idea! >> Pat, this is no different than banning posts from .za email addresses >> because they're 99.44% black. > How about because they are 100% spam? My three South African correspondents would take issue with that statement. Mr. Higdon, if I've said it once I've said it a million times: never exaggerate. >> Actually, a better example: a whole lotta spam has @hotmail.com and >> @yahoo.com return addresses. So, I guess we better automatically >> filter out both domains, regardless of whether or not any legitimate >> users are posting from there, and REGARDLESS OF THE FACT THAT MOST >> SUCH RETURN ADDRESSES ARE BOGUS - which, I posit, is the case with >> the .info and .biz spams you've seen. > Bad example. Very little actual spam comes from those domains. The > return addresses used in spam carrying them are usually, if not always > forged. That is a different issue entirely, and spam-filtering > software can detect the difference. Well then I must be extremely dense, because I cannot see why this argument can be used in defense of @hotmail.com and @yahoo.com, but not @*.info or @*.biz. Let's have a little consistency here. Are you actually telling me that because you see a .info or .biz return address on some spam emails, you BELIEVE that those addresses are legitimate and thus need to be filtered against? Just how naive are you? Furthermore, there *ARE* a lot of spammers operating out of hotmail.com and yahoo.com. Oh, but I forgot: anyone using one of those addresses isn't a real net.person. >> Indeed, I dunno where you're >> getting your spam from but it looks like yer on different spamlists >> than I am. I average about 60 spams a day these days -- maybe one or >> two of them have a .biz return address. I've seen one -- and only one >> -- .info address. I've received far, far more legitimate email from >> .info users. > How many .biz messages did you get that were legitimate? Not as many, as .biz hasn't been active as long. I very nearly registered lairdsflooring.com as lairdsflooring.biz - I decided against it because the owner is an internet newbie and, while he's heard of .com, he doesn't really know what a TLD is: I figured I could reduce the learning curve for him a bit by sticking with a "better known" TLD. >> Again, anybody can put anything they want in as the return address. > Exactly. See above. You see above. That's MY point vis-a-vis .info and .biz. >> So you're going to boycott every airline, museum (I presume your >> failure to include .museum was an oversight), professional, and >> cooperative in the world because some unscrupulous spammers decide to >> try to cash in on the good reputations they have (had)? C'mon Pat >> this just isn't fair. > If those domain names catch on with legitimate users, obviously my > rules will change. The Internet is a dynamic thing. Right now, there > seems little point in not applying negative scoring to a trendy, new > TLD. And we get to the heart of the matter. It's new and trendy, therefore it's bad. Geezus John, how old are you? 124? You sound like my freakin' grandfather. "Dot com was good enough for me and the missus, it should be good enough for you". It's funny that someone who associates with cutting-edge technology can't stand to see advancement and change. And that's really your problem, John. C'mon, admit it. It's shiny and new and you've fallen behind, and so you lash out at what's new and trendy. This isn't about spam, this is about you (and others) being too anal to accept the fact that the world is no longer about just .com, .net, and .org anymore. We've moved on and you're freaked that you're no longer at the bleeding edge. Well John ... get over it. Barry Margolin then contributed: > I get an enormous amount of spam, and I can confirm that not much of > it is from .info or .biz addresses. Thanks for that, Barry. > On the other hand, I get an awful amount of it *about* these domains. > Several messages a day extolling that the new TLDs are available and > offering to register domains in them. If I were looking for a domain > registrar, I can't imagine a worse choice than a spammer -- not even > Network Solutions. Oh you ain't kidding. I really don't understand the rationale here: these people are spamming the group of people MOST likely to react negatively to their advertisements. Furthermore, a registrar isn't like your typical fly-by-night spammer: it's not a moving target, it's a stationary target, exactly the type of business that SHOULD NOT engage in spamming. Even more annoying is the snailmail tactics that such "respected" (HAH!) registrars like register.com employ. I had a couple of domains registered with them, and after a few months moved them to Tucows. A year and a half later, I got a series of "renewal" letters from register.com, each one more strident than the last, warning me that my registration was about to run out and that I better send in my money fast (despite the fact that my registrations, with Tucows, had more than a year to run)! Now you might be prepared to defend themselves on the basis of this maybe being a clerical error: somebody didn't realize I'd moved my domains. But reading the fine print of the letters (which they expected me to sign and return), I'd have been authorizing a TRANSFER. These bastards knew exactly what they were doing. I've since heard from a GREAT many others telling me similar stories. I stick with Tucows: they're reputable and they don't play these games. John R. Levine wrote: > I think that ICANN's DNS expansion plans are pretty badly screwed up, > but .biz and .info are among the less bad results. I tend to agree, and unlike others I look at this situation with a willingness to see all sides of the issue. Yes, sometimes I like to be an "early adopter", which is why I've got an HDTV widescreen projection TV in my living room. But I also recognize it's not all about shiny trinkets and glitter: .biz is a good idea and .info is a better idea. The (legitimate) uses I've seen them put to are testament to that. Style *AND* substance. However: > Look at .aero which has arbitrarily decided that airport management > consultants and law firms that represent people who own airplanes > can register, but travel agents (who still sell the majority of air > tickets) can't. Yeah, see that's just plain ridiculous. It's all about the perception of the END USER, who won't care about any semantic hair-splitting: is a travel agent strictly in the "aero" business, or is that agent also in the hotels and cruise ships business and thus not eligible for "aero"? Who *GIVES* a rat's ass? The traveling public, who would want to go to that travel agent's website, cares only that the travel agent can book plane tickets for them, and thus "aero" would be appropriate for that particular use. I have less disgust for ICANN than most here, but this ... this is just super stupid. John Higdon then spewed out: >>> No one, and I mean NO ONE who is a real net.person would touch these >>> TLDs with a ten-foot Lithuanian. "Exciting new domains" my posterior! >> I resemble that remark. > Your words, not mine. So what you're saying is that I am not a real "net.person", and by inference YOU ARE. Yeah, ok. I guess because you were around when .arpa names were common and everybody's email address had a bangpath in it, that makes you superior to us all. Jam that up your inbox and smoke it, buddy. >> Thank you for ably demonstrating the fact that "opinions are like >> rectums. Every asshole has one." > And it was, after all, just an opinion. I find your defensive attitude > interesting if not informative. Ah, so now I'm a spammer am I? John, will you please kindly f*** off? I am virulently anti-spam. I run three mail servers, all of which have a variety of anti-spam filters in place (among them, the use of four spammer databases, including www.ordb.org and www.spews.org). Don't even think to infer it, John. You're barking up the wrong tree, you've libeled me publicly, and you owe me an apology. >> I am a real "net.person" and I own not one but two .info domains, >> with email addresses to go with them. In both cases I am using them >> as intended: I've set up "info" websites with them. Additionally, >> Dave Leibold's World Telephone Numbering Guide website is at >> www.wtng.info -- you're telling me he's nothing but a spammer? > If he sends out multi-thousands of unsolicited commercial promotional > messages, then YES, he would be nothing but a spammer. If not, the > matter is somewhat moot, is it not? Exsqueeze me? Explain what means you by moot (with apologies to Yoda and Mike Meyers). Dave does no such thing. It is my contention that any email you get from him is NOT spam, despite the fact that it comes from a .info address. Dave is, in fact, very well respected in telecom circles, and he runs an excellent and very useful website. But YOU WILL NOT ACCEPT ANY EMAIL FROM HIM WHATSOEVER, because he chose .info as his TLD. Y'know something? I should just shut my mouth and stop trying to convince you that you're wrong. Dave is better off if people with such provincial, parochial attitudes DO NOT read his email at all. He shouldn't want to have anything to do with you. > What is your definition of a "real net.person"? Anyone who doesn't exhibit your anti-social tendencies, for starters. Somebody who understands what the .net is all about, yet does not act all snobbish towards anyone who has two weeks' less tenure. Somebody who treats people with respect UNTIL that person shows themselves unworthy of that respect, rather than treating people with disrespect until proven worthy of respect. Looks like you fail on all points, John. >> Get bent, John. DO NOT make blanket claims like this unless you are >> prepared to back them up. > The best to you, too. You have not presented a single reason to remove > my ..info/.biz filtering. How about this one: the same reason you've got a mailbox in the first place. Because somebody might send you something you might want to read. John, you're free to filter whatever the hell you want to filter. Nobody can force you to read any email sent to you by anybody. What I am trying to accomplish is: 1) To show everybody else, particularly those who might be moved to follow your ill-considered advice, just what motivated said advice and what a cranky old fart you are, and 2) To also show everybody else that, by following your advice, they WILL be throwing the baby out with the bathwater. There are a lot of ways to filter spam, some very effective, some less effective. This is one of the most hairbrained ideas I've ever heard of. Geez John ... I hate spam as much as the next guy. Maybe more, even. But if I ever become so freakin' bitter and disillusioned that I start making decisions about filtering people based on their TLD, regardless of whether their mail may or may not be legitimate ... well, it's time for me to shut down my servers, and call my ISP to schedule removal of their equipment. Because I'll be ready to check myself straight into a cemetery. It's funny, too ... in a previous argument here with Pat, I was accused (because I'm conservative) of having no compassion for others, of not being accepting and understanding. Compared to you, John, I'm Mohandas Gandhi. [TELECOM Digest Editor's Note: Eeeeee! Wow! Let's please take any further discussions on spam and the new domains to email please. And be sure to send a cc: on your correspondence to that lady whose spam message got this latest round started, okay? I'm sure she will appreciate the responses to her spam as much as I did when I got it and every day since. To newsgroup moderators, spam is the gift that keeps on giving, obviously. PAT] ------------------------------ From: Tim Keating Subject: Sprint RIPOFF Alert: DA is Now $2.49 per Call !!!!!!! Date: Tue, 03 Sep 2002 16:58:37 -0400 Organization: Posted via Supernews, http://www.supernews.com Watch out ALL Sprint LONG distance customers!!! All long distance plans ... except PCS users. Sprint is going to nail $2.49 per directory assistance call !!! Yikes ... tack in taxes ... and your looking at over Three(3) dollars per use. ------------------------------ Date: Wed, 4 Sep 2002 16:43:30 EDT From: Carl Moore Subject: Re: Caller ID Spoof? Whoever got that 972 plus ten digits could also try looking a little past that leading 972 to determine if it could be a telephone number in Texas. (972 followed immediately by a 1 could not.) ------------------------------ From: wesrock@aol.com (Wes Leatherock) Date: 04 Sep 2002 20:55:16 GMT Organization: AOL http://www.aol.com Subject: Re: Finding CO? On 4 Sep 2002 01:38:11 GMT dold@19.usenet.us.com wrote: > .. You will still have to wander around and look for a > windowless building, though. Many years ago AT&T (when it was still the parent of the Bell Operating Companies) did a study asking people inside and outside the company to look at photographs of a selection of jails and central office and buildings and select which was a jail and which was a C.O. The success rate was generally less than 50 per cent. There is a strong family resemblance between C.O. building and jail architecture. Wes Leatherock wesrock@aol.com wleathus@yahoo.com ------------------------------ Date: Wed, 4 Sep 2002 18:12:35 -0400 From: Monty Solomon Subject: Hotmail E-mail Is "Extremely Difficult To Trace" FindLaw's Breaking Documents UNITED STATES v. ZACARIAS MOUSSAOUI (Sep. 4, 2002) Prosecutors' Contention That Hotmail E-mail Is "Extremely Difficult To Trace" [PDF] http://news.findlaw.com/hdocs/docs/terrorism/usmouss90402grsp.pdf ------------------------------ From: Alan Schnittman Subject: Re: Good Two-Line Phone Jack, But Answer Machine Won't Pick Up Date: Wed, 04 Sep 2002 17:11:42 -0500 Organization: MindSpring Enterprises Michael Sweeden wrote: > I have a client with a Partner phone system, 2 phone lines, and two > 2-line jacks in the house wired to the phone lines before they go into > the phone system. With a 2-line phone in either of the 2-line jacks > they can make and answer calls on both lines with no problem, and both > lines sound perfectly clear. However, on one jack, where they would > LIKE the answering machine, the machine will not answer incoming > calls. The answering machine works fine on the other jack. A second > answering machine was tried with the same results. This is a puzzler > to me, and any advice would be greatly appreciated. Thanks! Radio Shack makes an adapter which connects to a single 2-line jack and provides a jack(in this case for your answering machine) which is automatically switched to the ringing line for incoming calls and to a free line for outgoing calls. It's catalog # 43-434 and cost $21.99. I haven't used this particular model. I have an older (long-since discontinued) model of this device (catalog # 43-383) which worked well but did not have the ability to switch lines for outgoing calls. Alan Schnittman | Brainchild Evolution, Inc | schnitt@mindspring.com prototype design & development | computer interface embedded control | analog & digital circuits | software development ------------------------------ From: everyperson@hotmail.com (Gareth) Subject: GSM Security Date: 4 Sep 2002 15:44:35 -0700 Organization: http://groups.google.com/ How secure is GSM? In particular is it possible to listen in on SMS text messages? Apparently they are sent on the network signalling frequencies? It would be presumably quite easy to listen in on this signal and decode every SMS on it? I am just curious. Perhaps we should avoid sending anything on SMS that we would not send on a post card? At a guess I think GSM phone calls would be more secure than SMS? Thanks very much for any replies. Please respond by posting to the thread. I get so much junk mail my newsgroups email is effectively useless. ------------------------------ From: Ken Abrams Subject: Re: Telephone Surge Suppressor Date: Wed, 4 Sep 2002 18:20:44 -0500 J Kelly wrote: > On Tue, 3 Sep 2002 14:16:16 -0500, Ken Abrams > wrote: >> NOTHING (short of being a thousand feet underground and encased in >> steel) will protect humans or equipment from a direct (or even very >> nearby) lightening strike. Nothing. > Then why has the TV tower where I work (1,900'+ structure) get struck > by lightning hundreds of times a year since 1974 with no major damage > to the equipment connected to it? Only damage I know of to either tv > transmitter or the FM transmitter located on the tower is a few > electrolytic filter caps that stopped working after the ac power > failed. As the subject line recounts, this "discussion" started out being related to consumer electronics, specifically equipment connected to phone lines. Broadcast transmitters are quite a different story. First, the equipment is designed to dissipate thousands of watts (sometimes 1M or over). Second, because of the nature of towers being natural lightening rods, all aspects of the site design take this into consideration. When you are protecting several million dollars in equipment, you can afford to spend thousands on arrestors, surge suppressors, multiple heavy duty grounds, etc. Not so with protection for a $10 phone or a $30 modem. Third, the power systems are "ground isolated", that is, it does not have earth grounds running all over inside the working equipment ... unlike consumer electronics which are purposely grounded. In general, no path to ground (through the working equipment), no current flow, no damage. The blown caps you observed is proof that NO system designed for lightening protection is perfect. w_tom then commented: > My atitude is 'been there; done that' for many decades, even before > there was even an IBM PC'. If I am wrong, then I expect facts > technical posted accordingly. So far I have been told I am wrong and > not even been told why - except that lightning is some mysterious and > unpredictable event. Bull. Lightning is statistially predictable. Three kinds of lies: Lies, damn lies and statistics. For every statistical model, a certain percentage of the events fall OUTSIDE of the most likely outcome. > Not a single engineering number has been provided in that > accusation. Not one electrical engineering fact has been stated in > that accusation. I am an engineer. You are an engineer. If there is > something wrong in those statements, then only engineering facts have > any relevance here. IOW I am holding your feet to the fire. If there > is something wrong, then first, I expect the error to be defined > explicitly. Also expect to see an IEEE paper or numbers or another > engineer's analysis as to why that error exists. Nothing has been > provided. > I have posted what is also demonstrated by Polyphaser application > notes. As you must know, Polyphaser is considered a benchmark in > surge protection: http://www.polyphaser.com/ppc_technical.asp > Where am I and Polyphaser in error? Why is earth ground irrelevant > to surge protection? Oooo, now things are becoming much clearer. You wouldn't perhaps have some kind of tie to Polyphaser, would you? I never said that earth ground was irrelevant to surge suppression but any puny little ground wire connected to a phone protector IS insignificant to a direct lightening strike. When the wire melts and disappears in a couple of nanoseconds, then where is your ground???? Bottom line is: Screw you. There is plenty of scientific information available that fully documents the behavior of lightening. If you would look for it with an UNBIASED eye, you might even be able to see and understand some of it. Second bottom line: My original statement stands. The surge suppression on a standard phone line is only intended to handle spikes of a few thousand volts and a relatively low current. Nobody with a lick of real knowledge or common sense would think that this somehow provides any real protection from a solid lightening hit. (Guess that leaves you out, on both counts!) I quit. Trying to have a battle of wits with an unarmed opponent is futile. ------------------------------ From: GHS Subject: Re: Alternative Local Dialtones Date: 5 Sep 2002 00:35:37 GMT Organization: http://extra.newsguy.com jpvenezia@veneziainc.com (JPVENEZIA) posted message news:telecom22.22.2@telecom-digest.org in comp.dcom.telecom: > I have a company named Choras coming in to try to switch me away from > Verizon for my local Dialtone. Does anyone have any stories/issues > from switching to an alternate provider/reseller of local dialtone? Back in Jan 2002 I switched from Verizon, which is the CLEC here in Maryland, to Cavalier Telephone, based in Virginia. There were some problems with the initial hook-up which left me without dialtone for about 5 days, and another incident when I was without service for a day. Other than that, I've been using Caller ID, Voice Mail, Call Forwarding features off of Cavalier's switch without problems. I posted more details in my review at www.dslreports.com under the name "ghs". ------------------------------ TELECOM Digest is an electronic journal devoted mostly but not exclusively to telecommunications topics. It is circulated anywhere there is email, in addition to various telecom forums on a variety of networks such as Compuserve and America On Line, 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: 620-870-9697 Fax 1: 775-255-9970 Fax 2: 775-306-8390 Fax 3: 530-309-7234 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 second 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) Email <==> FTP: telecom-archives@telecom-digest.org Send a simple, one line note to that automated address for a help file on how to use the automatic retrieval system for archives files. You can get desired files in email. ************************************************************************* * 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. Access to Premium (P) links requires upgrade to a paid subscription. One click a day feeds a person a meal. Go to http://www.thehungersite.com Only subscribers or registered users of ICB Toll Free News web site will be able to access all or some of the full text of URLs provided. LEGAL STUFF: TELECOM Digest (sm) is owned by Patrick Townson. Copyright 2000 ICB, Inc. and TELECOM Digest. All rights reserved. Our attorney is Bill Levant, of Blue Bell, PA. --------------------------------------------------------------- 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 twenty 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 V22 #25 ***************************** From editor@telecom-digest.org Thu Sep 5 19:48:50 2002 Received: from localhost (localhost [[UNIX: localhost]]) by massis.lcs.mit.edu (8.11.3nb1/8.11.3) id g85NmoZ18194; Thu, 5 Sep 2002 19:48:50 -0400 (EDT) Date: Thu, 5 Sep 2002 19:48:50 -0400 (EDT) From: editor@telecom-digest.org Message-Id: <200209052348.g85NmoZ18194@massis.lcs.mit.edu> X-Authentication-Warning: massis.lcs.mit.edu: ptownson set sender to editor@telecom-digest.org using -f To: ptownson Approved: patsnewlist Subject: TELECOM Digest V22 #26 TELECOM Digest Thu, 5 Sep 2002 19:49:00 EDT Volume 22 : Issue 26 Inside This Issue: Editor: Patrick A. Townson Absurd, and Destabilizing (Judith Oppenheimer) ATT and the TCPA (Henry Cabot Henhouse III) A Decent Spam Filtering Program (anonymous) An Article from GlobeTechnology (Bing) Re: Sprint RIPOFF Alert: DA is Now $2.49 per Call !!!!!!! (Tom Brown) Re: Sprint RIPOFF Alert: DA is Now $2.49 per Call !!!!!!! (John Higdon) Re: Tool to Convert Text Strings to TTY WAV File? (Colin Sutton) Re: Norstar ICS 4.0 (Justin) Re: How to Obtain ASN.1 Description/Text of ITU-T TCAP/ANSI (Dubuisson) Re: Ringing a Phone?? (Richard Newman) Re: CTC Communications Group Dot-Gone? (Tom Betz) Re: Finding CO? (Henry) Re: Finding CO? (John Higdon) Re: Telephone Surge Suppressor (w_tom) Re: Caller ID Spoof? (Carl Moore) Last Laugh! Instant Messaging Over the Phone?? (Alan Fowler) 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. WE DO NOT PERMIT NAME/EMAIL ADDRESS HARVESTING FROM THIS JOURNAL. 'SALTED' EMAIL ADDRESSES APPEAR HEREIN TO VERIFY THIS. YOU GET SUED IN SMALL CLAIMS COURT IF YOU GET CAUGHT SPAMMING OR SENDING VIRUSES. DON'T DO IT. See the bottom of this issue for subscription and archive details and the name of our lawyer; other stuff of interest. ---------------------------------------------------------------------- From: Judith Oppenheimer Subject: Absurd, and Destabilizing Date: Wed, 4 Sep 2002 21:17:04 -0400 ICANN's recent saber-rattling at VeriSign over seventeen instances of inaccurate whois data ( http://icannwatch.org/article.php?sid=932&mode=thread&order=0 ) is especially absurd in the face of ICANN's own refusal -- in some cases for years -- to update ccTLD managers' contact and nameserver information (threatening impact to millions of domain names) unless the ccTLDs submit to a one-sided contract with ICANN. Read the story by Ted Byfield here: http://www.icannwatch.org/article.php?sid=933&mode=&order=0 . Judith Oppenheimer http://JudithOppenheimer.com http://ICBTollFreeNews.com http://WhoSells800.com 212 684-7210, 1 800 The Expert Visit 1-800 AFTA, http://www.1800afta.org ------------------------------ From: Henry Cabot Henhouse III Subject: ATT and the TCPA Organization: AT&T Broadband Date: Thu, 05 Sep 2002 18:48:35 GMT Three or four months ago, I was woken up by a woman trying to sell me AT&T Broadband Cable TV. I asked for my number to be placed on the "Do Not Call" list" and hung up. A few months back, again I receive a call from AT&T trying to sell me cable TV. Irate, I curse, I inform the telemarketer that I'm on the Do Not Call list and hang up. Two days ago, I receive a prerecorded announcement, again trying to sell me AT&T Broadband Cable. And let's not forget the two or three calls from AT&T Long Distance. First, they made one mistake in calling me after I asked them not to, which is allowed. But, the call a few days ago violates 2 sections of the TCPA: 1. they called me after I asked not to be called, and 2. had a prerecorded announcement not in compliance with the TCPA. Now the fun begins. AT&T's Hollywood (California) office gave me the phone number for the local Agent for Service. But, that agent handles some 100 or more AT&T divisions and would not tell me if AT&T Broadband was on their list. So ... who do ya sue? (I left a message for the City of LA Info Technology Agency asking for the name/address of the licensee ... maybe that'd work). Has anyone else had similar problems with AT&T? Thanks in advance. Dave [TELECOM Digest Editor's Note: *It doesn't matter* who (which corporate agent for legal service) you give the paperwork to. Take it back to the Hollywood office and let THEM figure out what to do. One thing however, make certian the secretary or whoever is in charge of the front office stamps a reciept on your copy of the paperwork. If they don't reciept your copy, they will later claim they did not get served. I had almost the same hassle (not for me, you gotta go find so-and-so and serve them) when I sued First National Bank in Chicago in the middle 70's for ripping off cash money which was received in their mail room [details in a story here if anyone is interested]. There is a fifty/fifty chance they will not bother to show up in court (assuming you made GOOD service to someone) and you can then win by default. But make sure the service is good, that it sticks, then go home and wait for the court date while you prepare your case. One possibility is that they will have an attorney come to court to try and outwit you or bully you around. The other possi- bility is they won't show up at all when the matter rightfully comes before the court. And the judge will examine YOUR paperwork in the process to make sure the service was GOOD (that is, handed to someone in their legal department, properly reciepted, etc). When it gets to that point then you ask for a default judgment in your favor. Oh, and never tell the court 'you gotta do this'; the judge doesn't have to do anything. The judge knows the law, you do not. Good luck! I hope you win the case. Oh, and if it does come to default judgment and you get an award then *try to collect it*, let us know if you need help with that part of it. PAT] ------------------------------ Date: Thu, 05 Sep 2002 01:14:01 -0400 From: Name Withheld Subject: A Decent Spam Filtering Program ***** NOT FOR PUBLICATION ***** [TELECOM Digest Editor's Note: As you requested, all name and ident- fying marks have been removed. PAT] Hi Pat... I've been following the discussion of spam in the digest, and it is obvious, you sure get a decent ration of it! Joey Linsdstom in the latest issue offered you filtering thru his mail server. May I suggest something better than that? I use a program called MailWasher (from http://www.mailwasher.net) that is freeware (the author won't refuse donations) and does all Joey's server would do. It interacts with a POP3 mail server, and allows you to pre-filter email before you download it into your normal mail program. Mail you don't want to receive can be either deleted, bounced (with a user unknown error), or both. It checks the headers for mail originating or relayed thru locations listed by SpamCop, VISI, and ORDB. You can add other blackhole lists, or delete them. You can also set up blacklists (and whitelists) of email addresses, domains, and use wildcards in these if you want. It also will filter based on rules you specify. As a sidelight, it also makes an attempt to identify virus contaminated email. (I would still use something better for that, but for a prefilter -- not bad!) I always look at what it wants to do. Only twice has it wanted to reject good mail. It was easy to install, and has decent documentation. What else can I say? It might be what you are looking for. I marked this NOT FOR PUBLICATION since I think the spam issue has been reasonably well beat to death in the digest. But, should you want to use any, or all of this, please just strip off my email address. I'm getting too much spam now! And, keep up the good work with the digest! [TELECOM Digest Editor's Note: Thanks for your kind words. What we really need around here are more *constructive* suggestions such as yours, and less venom. Even though I said yesterday that we would stop the discussion on spam based on the piece of spam I foolishly displayed here because there was so much of it ... well, I lied. We will have JUST ONE MORE GO-AROUND on spam, in the next issue of the Digest (issue 27 or thereabouts) due to reach you later tonight. Then, that will be it! Enough already! In this issue (now), a couple more constructive ideas about spam fighting. Then later tonight the 'main event'. PAT] ------------------------------ From: Bing Subject: An Article from GlobeTechnology Date: Thu, 5 Sep 2002 12:28:38 -0400 (EDT) The following is an article from www.globetechnology.com globeandmail.com, Friday, August 23, 2002 The Web's oldest profession By JACK KAPICA Globe and Mail Update BREAKING NEWS What's the hottest high-tech item these days? That's easy: Anything that fights spam. Spamming the Web's oldest profession has generated a backlash of puritanical proportions against all those offers of cheap Viagra, pornography or enlarged body parts. My inbox is now flooded with offers of new ways to stop the spam. Okay, it's not nearly that bad, but it's clear that the spam problem has aroused the zealots among us. The other day, activists launched a bewildering $2.2-trillion (U.S.) suit against Fax.com for sending junk faxes spamming's older sister. The Aug. 19 issue of Newsweek devoted almost three pages to spam, saying that that in a popularity contest, spammers "would rank just above child pornographers." Then it offered some scary figures: Only 150 people are responsible for 90 per cent of all spam; one of them, Al Ralsky, sends 30 million mailings each day. It also reported that while direct-mail marketers expect a 2 per cent response rate, spammers settle for 0.0025 per cent, which forces them to spam harder. But if the situation is out of control, many anti-spam products are downright silly. The other day, a California company called Habeas Inc. released a spectacularly clumsy package that embeds into the e-mail header a three-line haiku protected by copyright law, and six other lines that contain copyright notices. If senders break any pledge they make to Habeas (the e-mail is sent to only one recipient; the sender has verified permission from each recipient; the sender and each recipient share a pre-existing professional relationship; each recipient is a friend or family member of the sender and the e-mail is not commercial), they can be prosecuted for copyright violation. Other lunacies abound. One U.S. ISP actually blocked all e-mail from an entire country because so many spammers relayed their messages from a server there. Some Internet service providers are offering centralized, or sever-based, anti-spam services that use ever-longer lists of rules to filter e-mail. But so many real messages get tagged as spam (mention certain body parts and your e-mail is toast) that the ensuing outrage has kept many other ISPs from following suit. Another server-based filter is SpamAssassin, very popular among IT people because it is an open-source product, which makes it appealing for the wrong reasons. It analyzes the content of e-mail and compares it to an ever-changing series of rules and assigns a score based on a formula of how many rules the e-mail breaks. System administrators can adjust with the rules, but that's where the problem lies: IT people have better things to do than to play cat-and-mouse with spammers. So they tend to set a very low threshold, go away, and leave the system to run automatically. And that often results in a lot of "false positives" genuine stuff that it rejects as spam. Rogers Cable got caught earlier this year by a very mild form of filtering. Their system blocked e-mail that came from outside its own servers but had rogers.com in the sender's return address; the logic was that any e-mail sent from one Rogers subscriber to another would never leave the server, while spam that "spoofs" a Rogers return address would be blocked. But that's precisely what most legitimate mailing-list software does: It takes e-mail from Rogers.com subscribers, and relays it to all members of the mailing list, including the sender ... who has a rogers.com address. Rogers discovered abruptly how many of its customers subscribed to mailing lists. Two subscription services for residential users also seem like overkill Spam Arrest and McAfee's SpamKiller, both of which essentially become your e-mail server. Spam Arrest sends notices that it will not deliver your e-mail unless you confirm having sent it (spammers never include their real return addresses). A great number of people find this annoying at best and alarming at worst. The first time I tried McAfee's SpamKiller it promptly killed the Dilbert comic strip I subscribe to. The reason: It was sent in HTML format. But a lot of e-mail I want comes in HTML format. I don't want to negotiate at length with software about what both it and I should consider spam. So I killed SpamKiller instead. The problem is that spam killers try to do too much. I'm happier with a product that gives me some control and lets me live without fear of losing good e-mail to false positives: Cloudmark's SpamNet. A new package (still in beta testing), it is community-based software and works as a plug-in to Microsoft Outlook, where it adds two buttons Block and Unblock. The user highlights spam in the inbox, and hits "block." The spam is reported to Cloudmark, which protects other SpamNet users from it, and it is then shunted automatically into a new spam folder. If a legitimate message is found there, the user can "unblock" it across the system. It's a little more complicated than that, of course. Cloudmark realizes some comedians will amuse themselves by reporting legitimate stuff as spam, so the Cloudmark server has been set to count a certain number of identical reports before it activates. Still, it never actually kills anything. The logic here is that as the SpamNet community grows, more spam is reported and therefore more spam is put into the spam folder. The bad news is that the program works only with Microsoft Outlook 2000 or Outlook XP; a version for Outlook Express is in the works, but not for anything else. This is a shame. But SpamNet treats me in a mature fashion by giving me the power to do my bit for a Good Cause by pressing one button; still, it catches about 75 per cent of the spam I get, making my inbox much more manageable. SpamNet is also free; I savour the delicious irony of using a free tool to kill messages seeking to separate me from my money. Most satisfying is its sense of proportion: like the efforts to stamp out the world's oldest profession, its design acknowledges that the effort to stop spam will never be perfect the best you can do is manage it. E-mail Jack Kapica at jkapica@globeandmail.ca Copyright 2001 | Globe Interactive, a division of Bell Globemedia Publishing Inc. ------------------------------ From: kibri@eudoramail.com (Tom Brown) Subject: Re: Sprint RIPOFF Alert: DA is Now $2.49 per Call !!!!!!! Date: 5 Sep 2002 11:05:08 -0700 Organization: http://groups.google.com/ Tim Keating wrote in message news:: > Watch out ALL Sprint LONG distance customers!!! > All long distance plans ... except PCS users. > Sprint is going to nail $2.49 per directory assistance call !!! > Yikes ... tack in taxes ... and your looking at over Three(3) dollars > per use. Here is a similar one (and applies to PCS Users on Cingular). Get an enclosure to enter our contest by sending a text message to Cingular. Then get billed 10 cents a pop for doing so on an all covered plan. I wonder how much they made on that one, bet ya enough to pay for the $5K weekly prize easily. Tom (Please no spam) ------------------------------ Date: Thu, 05 Sep 2002 00:05:51 -0700 From: no-spam@amadeus.kome.com (John Higdon) Subject: Re: Sprint RIPOFF Alert: DA is Now $2.49 per Call !!!!!!! Organization: Green Hills and Cows In article , Tim Keating wrote: > Watch out ALL Sprint LONG distance customers!!! > All long distance plans ... except PCS users. > Sprint is going to nail $2.49 per directory assistance call !!! > Yikes ... tack in taxes ... and your looking at over Three(3) dollars > per use. That is one of the reasons I now move heaven and earth to find numbers via alternative means. I don't even consider DA an option anymore. It is ridiculous. It is much cheaper to phone known people in the general area and ask them if they know the number. For that kind of money, one could make fifty calls looking for a number! -- John Higdon | Email Address Valid | SF: +1 415 428-COWS +1 408 264 4115 | Anytown, USA | FAX: +1 408 264 4407 ------------------------------ From: Colin Sutton Subject: Re: Tool to Convert Text Strings to TTY WAV File? Date: Thu, 05 Sep 2002 14:04:49 GMT Organization: BigPond Internet Services (http://www.bigpond.net.au) Sayit, at http://www.protowrxs.com/Files/Default.htm could be helpful Regards, Colin Jeff Lindborg wrote in message news:telecom22.23.15@telecom-digest.org: > I'm wondering if anyone knows of a software package out there that can > take text and convert it into WAV files of US compliant TTY? I know > the US standard is half duplex which makes this possible and going > international is going to require a boat-load more work but I'm trying > to get a bunch of files generated to make a conversation (we're > talking 800+ prompts here). I could just sit at my little TTY set > here and type them in and record the output into a WAV file one at a > time but that's a lot of manual work that will have to be redone each > time the conversation/prompts get updated. Not cool. > If there's a software package or an API where I can write my own tool > or whatever that can help automate this process, that'd be excellent. > Searching on the web I'm not having much luck tracking such a beast > down. > Thanks much for any help. ------------------------------ From: overdrive79@hotmail.com (Justin) Subject: Re: Norstar ICS 4.0 Date: 5 Sep 2002 07:17:10 -0700 Organization: http://groups.google.com/ Dave Phelps wrote in message news:: > In article , overdrive79@hotmail.com > says: >> I am having trouble with a Norstar system in which a hunt group is not >> ringing when I dial it's extension. Can anyone provide assistance? > Do you have the group set to appear only on the phones? No, actually I removed the users from the group and re-added them and now their phones ring, but now I have a new problem. The hunt group is taking up an "incoming only" button on their sets, and they told me that it originally would ring in on one of their regular lines, not an incoming only line. Do you know how to change this back? ------------------------------ From: asn1@rd.francetelecom.com (Olivier Dubuisson) Subject: Re: How Can We Obtain ASN.1 Description/Text of ITU-T TCAP & ANSI Date: 5 Sep 2002 07:35:36 -0700 Organization: http://groups.google.com/ zpx@suntektech.com (PeixuZhu) wrote in message news:: > I am studying on topic of TCAP, however, it's some difficult to get a > description of TCAPs in ASN.1 notation. Would you please tell the path > to get such materials? Thanks in advance. The ITU-T ASN.1 Project (with help of France Telecom) is in a process of extracting, compiling and pretty-printing the ASN.1 modules contained in all ITU-T Recommendations and making them freely available on the ITU-T website. TCAP ASN.1 modules can be found at: http://www.itu.int/ITU-T/asn1/database/itu-t/q/q775/1997/index.html More information on the ITU-T ASN.1 Project: http://www.itu.int/ITU-T/asn1/index.html O. Dubuisson ------------------------------ From: newmanrichardf@enter.net (Richard Newman) Subject: Re: Ringing a Phone?? Organization: Digital Everything Reply-To: newmanrichardf@enter.net Date: Thu, 05 Sep 2002 01:34:13 GMT Oh Good Lord, Just answer the guy's question, ok ... The answer is: It takes a minimum of 90 volts ac at 20 hertz to ring most phones including mechanical ringers, electronic ringers, fax machines and signal to pbx or key systems that a call is arriving on a co type of circuit. If you send 90 volts at 20 hertz to a phone, it will ring. Raise the frequency a bit and the bell will ring faster. Some older phone switches which shared a single line with several subscribers rang each subscriber with a slightly different frequency. Only the phones of the subscriber who was being called would ring even though all the bells were connected in parallel. This worked by installing different caps in the subscribers phones, making some ring at 18 hertz, another at 22 hertz and another at 30 hertz. Or something like that, you get the point, I am not sure the values here are correct. Some COs will ring with as high as 125 volts and some PBX have used as low as 75 volts. So: How do you ring a phone, apply 90 VAC at 20 Hz. ------------------------------ From: Tom Betz Subject: Re: CTC Communications Group Dot-Gone? Date: Thu, 5 Sep 2002 03:13:06 +0000 (UTC) Organization: XOme Quoth John Stahl in news:telecom22.24.12@telecom- digest.org: > Did a search on Yahoo.com, coming up with http://www.ctcnet.com, which > gave me their web site. There the "headlines" section gave the news > that the NASDAQ has de-listed the stock, After getting the tip that eventually caused me to post the question, I started at that web site and press release. Note that the stock was delisted August 20, but the press release came out Sept 3. This delay added to my concern. I'm a customer, and have not gotten timely response to a service request I placed last week, which further added to my concern. ------------------------------ From: henry99@mac.com (Henry) Subject: Re: Finding CO? Date: Thu, 5 Sep 2002 09:00:21 +0300 Organization: Elisa Internet customer John R. Levine wrote: >>> Is there a way to find out exactly where a CO is located in any given >>> city? >> Go to: >> http://www.mapquest.com/maps/areacode.adp > Its database is pretty good but not perfect. I looked up some > prefixes where I happen to know where the CO is located. In most > cases it was off by a block or so, in a few cases off by a couple of > miles, in one case it got it exactly. And they (Mapquest) are _way_ behind when it comes to updating for area code splits, overlays, etc. For example, (262) was broken out of the longtime (414) in southeastern Wisconsin, with the changeover period ending on March 4, 2000. Mapquest still doesn't know about it. Cheers, Henry ------------------------------ Date: Thu, 05 Sep 2002 00:00:28 -0700 From: no-spam@amadeus.kome.com (John Higdon) Subject: Re: Finding CO? Organization: Green Hills and Cows In article , wesrock@aol.com (Wes Leatherock) wrote: > Many years ago AT&T (when it was still the parent of the Bell > Operating Companies) did a study asking people inside and outside the > company to look at photographs of a selection of jails and central > office and buildings and select which was a jail and which was a C.O. > The success rate was generally less than 50 per cent. There is > a strong family resemblance between C.O. building and jail architecture. One other thing AT&T back in the "old days": they invited the public to tour central offices during scheduled "open house" evenings. It was during those tours (and some private ones given to me by employee friends) that I got to see and touch real crossbar switching gear and see and hear it work. -- John Higdon | Email Address Valid | SF: +1 415 428-COWS +1 408 264 4115 | Anytown, USA | FAX: +1 408 264 4407 [TELECOM Digest Editor's Note: Well if you wanted to 'hear crossbar at work' all you had to do was walk down the street in front of a central office building on a hot summer night about 10 PM when the windows would be open (on hot sultry nights) and everyone in the area would be off hook making/recieving calls. You could hear it a block away as those relays would bang! open and bang! shut. On a rare occassion you might hear dead silence for ten seconds or so as no new connections were established or removed. One such summer night in 1961 (I think) I was walking to work (I worked midnight shift at the UC in the old phone room) and it was HOT and very humid, about to start raining. I cut over to take a shorter route past 61st Street and Kenwood Avenue and the Illinois Bell central office there that was known to most people as 'Kenwood Bell'. The operators worked on the 2nd floor, the crossbar switches were on the ground floor. I saw an operator with her headset on stick her hand out the window up there to see if it had started raining yet. Knowing it was about to start, I picked up my pace to go on to work. Honestly, those places were as bad as Western Union public offices with their constant drone of teletype machines going all the time. PAT] ------------------------------ From: w_tom Subject: Re: Telephone Surge Suppressor Date: Thu, 05 Sep 2002 03:05:57 -0400 Organization: Posted via Supernews, http://www.supernews.com Ken does not have an engineering degree. Engineers do not respond to every post with insults. Engineers respond with engineering facts. Ken has yet to demonstrate knowledge of any basic electrical knowledge. He has not provided a single engineering fact. Ken even did not understand the difference or significance of wire resistance verses impedance. He cannot understand why that 10 AWG wire can earth a direct phone line surge without damage or vaporizing. This technical ignorance is quite common among those who claim lightning damage cannot be avoided. Leonard's original problem is slightly different. In an apartment, he may not have access to earth ground and the necessary earth grounds may not exist. Either way, he cannot make the changes that only a landlord can perform. Ken Abrams wrote: > Oooo, now things are becoming much clearer. You wouldn't perhaps have > some kind of tie to Polyphaser, would you? > I never said that earth ground was irrelevant to surge suppression but > any puny little ground wire connected to a phone protector IS > insignificant to a direct lightening strike. When the wire melts and > disappears in a couple of nanoseconds, then where is your ground???? > Bottom line is: Screw you. There is plenty of scientific information > available that fully documents the behavior of lightening. If you > would look for it with an UNBIASED eye, you might even be able to see > and understand some of it. > Second bottom line: My original statement stands. The surge > suppression on a standard phone line is only intended to handle spikes > of a few thousand volts and a relatively low current. Nobody with a > lick of real knowledge or common sense would think that this somehow > provides any real protection from a solid lightening hit. (Guess that > leaves you out, on both counts!) > I quit. Trying to have a battle of wits with an unarmed opponent is > futile. ------------------------------ Date: Thu, 5 Sep 2002 09:30:18 EDT From: Carl Moore Subject: Re: Caller ID Spoof? Oops, I said "972 plus ten digits" where I should have used "seven" instead of "ten" if the number string could indeed be in area code 972 in Texas. ------------------------------ From: amfowler@melbpc.org.au (Alan Fowler) Subject: Last Laugh! Re: Instant Messaging Over the Phone?? Date: Thu, 05 Sep 2002 07:12:15 GMT Organization: Whitethorn Software al503141@my-deja.com (Adrian) wrote: > Hi, I was wondering if theres an aplication (Computer Telephone > Integration-Platform) where I can "see" people online?? This reminds me of the first experiments with video phones. An engineer at a research lab who was working on this project rang his wife from work. She took a while to answer, and when she found out who was calling said -- call me later, I was half way through a shower and hung up. A colleague head what happened and called the wife again. A delay again, and when she answered started to talk to her, then suddenly said "OH look at you, you're all wet. Sudden scream, and the phone slammed down. Alan [TELECOM Digest Editor's Note: Well, you know, Yahoo Messenger is a big, very easy to use application which routinely includes video as part of the package, and its free (other than you have to buy a fifty dollar camera to attach to the computer). And you get these big, jumbo sized pictures on your screen which can be expanded to full screen size. And it is a very nice, easy to use application. And you can have group orgy -- err -- conferences where several people in different locations can view one video cam. We have come so far since the early days of computer chat where you had to ask the other person for a/s/l (or as some would say: m or f, how old?) and hope they were being truthful -- which often times people in chats are not being. Remember, the next issue of the Digest (about 9 PM Eastern when I finish my dinner) will be devoted once again to our by default favorite topic, spam. Participants will include Joey, John Higdon, Judith and the regular cast of characters. Hopefully that will end it, once and for all. (for this month :( ) PAT] ------------------------------ TELECOM Digest is an electronic journal devoted mostly but not exclusively to telecommunications topics. It is circulated anywhere there is email, in addition to various telecom forums on a variety of networks such as Compuserve and America On Line, 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: 620-870-9697 Fax 1: 775-255-9970 Fax 2: 775-306-8390 Fax 3: 530-309-7234 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 second 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) Email <==> FTP: telecom-archives@telecom-digest.org Send a simple, one line note to that automated address for a help file on how to use the automatic retrieval system for archives files. You can get desired files in email. ************************************************************************* * 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. Access to Premium (P) links requires upgrade to a paid subscription. One click a day feeds a person a meal. Go to http://www.thehungersite.com Only subscribers or registered users of ICB Toll Free News web site will be able to access all or some of the full text of URLs provided. LEGAL STUFF: TELECOM Digest (sm) is owned by Patrick Townson. Copyright 2000 ICB, Inc. and TELECOM Digest. All rights reserved. Our attorney is Bill Levant, of Blue Bell, PA. --------------------------------------------------------------- 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 twenty 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 V22 #26 ***************************** From editor@telecom-digest.org Thu Sep 5 22:01:20 2002 Received: from localhost (localhost [[UNIX: localhost]]) by massis.lcs.mit.edu (8.11.3nb1/8.11.3) id g8621KC19188; Thu, 5 Sep 2002 22:01:20 -0400 (EDT) Date: Thu, 5 Sep 2002 22:01:20 -0400 (EDT) From: editor@telecom-digest.org Message-Id: <200209060201.g8621KC19188@massis.lcs.mit.edu> X-Authentication-Warning: massis.lcs.mit.edu: ptownson set sender to editor@telecom-digest.org using -f To: ptownson Approved: patsnewlist Subject: TELECOM Digest V22 #27 TELECOM Digest Thu, 5 Sep 2002 22:00:00 EDT Volume 22 : Issue 27 Inside This Issue: Editor: Patrick A. Townson On Combating Spam and Getting Bent Outta Shape (Joey Lindstrom) Re: http://www.spammers.getbent (John Higdon) New TLDs and Spam Filtering (Jonathan Edelson) Relative to Recent Thread (Judith Oppenheimer) Re: Get Bent - .info People Are Not Spammers (Mark Crispin) Re: Spamming, etc (Geoffrey Welsh) 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. WE DO NOT PERMIT NAME/EMAIL ADDRESS HARVESTING FROM THIS JOURNAL. 'SALTED' EMAIL ADDRESSES APPEAR HEREIN TO VERIFY THIS. YOU GET SUED IN SMALL CLAIMS COURT IF YOU GET CAUGHT SPAMMING OR SENDING VIRUSES. DON'T DO IT. See the bottom of this issue for subscription and archive details and the name of our lawyer; other stuff of interest. ---------------------------------------------------------------------- From: Joey Lindstrom Date: Thu, 05 Sep 2002 09:53:44 -0600 Reply-To: Joey Lindstrom Subject: On Combating Spam and Getting Bent Outta Shape On Wed, 4 Sep 2002 22:31:58 -0400 (EDT), editor@telecom-digest.org wrote: (A buncha stuff trimmed out and sent to Pat via private email) > You also commented on the amount of false addresses in spam which I > guess is true. I do not see why, however. Spammers usually want to > sell something; how can they with no way to reach them in email? A question I've often asked myself. The answer turns out to be fairly involved: 1) If they give out a real address owned by some ISP (ie: user@hotmail.com, user@earthlink.net, whatever), they'll get shut down VERY quickly - a lot of ISP's are looking for such suspicious activity. 2) Even if they didn't, they'd get SO MUCH hatemail in their inbox that it would become very difficult to sort the wheat from the chaff. What they do is give you SOME way to contact them within the body of the message (and not the FROM: header). Oftentimes it's a phone number (sometimes toll-free, sometimes not). Sometimes it's even a website, usually linked to some sort of script and a unique identifier number that, as soon as you click on it, confirms to them that your address is WORKING). They find hosts that are willing to host the commercial site selling whatever product they're selling, and then they do their spamming at arm's length: they'll use a whole 'nother ISP. This creates doubt: are the site owners doing the actual spamming, or is it some over-exuberant fan of the site, or somebody trying to get them into trouble, or what? Just because a spam contains a reference to a particular website, and even an exhortation to visit that site to "make money fast" or "get cheap Viagra" or whatever, does NOT prove conclusively that the site owner and the spammer are the same person (or persons). It's sleazy, and it doesn't always work, but it works often enough that these sleazebacks are able to turn a buck, and that's why they keep doing it. > I guess we could call their 800 number (!!??#!) if they give one in > the message text. I heard some people do that maliciously (grin), > but doesn't some or most spam have a good return address if they are > trying to sell something? Yes, just not in the FROM: line. That is nearly always fake. The few times it's real, it's usually from some first-time spammer who is new to the internet and doesn't understand that what he's doing is considered wrong by his fellow netizens. They set him straight in a HURRY. :-) In some cases (more common in the past, far less common now), the return address was valid but only connected to a "verifier". If you send mail to it, you were verifying YOUR email address as valid - and thus guaranteed future spam. > I suppose a good filter might also include a reverse DNS lookup, > i.e. a daemon goes to look and finds out through sendmail's VRFY > that there is indeed a johnl@iecc.com, but can you imagine how much > network time and resources *that* would consume? A lot, and it would be ineffective as soon as the spammers found out about it. The address you just quoted is valid. So what's to stop a spammer from putting that addresss in the FROM field of every single spam he sends from now on? Nothing, and that'll defeat the VRFY check. The ones I use work on the IP address of the machine(s) that have handled the mail. A lot of spam, most of it in fact, comes from "known spam sources". The moment the IP address of a known spam source is listed in one of the databases that I'm connected to, then NO mail at ALL from that machine, either directly or relayed via somewhere else, will be received by my server: it just says "get bent" and hangs up on it. The lookup is done in the form of a DNS lookup: very low bandwidth and the database servers can handle a LOT of incoming requests. Still, at busy times, it can delay the beginning of an incoming mail session by 10 seconds or so (I'm checking against four different databases). There are a variety of database types available: I've already given you four URL's for the four I subscribe to in private email: I'll repeat them here for anyone interested: http://www.ordb.org http://www.spews.org http://www.spamsites.org http://www.spamhaus.org ORDB lists any "open relays" (that can be spam-raped), and also has a web-based "tester" that allows you and me to type in the IP of a system we suspect of being vulnerable. It'll be tested and, if it fails, it gets listed. If it passes, it gets delisted. Others go after the hosts that are "spammer-friendly": those who host the websites that the spammer owns, those who run mailing lists that are not double-opt-in, etc. There's one that lists all known dial-up IP pools: this can be VERY effective (since that's how a LOT of spam is sent), but unfortunately I can't use that particular one since I have a lot of legitimate users coming in from dial-up points around the world. This whole approach is reactive rather than proactive - it means that you're still going to get some spam - just a whole lot less than you might otherwise. On my system, it filters anywhere from 50 to 120 spams a day - my best guess is that it's catching 80%-90% of it. This keeps the spammers on the move: they can't just find an ISP who doesn't care what the rest of the world thinks and allows spammers to operate. That only works for a short time until they're found out, then they can't spam from there anymore and have to find another haven. By "can't spam from there anymore" I mean that the spam RECEIVERS won't accept their mail: the spammer's ISP may not give a rat's ass. As for ISP's who don't give a rat's ass, this approach also has another effect: it helps persuade such ISP's and server owners to tighten up their security and re-examine their pro-spammer policies. Those that continue to flout our well-established standards find that they, and their customers, cannot send even LEGITIMATE email to anybody whose server subscribes to these databases - thus, the more servers that subscribe, the better. And momentum continues to build on this. > Well, speaking on the topic of consumption of resources, your next > letter, a response to John Higdon, that bitter and frustrated old > man (LOL, grin) takes up a lot of space here, so let's get right in > to it. PAT] And since you've asked that that thread be ended, I won't respond to it. I'd like, if I may, to explain just why I was so angry in my replies to John (and to a lesser extent, to you). It was because John, whether accidentally or intentionally, was making a clear inference that anybody using a .info return address was to be automatically assumed a spammer or an illegitimate "net.person" until proven otherwise, and thus it was reasonable to simply filter out such email. And since I'm one of those people, I found that prejudice to be distasteful in the extreme, and I reacted rather strongly to being judged solely on my choice of TLD. I do apologize for the overall nasty tone of my posts: in my defence, well, I was provoked. :-) Joey Lindstrom - Laird's Flooring joey@lairdsflooring.com ------------------------------ Date: Wed, 04 Sep 2002 23:56:18 -0700 From: no-spam@amadeus.kome.com (John Higdon) Subject: Re: http://www.spammers.getbent Organization: Green Hills and Cows In article , joey@garynuman.info wrote: > Would you accept 1039 emails from .com, .net, and .org addresses, all > received in the last 7 days, by my primary email server? Hey, I think > I'll start spam-filtering against anybody in .com, .net, and .org! > That's a great idea! Except for one thing: I get many, many legitimate emails with the traditional TLDs in the From line and I get NO legitimate emails from dot.info, dot.biz, etc. > My three South African correspondents would take issue with that > statement. Mr. Higdon, if I've said it once I've said it a million > times: never exaggerate. I'm not exaggerating: I have never had a legitimate email from a .za address. Ever. > Well then I must be extremely dense, because I cannot see why this > argument can be used in defense of @hotmail.com and @yahoo.com, but > not @*.info or @*.biz. Let's have a little consistency here. Are you > actually telling me that because you see a .info or .biz return > address on some spam emails, you BELIEVE that those addresses are > legitimate and thus need to be filtered against? I made no statement regarding the legitimacy of the return addresses. In fact, I plainly said that I had no idea whether any of them were routable or not. All I said was that emails bearing these addresses arriving here were all spam. > Just how naive are you? With regard to people who have some deep-seated underlying issues, apparently quite so. > Furthermore, there *ARE* a lot of spammers operating out of hotmail.com > and yahoo.com. Oh, but I forgot: anyone using one of those addresses > isn't a real net.person. Your words, not mine. >>> Again, anybody can put anything they want in as the return address. >> Exactly. See above. > You see above. That's MY point vis-a-vis .info and .biz. But you are making an issue out of an irrelevancy. It doesn't matter whether the addresses are routable or not. They are still attached to spam. > And we get to the heart of the matter. It's new and trendy, therefore > it's bad. Geezus John, how old are you? 124? You sound like my > freakin' grandfather. "Dot com was good enough for me and the missus, > it should be good enough for you". It's funny that someone who > associates with cutting-edge technology can't stand to see advancement > and change. You must have missed my remarks where I said that when it appears that the names are catching on by legitmate users, my policy will change. Until then, I stand by my current policy, regardless of how I may "sound" to you. > And that's really your problem, John. C'mon, admit it. It's shiny > and new and you've fallen behind, and so you lash out at what's new > and trendy. This isn't about spam, this is about you (and others) > being too anal to accept the fact that the world is no longer about > just .com, .net, and .org anymore. We've moved on and you're freaked > that you're no longer at the bleeding edge. Well John ... get over it. That is the most pompous bit of fluff I have ever read in this newsgroup. I have made some very simple observations about mail received at this site. You have expanded that to judge me as a person, my abilities in my profession (its nature completely unknown to you), and the state of my knowledge of current practices and procedures. Is there some reason you are showing such defensiveness against an over-the-hill geezer such as myself? Do you feel threatened in some way? > Barry Margolin then contributed: >> I get an enormous amount of spam, and I can confirm that not much of >> it is from .info or .biz addresses. > Thanks for that, Barry. Hell, that applies to me as well. I get very little spam from .info or ..biz addresses. But 100% of the .biz and .info email that I DO get IS spam. > So what you're saying is that I am not a real "net.person", and by > inference YOU ARE. No, I said, "Your words, not mine." > Yeah, ok. I guess because you were around when .arpa names were > common and everybody's email address had a bangpath in it, that > makes you superior to us all. Again: you are putting an awful lot of words in my mouth. > Jam that up your inbox and smoke it, buddy. Is there some reason you cannot be civil in a discussion ... particularly when you are making up a major portion of what I supposedly said? >>> Thank you for ably demonstrating the fact that "opinions are like >>> rectums. Every asshole has one." >> And it was, after all, just an opinion. I find your defensive attitude >> interesting if not informative. > Ah, so now I'm a spammer am I? John, will you please kindly f*** off? Not only are you making up my side of the argument, but you cannot even be civil in your rebuttal of words I never uttered! > Don't even think to infer it, John. You're barking up the wrong tree, > you've libeled me publicly, and you owe me an apology. You don't know what I think, and even if you did, I wouldn't have to apologize for it. You certainly seem to have issues somewhere with something beyond my simple observation that so far .biz and .info have delivered nothing but spam to me. > Y'know something? I should just shut my mouth Or at least stop putting words in my mouth and exhibiting major defensiveness. >> What is your definition of a "real net.person"? > Anyone who doesn't exhibit your anti-social tendencies, for starters. > Somebody who understands what the .net is all about, yet does not act > all snobbish towards anyone who has two weeks' less tenure. Somebody > who treats people with respect UNTIL that person shows themselves > unworthy of that respect, rather than treating people with disrespect > until proven worthy of respect. Looks like you fail on all points, > John. If you will go back and read the posts, you will see that I have addressed you with total courtesy and politeness at all times. It is how I was brought up. On the other hand, count the invectives you have uttered to me and the insults you have expressed. Also notice how you have expanded my very simple statements into defensive tirades against me personally, against my abilities in my field, and now delivered derogatory remarks about my social abilities. Again ... all because I made an off-hand observation about .biz and .info addresses. >> The best to you, too. You have not presented a single reason to remove >> my ..info/.biz filtering. > How about this one: the same reason you've got a mailbox in the first > place. Because somebody might send you something you might want to > read. Not likely. But as I said before, once I know someone who has such an address, I'll change my filters. Until then, I don't see the point. > John, you're free to filter whatever the hell you want to filter. > Nobody can force you to read any email sent to you by anybody. Yes, thank you. I already know that. > 1) To show everybody else, particularly those who might be moved to > follow your ill-considered advice, just what motivated said advice and > what a cranky old fart you are, But everyone already knows that. Where have you been? > 2) To also show everybody else that, by following your advice, they > WILL be throwing the baby out with the bathwater. There are a lot of > ways to filter spam, some very effective, some less effective. Oh, now I understand completely why you chose the level of civility utilized in your replies. > But if I ever become so freakin' bitter and disillusioned that I start > making decisions about filtering people based on their TLD, regardless > of whether their mail may or may not be legitimate ... well, it's time > for me to shut down my servers, and call my ISP to schedule removal of > their equipment. Because I'll be ready to check myself straight into > a cemetery. Sounds like you are awfully bitter about something. > It's funny, too ... in a previous argument here with Pat, I was > accused (because I'm conservative) of having no compassion for others, > of not being accepting and understanding. Compared to you, John, I'm > Mohandas Gandhi. My goodness! I've really stepped on your toes. And to think ... it was all because I made that simple observation. Of course, I've got to give you credit: you supplied all the really juicy arguments from "my side". I certainly would have never thought of all that without your "help". John Higdon | Email Address Valid | SF: +1 415 428-COWS +1 408 264 4115 | Anytown, USA | FAX: +1 408 264 4407 ------------------------------ Date: Thu, 05 Sep 2002 09:57:36 -0400 From: Jonathan Edelson Subject: New TLDs and Spam Filtering Pat, I'd suggest that you look at this gentleman's comments on the Risk Digest: http://catless.ncl.ac.uk/Risks/22.22.html#subj15 In short, what is being described is a general statistical techniques, and a pretty brain dead one at that, which is used to recognize spam. The _entire_ message is considered, including the headers, and at least in the present incarnation the headers are treated no differently than the body text. Words (including domain name components such as .biz) are given a statistical weighting, very roughly from 'almost never appears in SPAM' to 'almost always appears in SPAM'. When a new bit of mail is considered, the weighting of the words is considered, and a probability that a particular document is spam is generated. You then decide what to do with the document based upon this number. Nifty things: if spammers modify 'trap words' in order to get around filters (say by changing 'O' to '0' in the four letter word which also means rooster), then these new words are often much better indicator of SPAM. Filtering is very much like racial profiling: useful if it has a valid statistical basis, bad policing if it is based on blind prejudice. If everyone filters on .biz, then the spammers will quickly find something else to use, but the people with valid reasons to use .biz will be left in the cold ... the same way that much of the usefulness of USENET vanished when the spammers came in. With the above approach, if lots of spam comes with .biz somewhere in it, then it will acquire a very negative weight. But if lots of 'real people' use .biz, then it will demonstrate itself as a neutral word to use in spam filtering. Regards, Jonathan Edelson ------------------------------ From: Judith Oppenheimer Subject: Relative to Recent Thread Date: Thu, 5 Sep 2002 16:45:07 -0400 "I'm beginning to think dot-biz is the Florida swampland of the Internet." Inc. Magazine. http://www.inc.com/magazine/20020901/24548.html The same registrar says you can "Buy your .US name during September 2002, and you'll be doing your part to make our world safer! NeuStar, the official administrator of the .US domain, has announced an exciting new partnership with the Rewards For Justice Fund (RFJF). During September 2002, NeuStar will donate $1.00 to the RFJF for every .US name sold!" http://www.neustar.us/ads/golive/landing/index.html I wonder if you can opt out. Judith Oppenheimer http://JudithOppenheimer.com http://ICBTollFreeNews.com http://WhoSells800.com 212 684-7210, 1 800 The Expert Visit 1-800 AFTA, http://www.1800afta.org ------------------------------ From: Mark Crispin Subject: Re: Get Bent - .info People Are Not Spammers Date: Thu, 5 Sep 2002 09:26:22 -0700 Organization: Networks and Distributed Computing On Tue, 3 Sep 2002, Joey Lindstrom wrote: > I am a real "net.person" and I own not one but two .info domains, > with email addresses to go with them. If you choose to build your house in a neighborhood with a bad reputation, you shouldn't be surprised that your insurance rates are higher and that your child's playmates aren't allowed to visit your child at your house. Yes, collective punishment for the acts of a few is unjust. But it will happen, and no amount of railing against it will cause it not to happen. It's not fair that innocent individuals in Korea, China, Taiwan, and Russia are finding their mail blocked at a substantial number of sites; but it happens. At least it is dawning on the Korean government that this is a serious problem, and they are actually considering effective action against Korean spammers. The world is full of unfairness, and nobody has figured a way to make the world a little bit less unfair. Plenty of people have made the world more unfair in the name of remedying unfairness. -- Mark -- http://staff.washington.edu/mrc Science does not emerge from voting, party politics, or public debate. [TELECOM Digest Editor's Note: Not too long ago, I gave John Levine my approval to go ahead and block all mail from Korea. I resisted that step for a long time, despite the fact that I get *nothing* from Korea in recent years except messages with subject lines of '##*&@(($%""$%%*' followed by nonsensical gibberish as text, and as often as not, spam. And five to ten of those come every day. I really did not like to do that, but ... PAT] ------------------------------ From: Geoffrey Welsh Subject: Re: Spamming, etc Date: Thu, 5 Sep 2002 00:54:08 -0400 PAT wrote (in response to Joey Lindstrom): > You also commented on the amount of false addresses in spam which I > guess is true. I do not see why, however. Spammers usually want to > sell something; how can they with no way to reach them in email? [...] but > doesn't some or most spam have a good return address if they are > trying to sell something? Very rarely. Those that do not provide a telephone number include a (usually obscured) URL that points to a web page hosted: (a) by an spam-friendly ISP, often in a foreign country (the spamhost du jour is currently China); (b) on a cheap or free hosting account; (c) on their own web server connected via a throwaway dialup account. Sometimes in situation (b) and almost always in situation (c), the spammers will host their own DNS servers so that the address associated with a URL can be changed to a backup within seconds if/when the ISP cancels the account used to host the web site (you would not believe how difficult it is to explain this to abuse desk people and convince them that their customer really is a spammer even though they're only running a DNS server on that connection) but most of the spammers will register several DNS servers - some that they do operate (just in case the ISP believes you and disconnects them, they have active backups) and some that they don't (so that, if you're not careful, you make a fool of yourself reporting an innocent bystander.) Oh, yes: the names, addresses, and contact information they use when registering their domains is usually false, too. I've heard that some spammers pay for these services using stolen credit card numbers, but I can't confirm that myself. These, along with hijacking insecure mail and proxy servers to do their delivery, are the tools of the trade for the spammers who promote advance fee scams (e.g. debt consolidation loans or the 'Nigerian letter'), pyramid schemes, body-enhancing, etc. Then again, it's amazing how many ISPs - even ones that used to enforce anti-spam policies - will today refuse to take down spammers' web sites (or DNS server) on the basis that the spam didn't come from that address (naturally, it was sent from a throwaway dialup account specifically to create deniability plausible only to the naive and those with an interest.) Sadly, my prediction that ISPs would chose spammers' money over traditional internet ethics in tough times is increasingly apparent; even the ISPs who are still enforcing anti-spam policies understaff their abuse desks and, by the time they get around to taking down a spammer's web site, he's aready more than made his money back and he's ready to move on to his next backup. There are some spammers who do not hide like this; they just find a spam-tolerant ISP, sign you up for "opt-out" lists and hide behind the claim that it is their First Amendment right to make a buck sending us advertising at our own expense. Now even the courts are smoking the spammers' wares: reports that a petition to treat spam like junk faxes may be pointless because "in April, however, a federal judge in Missouri ruled that the [Telephone Consumer Protection Act (TCPA)] was unconstitutional, breaking with an earlier appeals court argument that upheld the law." > I suppose a good filter might also include a reverse DNS lookup, Unfortunately, many legitimate mail servers operate without the benefit of properly configured reverse DNS pointers. As a side note, I have my system configured to put one return address on USENET postings and another on e-mail; I recently rejoined Telecom Digest after years away and have sent in a couple of contributions which, for lack of forethought on my part, had the private e-mail return address on them ... ever since, I've been receiving spam in my previously pristine mailbox. Spammers don't waste any opportunity to increase their 'circulation!' [TELECOM Digest Editor's Note: No they don't waste any time. I have thought a couple times about *completely deleting* all email addresses in the Digest, and just using names, then holding all email addresses and names for 60-90 days in a file where responses intended for the individual writers (instead of the Digest) could go through a forwarding system after I read them and cleaned out the spam. The main problem with that is I have neither the funds nor the resources to forward mail between users and also, it is none of my business when people here want to write to each other. I think Peter N. of *Risks* only prints the names, not the email addresses. At least that is what he used to do. But I am not nearly the expert on telecom that Peter N. is in his field; I must have help from readers in clarifying issues and mistakes, etc. And that demand of mine, for user-reader accuracy in what appears here (with readers not hesitating to correct one another and/or me as needed) would make a mail forwarding system (to avoid spam getting into email addresses here) almost impossible. I've also thought a great deal about emphasizing the use of the web- site mailing system I offer on http://telecom-digest.org/postoffice . Some of you already use those @telecom-digest.zzn.com addresses when writing here. I strongly suggest getting one or two of those addresses then as they get polluted just dumping them and taking a new one. And of course, you can use those @telecom-digest.zzn.com addreses to write to all the journals, ezines and newsgroups you participate in. There is no charge for them; it is just part of your donation here and one way I have of trying to help you in return. With all this being said, let's PLEASE drop the responses to 'who is the biggest hater of spam in this newsgroup' and I think we should all give a big round of applause to the lady whose spam message here a few days ago got this thread started. PAT] ------------------------------ TELECOM Digest is an electronic journal devoted mostly but not exclusively to telecommunications topics. It is circulated anywhere there is email, in addition to various telecom forums on a variety of networks such as Compuserve and America On Line, 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: 620-870-9697 Fax 1: 775-255-9970 Fax 2: 775-306-8390 Fax 3: 530-309-7234 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 second 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) Email <==> FTP: telecom-archives@telecom-digest.org Send a simple, one line note to that automated address for a help file on how to use the automatic retrieval system for archives files. You can get desired files in email. ************************************************************************* * 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. Access to Premium (P) links requires upgrade to a paid subscription. One click a day feeds a person a meal. Go to http://www.thehungersite.com Only subscribers or registered users of ICB Toll Free News web site will be able to access all or some of the full text of URLs provided. LEGAL STUFF: TELECOM Digest (sm) is owned by Patrick Townson. Copyright 2000 ICB, Inc. and TELECOM Digest. All rights reserved. Our attorney is Bill Levant, of Blue Bell, PA. --------------------------------------------------------------- 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 twenty 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 V22 #27 ***************************** From editor@telecom-digest.org Mon Sep 9 21:53:43 2002 Received: from localhost (localhost [[UNIX: localhost]]) by massis.lcs.mit.edu (8.11.3nb1/8.11.3) id g8A1rhF02449; Mon, 9 Sep 2002 21:53:43 -0400 (EDT) Date: Mon, 9 Sep 2002 21:53:43 -0400 (EDT) From: editor@telecom-digest.org Message-Id: <200209100153.g8A1rhF02449@massis.lcs.mit.edu> X-Authentication-Warning: massis.lcs.mit.edu: ptownson set sender to editor@telecom-digest.org using -f To: ptownson Approved: patsnewlist Subject: TELECOM Digest V22 #28 TELECOM Digest Mon, 9 Sep 2002 21:52:00 EDT Volume 22 : Issue 28 Inside This Issue: Editor: Patrick A. Townson Telecom Update (Canada) #348, September 9, 2002 (Angus TeleManagement) Re: Finding CO? (Neal McLain) Re: Finding CO? (Steve Brack) Re: Finding CO? (Wes Leatherock) Re: Finding CO? (Tony Pelliccio) Re: Finding CO? (Arthur Kamlet) Re: Spamming, etc (John Higdon) Re: Spamming, etc (Dave Garland) Re: Spamming, etc (Joel B Levin) New York Remembrance: 911 (Anna Irmingard) 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. WE DO NOT PERMIT NAME/EMAIL ADDRESS HARVESTING FROM THIS JOURNAL. 'SALTED' EMAIL ADDRESSES APPEAR HEREIN TO VERIFY THIS. YOU GET SUED IN SMALL CLAIMS COURT IF YOU GET CAUGHT SPAMMING OR SENDING VIRUSES. DON'T DO IT. See the bottom of this issue for subscription and archive details and the name of our lawyer; other stuff of interest. ---------------------------------------------------------------------- Date: Mon, 09 Sep 2002 11:23:01 -0400 From: Angus TeleManagement Subject: Telecom Update (Canada) #348, September 9, 2002 ************************************************************ TELECOM UPDATE ************************************************************ published weekly by Angus TeleManagement Group http://www.angustel.ca Number 348: September 9, 2002 Publication of Telecom Update is made possible by generous financial support from: ** BELL CANADA: http://www.bell.ca ** CISCO SYSTEMS CANADA: http://www.cisco.com/ca/letstalk ** CYGCOM INTEGRATED TECHNOLOGIES: http://www.cygcom.com ** ERICSSON CANADA: http://www.ericsson.ca ** JUNIPER NETWORKS: http://www.juniper.net ** PRIMUS CANADA: http://www.primustel.ca ** Q9 NETWORKS: http://www.Q9.com ** TELUS: http://www.telus.com ************************************************************ IN THIS ISSUE: ** B.C. Court Approves 360 Restructuring ** $105 Million for Rural Broadband Projects ** CTEA Settles in Bell Pay Equity Dispute ** Critical Security Flaw Found in Windows ** Microcell Complains of Discriminatory Marketing ** Aliant Expands Digital Net ** Router Sales to Carriers Fall ** New Brunswick Business-Line Prices Rise ** Syncrude Buys Spectrum ** Q9 to Host Indigo On-Line Services ** Cable Internet Grows ** CSG Buys IBM Telecom Billing System ** Teleglobe Cable Cut Isolates Iceland ** New CFO at Emergis ** Save $50 on Telemanagement Subscription ============================================================ B.C. COURT APPROVES 360 RESTRUCTURING: The B.C. Supreme Court has approved 360networks' restructuring plan, following withdrawal of Telus's last-minute claim that delayed approval the previous week. 360 expects the plan to be implemented in early October, following a vote by U.S. creditors. (See Telecom Update #347) ** 360 has agreed to sell its Atlantic undersea cables to Columbia Ventures, a venture capital firm. $105 MILLION FOR RURAL BROADBAND PROJECTS: Industry Canada has announced a "Broadband for Rural and Northern Development Pilot Program," to help extend high-speed Internet access to currently unserved communities. Priority will be given to proposals from First Nation, northern, remote, and rural communities where DSL or cable modem service are not available. ** Not-for-profit community organizations may apply for up to $30,000 to develop business plans for broadband projects. Proposals are due by October 31, with a second round beginning next March. Further funds will be made available for implementing selected business plans. ** Proposals will be evaluated by a National Selection Committee chaired by David Johnston (President of the University of Waterloo and the former Chair of both the National Broadband Task Force and the Information Highway Advisory Council). http://broadband.gc.ca/ CTEA SETTLES IN BELL PAY EQUITY DISPUTE: Bell Canada has agreed to pay $178 million to female members of the Canadian Telecommunications Employees' Association to settle a decade- old pay equity dispute. ** Still outstanding is the $400 million pay-equity claim by the Communications, Energy and Paperworkers Union, which represents 5,000 former and current Bell operators. (See Telecom Update #313) CRITICAL SECURITY FLAW FOUND IN WINDOWS: Microsoft has posted a patch for a "critical" flaw in Windows 98, NT, Me, 2000, and XP that could allow attackers to steal passwords and other supposedly secure information. http://www.microsoft.com/technet/ MICROCELL COMPLAINS OF DISCRIMINATORY MARKETING: Microcell Telecom has asked the CRTC to order Rogers Wireless and Bell Mobility to stop offering special rebates to Fido customers. Microcell says this is unjust discrimination. ** Moody's has downgraded Microcell's unsecured debt two notches to single-C. A financial restructuring of Microcell is "highly likely," Moody's says, and it would leave these notes with "minimal value." ALIANT EXPANDS DIGITAL NET: Aliant Telecom Mobility has built 15 new digital and two new analog sites in the Atlantic Provinces over the last two months, and now offers digital wireless service to 60% of the region's population. Improvements range from two new digital sites in Greater Halifax to analog coverage in Newfoundland's isolated Northern Peninsula. ROUTER SALES TO CARRIERS FALL: Gartner Dataquest says that worldwide router sales to carriers fell 7% in the second quarter of 2002. Cisco recorded 60% of the sales; Juniper and Unisphere (now merged) had 17.7% and 7% respectively. NEW BRUNSWICK BUSINESS-LINE PRICES RISE: The CRTC has approved Aliant Telecom's proposal to increase the rate for single-line business service in New Brunswick by $3/month, effective immediately. http://www.crtc.gc.ca/archive/ENG/Orders/2002/o2002-366.htm SYNCRUDE BUYS SPECTRUM: WNI Networks (formerly Wispra) has sold some of the Edmonton-area 24 MHz wireless spectrum it acquired in the 1999 auction. Industry Canada has approved the transfer of 63 cells in the Bitumount and Fort Mackay area to Syncrude Canada. Q9 TO HOST INDIGO ON-LINE SERVICES: Q9 Networks, a Toronto- based Internet outsourcer, has won a $1.8 million three-year contract from Indigo Books and Music to host Indigo's website, in-store kiosks, and back office applications, and provide other on-line infrastructure services. CABLE INTERNET GROWS: Statistics Canada says cable Internet service was available to 85% of homes with cable TV at the end of August 2001, up from 70% a year earlier. Availability varies significantly by community size: 96% in large communities; 78% in medium-sized communities; and only 27% in small communities. About 1.4 million of cable homes had cable modems installed; that figure increased to 1.7 million by year-end. http://www.statcan.ca:80/Daily/English/020903/d020903a.htm CSG BUYS IBM TELECOM BILLING SYSTEM: Colorado-based CSG Systems International has taken over IBM's telecom customer billing system, one of whose users is AT&T Canada. TELEGLOBE CABLE CUT ISOLATES ICELAND: Iceland lost telephone and Internet connections to the rest of the world for nine hours on August 28, when a segment of Teleglobe's CANTAT-3 undersea cable was cut. Iceland Telecom is working on a new cable that will provide alternate routing when it is completed next year. NEW CFO AT EMERGIS: BCE Emergis has named John Valentini, previously EVP and CFO at Cognicase, as Chief Financial Officer. SAVE $50 ON TELEMANAGEMENT SUBSCRIPTION: Until October 30, new subscribers to Telemanagement: The Angus Report on Business Telecommunications in Canada will save $50 on the price of a one-year subscription, with a money-back guarantee. ** Subscribe now and receive the September issue with "Cisco Deconstructs the PBX" (by Ian Angus) and "IP-PBX Reliability" (by John Riddell). Go to http://www.angustel.ca/teleman/Telemanagement_Special_Offer.pdf. ============================================================ HOW TO SUBMIT ITEMS FOR TELECOM UPDATE E-MAIL: editors@angustel.ca FAX: 905-686-2655 MAIL: TELECOM UPDATE Angus TeleManagement Group 8 Old Kingston Road Ajax, Ontario Canada L1T 2Z7 =========================================================== HOW TO SUBSCRIBE (OR UNSUBSCRIBE) TELECOM UPDATE is provided in electronic form only. There are two formats available: 1. The fully-formatted edition is posted on the World Wide Web on the first business day of the week at http://www.angustel.ca. The website includes a searchable archive of all issues since 1995. 2. The e-mail edition is distributed free of charge. To subscribe, send an e-mail message to: TelecomUpdate@add.postmastergeneral.com To stop receiving the e-mail edition, send an e-mail message to: TelecomUpdate@remove.postmastergeneral.com Sending e-mail to these addresses will automatically add or remove the sender's e-mail address from the list. Leave subject line and message area blank. We do not give Telecom Update subscribers' e-mail addresses to any third party. For more information, see http://www.angustel.ca/update/privacy.html. =========================================================== COPYRIGHT AND CONDITIONS OF USE: All contents copyright 2002 Angus TeleManagement Group Inc. All rights reserved. For further information, including permission to reprint or reproduce, please e-mail rosita@angustel.ca or phone 905-686-5050 ext 500. The information and data included has been obtained from sources which we believe to be reliable, but Angus TeleManagement makes no warranties or representations whatsoever regarding accuracy, completeness, or adequacy. Opinions expressed are based on interpretation of available information, and are subject to change. If expert advice on the subject matter is required, the services of a competent professional should be obtained. ------------------------------ Date: Sun, 08 Sep 2002 22:05:10 -0600 From: Neal McLain Subject: Re: Finding CO? John R. Levine posted: >>> Is there a way to find out exactly where a CO is located >>> in any given city? >> Go to: >> http://www.mapquest.com/maps/areacode.adp > Its database is pretty good but not perfect. I looked up > some prefixes where I happen to know where the CO is > located. In most cases it was off by a block or so, in a > few cases off by a couple of miles, in one case it got it > exactly. I tested MapQuest for several oddball situations: - MULTIPLE PHYSICAL EXCHANGES WITHIN THE SAME RATE CENTER. For this test, I selected six widely-separated Ameritech buildings in the Madison WI rate center: 608-223, -233, -243, -263, -273, and -283. MapQuest had a perfect score. But it failed a second test: 801-985 (a Qwest building in the Clearfield UT rate center, but physically located in Roy); MapQuest erroneously placed it in Clearfield. - CO-LOCATED NXXs FROM DIFFERENT RATE CENTERS. For this test, I selected two NXXs at Ameritech's Ann Arbor Packard Road exchange: 734-971 (Ann Arbor rate center) and 734-434 (Ypsilanti rate center). MapQuest correctly located both NXXs in the same building. - CLEC EXCHANGES. For this test I tried 608-210 and 608-664 (suburban ILECs acting as a CLECs within Ameritech territory in Madison WI). MapQuest reported "could not be found" in both cases. - WIRELESS NXXs. I selected several cellular and paging NXXs for this test: 414-510, 608-559, 608-698, 734-318, 773-330, 801-540, 831-917, 832-772. MapQuest returned "could not be found" in every case. But it correctly located 920-688, an Ameritech exchange in Van Dyne WI which serves both landline and paging numbers. - NON-USA NPAs. I tried several valid Canadian, Caribbean, and Pacific NPAs; in every case, MapQuest reported that "The Exchange and Area Code you provided could not be found. The map is centered on the Country" -- and returned a map of the USA with a star in Kansas! - TOLL-FREE ACCESS CODES. I tried the usual USA toll-frees (800, 888, 877, etc.) plus the Canadian pseudo-toll-frees (881, 882, etc.). Again, MapQuest returned "The Exchange and Area Code you provided could not be found. The map is centered on the Country." Well, I guess the star-in-Kansas is reasonable for USA, but certainly not for Canada! - NXX SPOOFs. I selected several random invalid NXX codes in several random (but valid) area codes: NPA-1XX, NPA-0XX, NPA-N11, NPA-555, and NPA-950. It reported "could not be found" in almost every case. But NPA-555 returned some curious results: 608-555 is in Madison WI (where, once upon a time, it probably was). 630-555, 708-555, and 847-555 are all in Hoffmann Estates IL, but 312-555 and 773-555 are in "CHCZ 1 IL" (I don't know what that means, but I suspect PAT can tell us). 248-555, 734-555, and 810-555 are all in Pontiac MI, but 313-555 "could not be found," and it didn't even recognize area code 586. I suppose that back when 248, 313, 586, 734 and 810 were all part of 313, Pontiac could have been the DA center for the whole Detroit metro area; if so, it's strange that it can't find 313-555 now). 801-555 "could not be found" (although it was probably in Salt Lake City). - NPA SPOOFS. I tried a few "area codes" in non-valid NPA format: N9X, NYY (last two digits the same), and NX (just two digits). It returned "The Exchange and Area Code you provided could not be found" in every case. All in all, MapQuest seems to be reasonably accurate for USA wireline ILECs, but it's totally clueless about wireline CLECs, anything outside the USA, and anything wireless. I can understand that wireless exchanges "could not be found," but it seems like MapQuest's database should recognize them as such and return an appropriate explanatory message. But the real surprise (to me, at least) is that their database isn't error-trapped to recognize (and reject) obvious NXX spoofs (NPA-1XX, NPA-0XX, NPA-N11, NPA-555, NPA-950), erroneously-formatted "area codes" (N9X, NYY, NX), toll-free access codes, and non-USA codes. Neal McLain nmclain@annsgarden.com [TELECOM Digest Editor's Note: I suspect that nomenclature refers to 'Chicago Illinois' but I do not know how to read the entire thing. PAT] ------------------------------ From: Steve Brack Subject: Re: Finding CO? Organization: Society for the Preservation of Steve Brack Date: Sun, 08 Sep 2002 20:57:05 GMT wrote in message news:telecom22.23.11@telecom-digest.org: > joe@obilivan.net wrote: >> Other than driving around and finding them, which is fairly easy for a >> telecom savvy sort of person, I don't think so. [snip] > www.dslreports.com provides addresses, and in one case where MapQuest > is off by a couple of blocks, they are right on, but it's tedious > to get to the page that exposes the address. In one case that I > caught, the address is bogus. > MapQuest ... look for the building. PacBell seems less concerned > about hiding than they used to be. Back in the good old days, a small suburban village near where I grew up had a novel solution to the percieved "problem" of an ugly CO building. When Ohio Bell cut them over from cordboard to dial service, they couldn't get zoning approval to build a CO building, so, in a pretty creative move, they bought the cordboard operator's house, gutted it, and built a small switch (probably SxS) inside the existing house. That way the village government couldn't say anything, although the neighbors probably noticed that no one ever came or went from this "house." So, the best way to hide a CO is to make it look like one of the innumerable and interchangeable houses in the neighborhood. Steve ------------------------------ From: wesrock@aol.com (Wes Leatherock) Date: 07 Sep 2002 01:03:39 GMT Organization: AOL http://www.aol.com Subject: Re: Finding CO? On Thu, 05 Sep 2002 00:00:28 -0700 no-spam@amadeus.kome.com (John Higdon) wrote: > One other thing AT&T back in the "old days": they invited the public > to tour central offices during scheduled "open house" evenings. It was > during those tours (and some private ones given to me by employee > friends) that I got to see and touch real crossbar switching gear and > see and hear it work. A step office was even noisier and you could see a lot more action taking place. In Oklahoma we also had a model manhole (with one side cut out) with real cables and a real splicer working in it. If you had a crowd-pleasing splicer (most of them were) it was a real hit. Wes Leatherock wesrock@aol.com wleathus@yahoo.com ------------------------------ From: Tony Pelliccio Subject: Re: Finding CO? Organization: The Ace Tomatoe and Cement Company Date: Fri, 06 Sep 2002 01:14:46 GMT In article , no- spam@amadeus.kome.com says: > One other thing AT&T back in the "old days": they invited the public > to tour central offices during scheduled "open house" evenings. It was > during those tours (and some private ones given to me by employee > friends) that I got to see and touch real crossbar switching gear and > see and hear it work. I never had the privelege of actually seeing an old Xbar or SxS switch in action. I did get to hear a #5Xbar though. Even without windows you could hear the banging of the relays at the Pawtucket, RI Xbar 5 office. I've gotten to see a 5ESS in action - boring. It just hums. ------------------------------ From: kamlet@panix.com (Arthur Kamlet) Subject: Re: Finding CO? Date: 5 Sep 2002 21:19:52 -0400 Organization: PANIX -- Public Access Networks Corp. Reply-To: ArtKamlet@aol.REMOVE.com In article , John Higdon wrote: > One other thing AT&T back in the "old days": they invited the public > to tour central offices during scheduled "open house" evenings. It was > during those tours (and some private ones given to me by employee > friends) that I got to see and touch real crossbar switching gear and > see and hear it work. On my first CO tour of a 5XB office ... Its purpose was to stop outgoing calls from all but emergency locations. Only a small list of numbers could make calls when that switch was thrown. I figured that meant police, fire and hospital, but decided to ask anyway which lines were allowed to make calls in such an emergency. He replied, "Well, first and foremost, My home is on that list!" Art Kamlet ArtKamlet @ AOL.com Columbus OH K2PZH ------------------------------ Date: Thu, 05 Sep 2002 19:38:05 -0700 From: no-spam@amadeus.kome.com (John Higdon) Subject: Re: Spamming, etc Organization: Green Hills and Cows In article , Geoffrey Welsh wrote: >> I suppose a good filter might also include a reverse DNS lookup, > Unfortunately, many legitimate mail servers operate without the > benefit of properly configured reverse DNS pointers. One of the reasons many of us abandoned Smail years ago was that the code maintainer was insistent that forward/inverse lookup matching be a non-optional feature of that MTA. The short time I used one of those versions, legitimate email was being rejected right and left. There are many SMTP servers (including some in major providers) that have forward/reverse DNS discrepancies. Even simple forward DNS checking can be a problem if a host has access to multiple IPs. > As a side note, I have my system configured to put one return address > on USENET postings and another on e-mail; I recently rejoined Telecom > Digest after years away and have sent in a couple of contributions > which, for lack of forethought on my part, had the private e-mail > return address on them ... ever since, I've been receiving spam in my > previously pristine mailbox. Spammers don't waste any opportunity to > increase their 'circulation!' I'm using a technique that has proved quite successful: a bogus-looking legitimate address for Usenet posts. When I first ran the idea up a flagpole, no one thought it would work. My theory, at least proven in practice and experience, was that address harvesters would reject what look like munged addresses. Given that I RARELY receive spam at this address (like maybe one message so far) AND I'm a prolific Usenet poster, to say the least, I would now recommend that as a technique for those who can implement it. (Now before you do this, remember that I am a bitter and over-the-hill geez who resists all bleeding edge technology. Try any technique at your own risk.) But for me, it works well, I get legitimate email replies from people who don't have to cut and trim the address, and I get virtually no spam. No, indeed. My spam all arrives bearing my regular business email addresses which were obviously sold and traded among companies with whom I correspond. John Higdon | Email Address Valid | SF: +1 415 428-COWS +1 408 264 4115 | Anytown, USA | FAX: +1 408 264 4407 ------------------------------ From: Dave Garland Subject: Re: Spamming, etc Organization: Wizard Information Date: Fri, 06 Sep 2002 00:10:01 -0500 It was a dark and stormy night when Pat wrote: > I've also thought a great deal about emphasizing the use of the web- > site mailing system I offer on http://telecom-digest.org/postoffice . The url got grunged somewhere along the line to comp.dcom.telecom. Maybe you'd like to repeat it? [TELECOM Digest Editor's Note: The URL address shown above is correct. http://telecom-digest.org/postoffice is a good address to use. Help yourself to the web-based email there. Take a box, use it, pollute it, dump it then get another one. PAT] ------------------------------ From: Joel B Levin Subject: Re: Spamming, etc Organization: On the desert Reply-To: levinjb@gte.net Date: Fri, 06 Sep 2002 06:01:30 GMT In , Geoffrey Welsh wrote: > however, a federal judge in Missouri ruled that the [Telephone > Consumer Protection Act (TCPA)] was unconstitutional, breaking with > an earlier appeals court argument that upheld the law. This judge was a lone voice in the wilderness. His ruling is not a precedent anywhere (except possibly in that one court's jurisdiction) and is expected to be reversed on appeal, if it is appealed. /JBL ------------------------------ From: Irmingard Anna Date: Fri, 06 Sep 2002 22:22:48 Subject: New York Remembrance: 911 REMEMBER NEW YORK 911 http://beam.to/remembrance911 If compelled leave a sign in my guestbook. Irmingard Anna [TELECOM Digest Editor's Note: Thanks *very much* for sharing this note with us. 9/11 is just a day away or so, and I imagine most folks will take at least a minute or two in their own schedule to spend in reflection on what happened to us that day. History will be the final judge about the events of 9/11/01 but at least we all should spend some time meditating on it. PAT] ------------------------------ TELECOM Digest is an electronic journal devoted mostly but not exclusively to telecommunications topics. It is circulated anywhere there is email, in addition to various telecom forums on a variety of networks such as Compuserve and America On Line, 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: 620-870-9697 Fax 1: 775-255-9970 Fax 2: 775-306-8390 Fax 3: 530-309-7234 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 second 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) Email <==> FTP: telecom-archives@telecom-digest.org Send a simple, one line note to that automated address for a help file on how to use the automatic retrieval system for archives files. You can get desired files in email. ************************************************************************* * 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. Access to Premium (P) links requires upgrade to a paid subscription. One click a day feeds a person a meal. Go to http://www.thehungersite.com Only subscribers or registered users of ICB Toll Free News web site will be able to access all or some of the full text of URLs provided. LEGAL STUFF: TELECOM Digest (sm) is owned by Patrick Townson. Copyright 2000 ICB, Inc. and TELECOM Digest. All rights reserved. Our attorney is Bill Levant, of Blue Bell, PA. --------------------------------------------------------------- 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 twenty 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 V22 #28 ***************************** From editor@telecom-digest.org Mon Sep 9 23:15:29 2002 Received: from localhost (localhost [[UNIX: localhost]]) by massis.lcs.mit.edu (8.11.3nb1/8.11.3) id g8A3FTE03515; Mon, 9 Sep 2002 23:15:29 -0400 (EDT) Date: Mon, 9 Sep 2002 23:15:29 -0400 (EDT) From: editor@telecom-digest.org Message-Id: <200209100315.g8A3FTE03515@massis.lcs.mit.edu> X-Authentication-Warning: massis.lcs.mit.edu: ptownson set sender to editor@telecom-digest.org using -f To: ptownson Approved: patsnewlist Subject: TELECOM Digest V22 #29 TELECOM Digest Mon, 9 Sep 2002 23:15:00 EDT Volume 22 : Issue 29 Inside This Issue: Editor: Patrick A. Townson Korea-Spam, was Re: Get Bent - .info People Are Not Spammers (D Burstein) Re: Spamming, etc (Waldo Kitty) Re: New TLDs and Spam Filtering (Barry Margolin) Re: Bending Further (Waldo Kitty) Re: Domains Have Held Their Value Better Than Blue (Herb Stein) Re: Tampering With Payphones? (Greg) SDH Multiplexing/Equipment Questions (TMS) Does Anyone Know Where To Find Manual For NEC RC-28D? (Eugene Oden) U.S. Answering Machine in Denmark (Steffen) How Many CSU's Do I Need (WIll) MOH Volume and Fidelity on DBS VB-43000 (ghg5500@yahoo.com) Any Telecom Hiring? (Ray) Re: Sprint RIPOFF Alert: DA is Now $2.49 per Call! MCI, Too!!! (Doug) Re: A Decent Spam Filtering Program (James Bellaire) Re: Norstar ICS 4.0 (Dave Phelps) Re: GSM Security (David Wagner) Re: Telephone Surge Suppressor (Ken Abrams) Re: Ringing a Phone?? (Wes Leatherock) All contents here are copyrighted by Patrick Townson and the individual writers/correspondents. Articles may be used in other journals or newsgroups, provided the writer's name and the Digest are included in the fair use quote. By using -any name or email address- included herein for -any- reason other than responding to an article herein, you agree to pay a hundred dollars to the recipients of the email. WE DO NOT PERMIT NAME/EMAIL ADDRESS HARVESTING FROM THIS JOURNAL. 'SALTED' EMAIL ADDRESSES APPEAR HEREIN TO VERIFY THIS. YOU GET SUED IN SMALL CLAIMS COURT IF YOU GET CAUGHT SPAMMING OR SENDING VIRUSES. DON'T DO IT. See the bottom of this issue for subscription and archive details and the name of our lawyer; other stuff of interest. ---------------------------------------------------------------------- From: danny burstein Subject: korea-spam, was: Re: Get Bent - .info People Are Not Spammers Date: Fri, 6 Sep 2002 02:08:21 UTC Organization: PANIX Public Access Internet and UNIX, NYC > [TELECOM Digest Editor's Note: Not too long ago, I gave John Levine my > approval to go ahead and block all mail from Korea. I resisted that > step for a long time, despite the fact that I get *nothing* from Korea > in recent years except messages with subject lines of '##*&@(($%""$%%*' > followed by nonsensical gibberish as text, and as often as not, spam. > And five to ten of those come every day. I really did not like to do > that, but ... PAT] Actually, thanks to procmail, blocking that specific type of e-mail is pretty simple. I set up a procmail filter-rule set to look for them, and it catches 20 - 50 per day. After I watched it for a couple of months and noticed that it hadn't false-positived a single real letter, I directed the rules to send all that mail to /dev/null. (Most of the other suspected spam gets diverted to a low priority, check-it when I have a spare minute, file) A very small number do get through when they forge a header that matches some of my whitelist entries. I could spend some more time and tighten them, but it's only one a week. If that. This has the added advantage of picking up spam of this sort that gets routed through third party relay-rape in, for want of a better term, more acceptable locations. And it will allow the very rare "real" msg through. Knowledge may be power, but communications is the key dannyb@panix.com [to foil spammers, my address has been double rot-13 encoded] ------------------------------ From: waldo kitty Subject: Re: Spamming, etc Date: 9 Sep 2002 18:26:09 GMT Organization: who? me? organized? HA! Joey Lindstrom wrote in news:telecom22.25.1@telecom-digest.org: > Bravo. Clap clap. But you've missed my point Pat, and that is this: > most spam comes with a fake return address. The fact that spammers > are now also using .info and .biz fake return addresses is immaterial > when it comes to the validity of those domains. I get a lot of spam > from .jp addresses: does that make all email from Japan automatically > spam until proven otherwise? No Pat, it doesn't. VERY VERY FEW > SPAMMERS USE A REAL RETURN ADDRESS: NEARLY ALL USE A FAKE ONE. So > why punish those who happen also to be VICTIMS of spammers? I have to agree with you on this part, Joey; email FROM: addresses are faked in well over 90% of the spam sent. The ONLY true indicator of where it came from is the topmost IP address in the headers. Your email server puts that IP address in there from the machine that dropped the mail off to deliver to you. There has been a recent increase in unsecured proxy servers being abused by spammers and thus it appears that the spam originated from the proxy machine. However, services like spamcop.net can tell these systems as they analyse the headers. I'm just a very happy spamcop.net user ... totally whipped my spamfilled boxes to virtually nothing in less than a year ... report often and carry a huge LART! ------------------------------ From: Barry Margolin Subject: Re: New TLDs and Spam Filtering Organization: Genuity, Woburn, MA Date: Mon, 09 Sep 2002 17:38:33 GMT In article , Jonathan Edelson wrote: > Pat, > I'd suggest that you look at this gentleman's comments on the Risk > Digest: http://catless.ncl.ac.uk/Risks/22.22.html#subj15 .... > Filtering is very much like racial profiling: useful if it has a > valid statistical basis, bad policing if it is based on blind > prejudice. If everyone filters on .biz, then the spammers will > quickly find something else to use, but the people with valid > reasons to use .biz will be left in the cold ... the same way that > much of the usefulness of USENET vanished when the spammers came in. > With the above approach, if lots of spam comes with .biz somewhere > in it, then it will acquire a very negative weight. But if lots of > 'real people' use .biz, then it will demonstrate itself as a neutral > word to use in spam filtering. Note that Paul Graham's software looks at the most significant 15 words in the message. So one word like "biz" should not be enough to indict a message as spam if the rest of it looks like ordinary mail. But if it already looks spammy, "biz" in the header will provide further confirmation. -- Barry Margolin, barmar@genuity.net Genuity, Woburn, MA *** DON'T SEND TECHNICAL QUESTIONS DIRECTLY TO ME, post them to newsgroups. Please DON'T copy followups to me -- I'll assume it wasn't posted to the group. ------------------------------ From: waldo kitty Subject: Re: Bending Further Date: 9 Sep 2002 18:19:57 GMT Organization: who? me? organized? HA! Seems that maybe you folk that are floundering in spam might want to check out http://spamcop.net and start reporting it ... I'm just a happy spamcop user and hold no other affiliation with them ... note that it is .net not .com... that's someone else entirely ... and no www on it either. I use spamcop's free service. I gave them my email address and they send me a email with a special address to submit my spam to. I forward my spam (all of it, headers and complete body) as an attachment to that address and await the reply ... there's a link in the reply that I use to complete the reporting of the spam to those that can do something about it. I'll stop there for now. If you need more info about spamcop, I highly suggest visiting their site; they have an extensive FAQ running that is well maintained as well as a private news server for their support. Barry Margolin wrote in news:telecom22.23.4@telecom-digest.org: > In article , > Joey Lindstrom wrote: >> On Tue, 3 Sep 2002 02:01:05 -0400 (EDT), editor@telecom-digest.org >> wrote: >>> [TELECOM Digest Editor's Note: My thanks to the two Johns and Judith >>> for clarifying all this. As John Higdon suggested, letters sent from >>> the .biz and .info domains are probably 99.44 percent spam and can >>> be filter-ruled as such. >> Excuse me, but can you produce some evidence to back up this >> outrageous claim? Show me 10,000 emails from people in .info and .biz >> domains, and then show me that 9944 of them are spam. Hell, you've >> probably already had more than 56 from me from my joey@garynuman.info >> address alone. > I get an enormous amount of spam, and I can confirm that not much of > it is from .info or .biz addresses. > On the other hand, I get an awful amount of it *about* these domains. > Several messages a day extolling that the new TLDs are available and > offering to register domains in them. If I were looking for a domain > registrar, I can't imagine a worse choice than a spammer -- not even > Network Solutions. ------------------------------ From: Herb Stein Subject: Re: Domains Have Held Their Value Better Than Blue Organization: Giganews.Com - Premium News Outsourcing Date: Sat, 07 Sep 2002 03:13:13 GMT Garrett Wollman wrote in message news:telecom22.23.2@telecom-digest.org: > In article , PAT wrote: >> People are always getting .com and .gov mixed up it >> seems > Those agencies of .gov which insist on registering (and publicizing) > .com domains are not helping matters ... > Some (most) folks just cannot get it into their heads that the DNS is > not repeat *not* a directory service, and no amount of pounding on this > particular square peg will make it fit into the triangular hole those > people seem to want it to fill. You got that right. Go to www.usps.gov or www.blueangels.navy.mil and see where you get. Yup, both are .com addresses. Browsers don't help by trying to fix the screwup either. Herb Stein The Herb Stein Group www.herbstein.com herb@herbstein.com 314 952-4601 ------------------------------ From: lovemozart@hotmail.com (Greg) Subject: Re: Tampering With Payphones? Date: 6 Sep 2002 08:28:04 -0700 Organization: http://groups.google.com/ lovemozart@hotmail.com (Greg) wrote in message news:: > [TELECOM Digest Editor's Note: You did not say in this last letter > whether or not the situation was still occuring on your most recent > visit(s) to the building. We would be interested in knowing if the > situation persists. Good news. The tampering has stopped ... at least for now at these particular payphones. The security guard told me they deactivated them by cutting the power. Thanks again, Greg [TELECOM Digest Editor's Note: Well, that may be *bad news*. Public phones are usually needed more in public places like parks, etc. Not everyone has/can afford/wants to get a cell phone, or they have one, and like me, forgetfully let the battery run down. I was downtown this afternoon doing some shopping and when I wanted to go home, I tried to call the driver to come get me at the store where I was at. My cell phone was dead! They didn't have a payphone in the store, and I did not know the shopkeeper well enough to ask him to use the phone. However I went to the store a couple doors away and Jeremy the clerk there called for me, and I waited in the air-conditioned store for my cab. We are still enduring temperatures in the upper nineties even though August (and theoretically summer) are past. Even a COCOT phone is good to have around sometimes. PAT] ------------------------------ From: TMS Subject: SDH Multiplexing/Equipment questions Date: Mon, 9 Sep 2002 13:14:28 +0200 Organization: tp.internet - http://www.tpi.pl/ Hello, I have 4 questions regarding SDH networks, 1) I need SDH ADM equipment, in configuration: Aggegrate interface: 1xSTM-1, 1310 nm, SM fiber (155Mbps, VC-4) Tributary interfaces: 21xE1 (2Mbps, 21xVC-12) 1 x E3 (34Mbps, 1xVC-3) 1 x E3 (34Mbps, 1xVC-3) Optional interfaces: 10T-Base Ethernet RS232 via Console Cable Which systems are recommended? I interested in products from vendors like Lucent, Alcatel, Siemens, Marconi, Tellabs and Cisco. 2) Which multiplexing 21xE1 in STM-n is correct? 7x (3x (C-12 -> VC-12 -> TU-12) -> TUG-2) -> TUG-3 -> VC-3 -> AU-4 > AUG -> STM-n or 7x (3x (C-12 -> VC-12 -> TU-12) -> TUG-2) -> VC3 -> TU3 -> TUG-3 -> VC-3 -> AU-4 > AUG -> STM-n is any other way to multiplexing 21xE1 in STM-n? 3) How looks multiplexing VC-12-4c in STM-n? 4) What means 4/1, 16/4/1 in SDH equipment name? Best regards, Tomasz ------------------------------ From: goden@simplified.com (Eugene Oden) Subject: Does Anyone Know Where To Find a Softcopy Manual For a NEC RC-28D? Date: 5 Sep 2002 16:44:04 -0700 Organization: http://groups.google.com/ I've been looking for quite a while for a manual for a NEC RC-28D DS3<->T1 multiplexer (aka M13 mux). We didn't receive any when we bought them and haven't gotten any response from NEC or the reseller we got them from at all. If anyone has any experience configuring these and would like to offer a quick run down, that would work as well. Thanks, Gene Oden Sr. Systems Analyst Simplified Development Austin, Tx ------------------------------ From: shamann@mfi.ku.dk (Steffen) Subject: U.S. Answering Machine in Denmark Date: 8 Sep 2002 23:44:48 -0700 Organization: http://groups.google.com/ I have recently purchased a new 900 Mhz Sony Telephone with internal answering machine in the United States. I have brought it with me to Denmark. The phone works fine (with a voltage converter), but when one calls the answering machine does not start, as if it doesn't recognize the calling tone or something. Could anyone please help me? ------------------------------ From: willpski@hotmail.com (WIll) Subject: How many CSU's Do I Need Date: 6 Sep 2002 14:53:51 -0700 Organization: http://groups.google.com/ Hello, I am looking to connect a Cisco router to a Avaya Definity system and I was wondering if I would need a CSU on both ends of the T-1 Tie line or on just one. The Cisco Router has a CSU built into it but would I need one on the Definity end as well. Thanks, Will ------------------------------ From: ghg5500@yahoo.com (ghg5500@yahoo.com) Subject: MOH volume and fidelity on DBS VB-43000 Date: 6 Sep 2002 14:06:00 -0700 Organization: http://groups.google.com/ Hello there, I was wondering if someone knew if it is possible to improve the fidelity and volume level of the music-on-hold for a Panasonic DBS VB-43060 system. Or perhaps someone can recommend some alternative methods to my solution of a ~$30 CD player plugged into the MOH. ;) Currently I have a portable CD player connected through the headphones output into the single MOH RCA jack of the DBS. The volume can only be increased slightly before it begins to clip, and the fidelity is horrible. I thought I saw something that mentioned an internal knob or dial that would help with this (maybe a gain knob or something?) -- however if it it exists I cannot find it. Thanks much. ------------------------------ Reply-To: Ray From: Ray Subject: Any Telecom Hiring? Organization: WEBUSENET.com Date: Fri, 6 Sep 2002 10:23:22 -0400 I've been in the telecom business for over 30 years (I'm 52). I have vast experience in software test and development, with most expertise in SS7 and ISDN signaling. Anybody? ------------------------------ From: Doug Subject: Re: Sprint RIPOFF Alert: DA is Now $2.49 per Call! MCI, Too!!! Organization: Totally disorganized Date: Sat, 07 Sep 2002 12:53:17 GMT And MCI is no better. I had to use DA to find the number for a church camp in MD. When I got my next LD bill, I emailed a question to MCI to ask why it costs so much. Their reply was basically, "that's our rate". OK, MCI, you got me once, but never again! Doug in Delaware Tim Keating wrote in message news:telecom22.25.3@telecom-digest.org: > Watch out ALL Sprint LONG distance customers!!! > All long distance plans ... except PCS users. > Sprint is going to nail $2.49 per directory assistance call !!! > Yikes ... tack in taxes ... and your looking at over Three(3) dollars > per use. [TELECOM Digest Editor's Note: Although SWBell is not *that* bad, they are starting to get pretty awful. My phone bill came today and I saw Directory Assistance calls listed in three places. I asked them why those calls had to be scattered all over the bill. Their answer was that local DA (shown as 'other charges' on the bill) were one place (I had 6 @ $1.25 each), their own 'national directory service' (they advertise use 1-411 for all directory around the nation were elsewhere (I had two of those @ $1.25 each) BUT the real kicker was the third category where areacode-555-1212 @ $1.40 each are in a third place on the bill. If you look all over the billing pages you will find all three categories. According to the rep, under the law they have to not only break out those calls separatly, but local DA via 1-411 has to be separated from national DA (also 1-411) and various 555-1212 calls 'since those are a different company'. I told her I used SWB long distance also, and she said 'no matter; they are still considered different companies.' I asked her if they no longer gave any sort of free allowance each month, and she replied, 'no sir! we don't give anything for free.' In the next issue of the Digest I will tell you more recent experiences with our illustrious phone company. PAT] ------------------------------ Date: Thu, 05 Sep 2002 20:31:30 -0500 From: James Bellaire Subject: Re: A Decent Spam Filtering Program Name Withheld wrote to the Digest about a Decent Spam Filtering Program: I have a .info domain as well so this could have come from bellaire@telecomindiana.info but I choose to use my shorter domain. The trouble is a LOT of people choose to use my domain due to the TK-TCL programming language and the new .tk country domains which are free. I get a lot of complaints about spam originating from TK and TK.COM that really (looking at headers) came from AOL.COM IPs. I'd support blacklisting dial up IPs from mailservers but alas my dial up is doing direct delivery, so I'd be banning myself. Such a life due to the wayward ways of others. James ------------------------------ From: Dave Phelps Subject: Re: Norstar ICS 4.0 Date: Thu, 5 Sep 2002 23:27:32 -0500 Organization: Posted via Supernews, http://www.supernews.com In article , overdrive79@hotmail.com says: > Dave Phelps wrote in message > news:: >> In article , overdrive79@hotmail.com >> says: >>> I am having trouble with a Norstar system in which a hunt group is not >>> ringing when I dial it's extension. Can anyone provide assistance? >> Do you have the group set to appear only on the phones? > No, actually I removed the users from the group and re-added them and > now their phones ring, but now I have a new problem. The hunt group > is taking up an "incoming only" button on their sets, and they told me > that it originally would ring in on one of their regular lines, not an > incoming only line. Do you know how to change this back? That's what I was talking about. Under hunt groups, when you add a set, you can then press 'show' and it will, by default, be appear and ring. Change it to ring only, and you will free up the hunt group button appearance. Dave Phelps Phone Masters Ltd. deadspam=tippenring ------------------------------ From: daw@mozart.cs.berkeley.edu (David Wagner) Subject: Re: GSM Security Date: Mon, 9 Sep 2002 03:35:13 +0000 (UTC) Organization: University of California, Berkeley Gareth wrote: > How secure is GSM? > In particular is it possible to listen in on SMS text messages? Well, the right question is, "How hard is it to snoop on SMS?". The answer is: It's possible, but not especially easy. The SMS messages are (supposed to be) encrypted when they are transmitted over the air. Unfortunately, the existing GSM encryption algorithms all have known weaknesses, so that reduces the value of the encryption. Still, interception devices are not that cheap, as far as I know, and a certain level of knowledge is probably required. I consider SMS more secure than a post card and more secure than an analog phone. However, it is potentially breakable. It should be fine for your shopping list, but perhaps not a good choice for data worth lots of money. ------------------------------ From: Ken Abrams Subject: Re: Telephone Surge Suppressor Date: Sat, 7 Sep 2002 22:11:28 -0500 w_tom wrote about Re: Telephone Surge Suppressor > Ken does not have an engineering degree. Engineers do not respond to > every post with insults. Engineers respond with engineering > facts. Ken has yet to demonstrate knowledge of any basic electrical > knowledge. He has not provided a single engineering fact. Ken even > did not understand the difference or significance of wire resistance > verses impedance. He cannot understand why that 10 AWG wire can earth > a direct phone line surge without damage or vaporizing. This > technical ignorance is quite common among those who claim lightning > damage cannot be avoided. 1) You know nothing about me. 2) If you have an Engineering degree, the school that gave it to you should be ashamed. 3) There is NO difference between resistance and impedance to DC current. 4) One of us is technically ignorant and has trouble understanding and it is NOT me. If you are so thoroughly brain-washed by Polyphaser, I suggest that you take one of their devices, attach it to a kite and string, ground it with a #10 wire and hold on to the "protected" side while the kite flies it in a few thunderstorms. Just let us know who is your next of kin so we may send flowers. >> I quit. Trying to have a battle of wits with an unarmed opponent is >> futile. OK, I lied. This time, I really am done. ------------------------------ From: wesrock@aol.com (Wes Leatherock) Date: 07 Sep 2002 15:58:39 GMT Organization: AOL http://www.aol.com Subject: Re: Ringing a Phone?? On Thu, 05 Sep 2002 01:34:13 GMT newmanrichardf@enter.net (Richard Newman) wrote: > Oh Good Lord, Just answer the guy's question, ok ... > The answer is: > It takes a minimum of 90 volts ac at 20 hertz to ring most phones > including mechanical ringers, electronic ringers, fax machines and > signal to pbx or key systems that a call is arriving on a co type of > circuit. The voltage supplied at the central office is normally 105 volts 20 Hz, to allow for line losses (maybe 26K feet or more of 26-gauge copper). Ringers are generally pretty tolerant of low voltage, and supervision (on common battery circuits) is usually the limiting factor. > If you send 90 volts at 20 hertz to a phone, it will ring. Raise the > frequency a bit and the bell will ring faster. > Some older phone switches which shared a single line with several > subscribers rang each subscriber with a slightly different frequency. > Only the phones of the subscriber who was being called would ring even > though all the bells were connected in parallel. This worked by > installing different caps in the subscribers phones, making some ring > at 18 hertz, another at 22 hertz and another at 30 hertz. Or something > like that, you get the point, I am not sure the values here are > correct. These were "party lines." Several customers shared a single copper pair. The reason was to provide less expensive telephone service to customers who were willing to accept a lower grade of service, to provide telephone service at reasonable rates in locations far from the central office (usually rural areas) and where a shortage of facilities prevented providing a higher grade of service even to customers who wanted it. In the days of magneto and manual common battery offices, the party line pair appeared on only one jack or one set of jacks on multiple boards, with a single telephone number, the ringing designated by a suffix letter or letters. Some dial offices also had this (terminal per line), where the last digit served the same purpose as the letter suffix in a manual office. Eventually terminal per station service became universal in dial offices, with the pair multipled to the appropriate connectors or switches providing each type of ringing. This was called "harmonic ringing," and most generally was used by non-Bell companies. There was, of course, some difficulty in keeping mechanically tuned ringers on customer premises, subject to extremes of temperature and the general treatment of telephone sets by customers in normal or abusive use. "Harmonic," of course, referred to the tuning of the ringers to respond to only a single frequency. The actual frequencies used, for obvious reasons, were selected not to have a harmonic relationship. Bell companies, and quite a few non-Bell companies, used divided ringing on two-party lines (tip to ground or ring to ground), and on four-party lines added polarity (tip positive, tip negative, ring positive, ring negative). Where this was not provided, or the number of parties exceeded four, some form of code ringing was used. On Thu, 05 Sep 2002 01:34:13 GMT newmanrichardf@enter.net (Richard Newman) wrote: > Some older phone switches which shared a single line with several > subscribers rang each subscriber with a slightly different frequency. Those were called "party lines." Harmonic ringing was used mostly by non-Bell companies (with some exceptions); Bell companies, and many independents, generally used tip and ring (to grounds) for two-party lines, the same but with plus and minus polarity for four-party lines, and simply code ringing for more than four parties on a line. Some of the customer-owned rural lines that were once very common had truly wonderous combinations of ringing codes. These were local battery (magneto) and generally served by a manual office, so the operator rang the codes manually. Wes Leatherock wesrock@aol.com wleathus@yahoo.com ------------------------------ TELECOM Digest is an electronic journal devoted mostly but not exclusively to telecommunications topics. It is circulated anywhere there is email, in addition to various telecom forums on a variety of networks such as Compuserve and America On Line, 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: 620-870-9697 Fax 1: 775-255-9970 Fax 2: 775-306-8390 Fax 3: 530-309-7234 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 second 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) Email <==> FTP: telecom-archives@telecom-digest.org Send a simple, one line note to that automated address for a help file on how to use the automatic retrieval system for archives files. You can get desired files in email. ************************************************************************* * 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. Access to Premium (P) links requires upgrade to a paid subscription. One click a day feeds a person a meal. Go to http://www.thehungersite.com Only subscribers or registered users of ICB Toll Free News web site will be able to access all or some of the full text of URLs provided. LEGAL STUFF: TELECOM Digest (sm) is owned by Patrick Townson. Copyright 2000 ICB, Inc. and TELECOM Digest. All rights reserved. Our attorney is Bill Levant, of Blue Bell, PA. --------------------------------------------------------------- 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 twenty 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 V22 #29 ***************************** From editor@telecom-digest.org Tue Sep 10 01:26:59 2002 Received: from localhost (localhost [[UNIX: localhost]]) by massis.lcs.mit.edu (8.11.3nb1/8.11.3) id g8A5Qxj04712; Tue, 10 Sep 2002 01:26:59 -0400 (EDT) Date: Tue, 10 Sep 2002 01:26:59 -0400 (EDT) From: editor@telecom-digest.org Message-Id: <200209100526.g8A5Qxj04712@massis.lcs.mit.edu> X-Authentication-Warning: massis.lcs.mit.edu: ptownson set sender to editor@telecom-digest.org using -f To: ptownson Approved: patsnewlist Subject: TELECOM Digest V22 #30 TELECOM Digest Tue, 10 Sep 2002 01:26:00 EDT Volume 22 : Issue 30 Inside This Issue: Editor: Patrick A. Townson News Headlines of Interest 9/10/02 (Monty Solomon) New Entries For the Business Directory (David B. Horvath, CCP) Calling Business Office (Carl Moore) Dealing With SWB Business Office (TELECOM Digest Editor) Re: Spamming, etc (Al Iverson) Re: Spam Filtering (Anonymous User) A Day Off From Telesleaze (Joey Lindstrom) Telemarketers Who Say They're Not Telemarketers? (Brian Kendig) Re: Finding CO? (John Higdon) 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. WE DO NOT PERMIT NAME/EMAIL ADDRESS HARVESTING FROM THIS JOURNAL. 'SALTED' EMAIL ADDRESSES APPEAR HEREIN TO VERIFY THIS. YOU GET SUED IN SMALL CLAIMS COURT IF YOU GET CAUGHT SPAMMING OR SENDING VIRUSES. DON'T DO IT. See the bottom of this issue for subscription and archive details and the name of our lawyer; other stuff of interest. ---------------------------------------------------------------------- Date: Thu, 5 Sep 2002 20:53:07 -0400 From: Monty Solomon Subject: News Headlines of Interest 9/10/02 AT&T Wireless Enters Final Phase of Next-Generation Network Nationwide Rollout; Offers Customers One-Time Special "Charter" Promotion - Sep 5, 2002 07:44 AM (BusinessWire) REDMOND, Wash.--(BUSINESS WIRE)--Sept. 5, 2002--AT&T Wireless (NYSE:AWE) today entered the final phase of the rollout of its next-generation network throughout the United States and marked the event with an unprecedented special promotion that offers unlimited calling. People in the hundreds of cities served by the company's next-generation wireless network - including Boston, Los Angeles, and Pittsburgh, where the network went into service today - can sign up for the AT&T Wireless Charter Plan, a limited-time special promotion. For $99.99 a month, consumers can make all the domestic calls they want while on-network, with long distance included and no roaming charges. The company said this is the first offer of its kind to place no limit on monthly wireless minutes. ... - http://finance.lycos.com/home/news/story.asp?story=28566972 U.S. court won't reopen shared telephone line case - Sep 5, 2002 04:52 PM (Reuters) WASHINGTON, Sept 5 (Reuters) - A federal appeals court on Thursday refused to reconsider its decision that struck down rules that required telephone companies like Verizon Communications (NYSE:VZ) to share lines for services like high-speed Internet. The U.S. Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia struck down a rule in May that required companies to share lines with rivals. It also ordered the Federal Communications Commission to reconsider its national standard for what network elements must be shared with competitors. The judges were rejecting an FCC request to reconsider their decision. However the court stayed the impact of the decision until Jan. 2, 2003, giving the FCC time to come up with new rules. http://finance.lycos.com/home/news/story.asp?story=28575771 A Story Of Piracy And Privacy By Jonathan Krim Washington Post Staff Writer Thursday, September 5, 2002; Page E01 The recording industry and the nation's largest telephone company are crossing legal swords in what could be a test case of how far big record labels can go to track down computer users who swap music online. The industry is seeking to force Verizon Communications Corp., which also provides customers with high-speed Internet access, to turn over the name of one of its users who the record labels claim has made copyrighted music available for download by others. The Recording Industry of America also demanded that Verizon block access to the user's music files. The industry contends that it is losing millions of dollars in music sales because potential customers are instead downloading digital copies from others in violation of copyright law. The battle with Verizon is part of an aggressive campaign by the record labels on Capitol Hill, at the Justice Department and in the courts to crack down on the practice. Among other tactics, the industry is using automated software agents -- called "bots," short for "robots" -- to patrol the Internet and identify computers with music available for download through a popular technology known as file sharing. Although the bot can detect the presence of music files available for download, it can identify only an Internet address code and the service provider, not the identity of the user. http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/articles/A38034-2002Sep4.html RealNetworks and baseball team up in wireless venture Cell phone users can listen to major-league games By Nick Wingfield THE WALL STREET JOURNAL Sept. 6 - Hoping to appeal to sports fans on the go, RealNetworks Inc. and Major League Baseball agreed to provide live audio broadcasts of baseball games through cellular phones, and AT&T Wireless Services Inc. signed on to become the first carrier to offer the service to its customers. http://www.msnbc.com/news/804446.asp Intuit Uses Anti-Piracy Measures - Sep 6, 2002 07:11 AM (AP Online) By MICHAEL LIEDTKE AP Business Writer SAN FRANCISCO (AP) - Intuit Inc. has introduced new anti-piracy measures that will force buyers of its popular TurboTax software to register their computers with the company before the program will file tax returns. The new requirements, announced Thursday and effective for the next tax-filing season, are part of Intuit's crackdown on TurboTax buyers who pass around copies of the tax preparation software to their friends, family and neighbors. Intuit believes the software sharing is undercutting its TurboTax sales, although the company hasn't estimated how much it might be losing. The Mountain View-based company sold 5.3 million copies of TurboTax's desktop product in its fiscal year ended in July. That's more than any other tax preparation program. The new measures will corral critical TurboTax features on a single computer that must be registered with the company, either through the Internet or an automated phone center. http://finance.lycos.com/home/news/story.asp?story=28580869 SONICblue and Intel Team Up to Create Portable Entertainment Device - Sep 9, 2002 06:03 PM (BusinessWire) SAN JOSE, Calif.--(BUSINESS WIRE)--Sept. 9, 2002-- SONICblue(TM)Incorporated (NASDAQ:SBLU) and Intel Corporation today announced that they are working together to develop the ReplayTV(R)Portable Video Player (PVP), a new product that will allow people to enjoy digital entertainment on the go. The product, currently in development, combines the performance and low power consumption of Intel(R) XScale(TM) technology-based processors with SONICblue's Emmy award-winning ReplayTV platform. The pocket-sized device will allows users to watch time-shifted television programs transferred from their SONICblue ReplayTV, as well as play video, audio and photos transferred from a PC. Intel will provide key technology building blocks, including Intel XScale technology-based processors and advanced video codecs developed by Intel's Emerging Platforms Lab. Intel will also supply a reference implementation of a PVP device. SONICblue will combine Intel's technologies with its knowledge and understanding of digital entertainment to create a final product that enhances SONICblue's ReplayTV line. SONICblue's PVP will house a large capacity hard drive and support multiple audio and video formats, including native ReplayTV files, so recorded television content can be transferred directly from ReplayTV set-top boxes for portable enjoyment. The SONICblue ReplayTV PVP will also connect to a PC so that users can transfer and play personal, MP3 and other commercially available multimedia content from their PC. The high-performance and low power consumption of the Intel XScale technology-based processors will enable users to enjoy high-quality video for several hours without recharging the battery. http://finance.lycos.com/home/news/story.asp?story=28609712 Intel Accelerates the Delivery of the Digital Home With the Extended Wireless PC Initiative - Sep 9, 2002 10:32 AM (BusinessWire) SAN JOSE, Calif.--(BUSINESS WIRE)--Sept. 9, 2002--Intel Corporation announced an initiative that will aid distribution of digital media throughout the home. The Extended Wireless PC Initiative, the first step in delivering on the Digital Home vision, will provide key building blocks and toolkits to the developer community, allowing them to easily and seamlessly distribute PC digital media to TVs and stereos throughout the consumer's home. Critical to the media distribution is a new PC peripheral called a digital media adapter, which creates the link between PCs, TVs, and stereos. It can receive digital media from the PC using 802.11 wireless networking and UpnP* technologies, and can connect to TVs and stereos using standard A/V cables -- much like a DVD player. Consumers can purchase the digital media adapter bundled with a new PC, use a simple remote control to navigate through menus on their TV screen and select the PC digital media they want to receive. This tightly integrated approach to digital media distribution will be easy to install, perform multiple functions, and be offered at attractive consumer price points. To accelerate the development of digital media adapters and extended wireless PC platforms by the second half of 2003, Intel is announcing the immediate availability of the following technology building blocks and toolkits for developers: http://finance.lycos.com/home/news/story.asp?story=28601585 Drive-by spam hits wireless LANs By Graeme Wearden Special to CNET News.com September 6, 2002, 10:14 AM PT LONDON--The proliferation of insecure corporate wireless networks is fueling the growth of drive-by spamming, a security expert warned on Thursday. A drive-by spammer would send e-mail by finding an unprotected SMTP (simple mail transfer protocol) port on a company's server and then sending e-mail as if the person were a legitimate user of the company's network. The mail server wouldn't be able to tell otherwise. The ability to send spam through a company's network without the company's knowledge could allow the spammer to avoid bandwidth costs, which can be substantial for tens or hundreds of thousands of e-mails. That method also makes it much more difficult to trace the spam back to the spammer -- a useful tactic for those who send spam as a service for other companies and who may have been in trouble with the law. http://news.com.com/2100-1033-956911.html September 5, 2002 Dirty Laundry, Online for All to See By JENNIFER 8. LEE SKELETONS have come out of the closets and are creeping along Cincinnati's streets. People say that Jim Cissell released them. Four years ago, Mr. Cissell decided that it was time to move the county's court records onto the Web. The documents were already public. They were already electronic. Where else to put public electronic documents but on the Internet? "It was the natural progression of technology," said Mr. Cissell, the clerk of courts for Hamilton County, whose seat is Cincinnati. Mr. Cissell's three-person technology staff put together the Web site at www.courtclerk.org. State tax liens, arrest warrants, bond postings -- all became searchable and accessible on the Internet. "Everything we get is scanned and available," said Mr. Cissell, a former United States attorney. "It was very easy to open the door to the public." Visitors have flowed to the site. So have the complaints. http://www.nytimes.com/2002/09/05/technology/circuits/05CINC.html ------------------------------ Date: Mon, 9 Sep 2002 20:52:12 -0400 From: dhorvath@cobs.com (David B. Horvath, CCP) Subject: New Entries For the Business Directory Subject: "Help us market our BioPhotonic Tissue Antioxidant Scanner!!" > LET US HELP YOU START BUILDING... > CALL TOLL FREE: 1-888-277-7691 TODAY=21=21 > PLEASE NOTE: When you call, you will be prompted to leave your name, > telephone number, and email address. > Within 48 hours, a representative will call or email you to > verify your information, level of interest, and qualification. > After your information is verified, YOU WILL THEN RECEIVE, FREE OF > CHARGE OR OBLIGATION ACCESS TO OUR EXTENSIVE LIBRARY OF ONLINE INFORMATION > CONTACT US AT 1-888-277-7691 The really annoying thing is that the ad says: > ... rapidly-expanding internetworking company* (see footnote), which > is owned by a 17-year-old, publicly-traded > corporation that has the highest possible Dunn & Bradstreet rating > of 5-A1 > *FOOTNOTE: > (Company policy prohibits us from > either using its proper name during this "first contact" > advertisement.) Another SPAM interesting advertisement came with the subject of "Re: NORTON SYSTEMWORKS CLEARANCE SALE" Unfortunately, they have no contact information on their web pages. You have to go all the way through the purchase process -- after which you get a static HTML page that tells you to print it as confirmation of your order. The funny thing is that the purchase page does not *require* payment information. "A charge will appear on your credit card as Print Doctor, Inc.. If you have any questions at all about your order please contact us by calling 1-800-758-8084 toll-free." Another message redirected to a yahoo.com store that mentioned the following: > Click here to claim your FREE SpyEar: (deleted, redirects to a yahoo store) > or call 1-800-VALUE-07. > Start hearing what you've been missing! - David ------------------------------ Date: Mon, 9 Sep 2002 17:46:06 EDT From: Carl Moore Subject: Calling Business Office On my next-to-last Cavalier statement (recall my recent mailings regarding my having to drop Cavalier local dial tone and go back to Verizon), I see a couple of charges for calls to business offices. I'll go ahead and list the numbers, with the caution that you not call them except on business. 410-954-6260, using "OFICILNTWK" in place of city name (that is for Verizon) 800-950-7858, using "INBOUND" for city name and nothing for state/ country (that is for Cavalier) In addition, the pay phones near my office were found to be AT&T, not Verizon, and they demanded money for calls to the 410 area number I just listed. That reminded me of what I read about those 811-xxxx telephone numbers for some telephone business offices in California, with it being necessary to publish the translation to "regular" ten-digit numbers (including the area code) for those who needed to call regarding their account from outside of the service area. (Unrelated example is that if I call about my account when I am in my office, I have to call from the Aberdeen exchange, not from North East.) ------------------------------ Date: Mon, 9 Sep 2002 23:37:45 EDT From: TELECOM Digest Editor Subject: Dealing With SWB Business Office My mother said it first: "I sure liked it a lot when the service rep (all one of them - PAT) was there in the telephone exchange building on Maple and 6th Street downtown. You could get in and out of there in a hurry, and you always got things done correctly the first time." Yeah, you bet. Now we call an 800 number on the phone and reach some person (after waiting in an appropriately long queue) in the corporate office in Dallas, TX, who knows from nothing but thinks she knows it all. Here is my experience over the past six months more or less with these folks. About six months ago, I sent a sizeable check to them to pay in advance for my DSL service for several months. I knew that in actual practice the credit balance I carried each month would be absorbed on my regular bill as well as DSL since both come on the same bill. But that was okay. Instead of a year's worth of advance payments on the DSL alone, I wound up getting about seven months of all phone service paid in advance as a result. At the same time, I sent them a blank, voided check and a slip to authorize future payments from my bank account. So far, so good. I also signed up for 'e-bill' which allows you to review/print out your bill on line, and make payments on line as needed. Again, dandy. Each month I would check my bill on line when an email came from SWB with a link in it saying, 'click here to see your bill for (month).' I would review the bill and at the bottom it would say xx dollars credit, do not pay. Also, each month my e-bill from SWB would say something about 'your balance due will be charged to bank account at your bank. But credit balance, do not pay.' Wouldn't you assume the fact that they had my bank account number on file with that statement meant my bill was going to be auto-debited when due? Then came the final bill with the credit balance and it said your new balance due is $54.04. Again, the statement about 'your balance due will be charged to your bank account on (date).' Okay, fine, the bill looked accurate, even though those directory assistance charges get sort of bad. On the Saturday before Labor Day in the mail comes an 'URGENT DISCONNECT NOTICE' telling me if I did not pay the bill of $54.04 *within five days* my phone would be disconnected. Mailed the day before, it was due to time out on Tuesday following Labor Day. Of course there was no way to reach them on the phone Saturday, Sunday or Monday (Labor Day). But of course! Why should anything be easy? Tuesday I called the number given which was not the business office I usually reach and the lady started right out with this arrogant attitude about 'may we expect you to make payment today?' I told her about e-bill and its claims that my bank account would be auto-debited. Nope, she says, couldn't be. We don't have you down for any auto-draft. I told her she did so, and to look at the same computer screen I was reading from. She claimed she could not do that, since her computer had different information on it. After we went back and forth on this for several minutes, I agreed to allow her to make a debit on my bank and get the $54.04 she claimed was still due. Guess what, two days later a *second* charge came throuh the bank for the $54.04 a *second time*. (The one I gave up and told her she could take and the original one). She kept telling me I would have to fill out the auto-draft form again, because it must have gotten lost. Today my latest e-bill arrived. It did have $54.04 as a credit for overpayment but the balance still due. I got the same story today, that the computer 'could not possibly tell you that your auto-draft is on file because we don't have it here.' I told her the second draft which last month's rep had promised to send me had not gotten here either. She told me where to get a blank form printed out on my printer to send to them, but it takes a couple months to process so you should plan to pay your bills by hand until then ... 'Even though the computer says you will auto-draft the bank?' Well, they can not go by that, I was told, it has to be what *their* computer says, no matter what *my* computer and *their* e-bill says. I sent the form this time back to her by fax, and she agreed it got there this time. We will see when next month's bill comes out. ******************************* I also discovered how bogus their 'privacy manager' service is. You all know the routine on that. It appears that if the name line on the caller-id box lists 'name withheld' as the name, or the phone number is given as a/c-000-0000 that is considered perfectly acceptable for privacy manager's purpose, and those calls do not get screened. I *thought* privacy manager was intended to catch all those. But I see any number of 'out of area' for the name and all zero's for the phone number calls that just ring through anyway. It appears the only calls privacy manager catches and stops are those where the caller *deliberatly* does *67 and withholds information. I've tried dialing *67 and my own number. Instead of getting a busy signal the call is apparently forwarded to Wichita for privacy manager treatment, then bounced back to me with whatever bogus name I inserted in the tape recording as a 'call-waiting'. And SWB will not sell privacy manager by itself. You must get caller id as well, and the kind of caller id which prints out name and number at that. So what will happen when all telmarketers catch on to the fact that all they have to do is fix their PBX to give a caller's name of 'name withheld' or be sure to insert all zero's or some other bogus number as their number. Then it will be a totally useless service. At least they are giving it for free for three months with no installation charges to make it somewhat worth my time. Yes mother, you are correct: it was better when you could walk down to the telephone exchange building and talk to the lady working there in the lobby. In Junction City, KS at least, even when they got rid of the service rep in the lobby (and put a red, non-dial phone in her place that connects directly to Sprint-United HQ in Shawnee Mission), they still kept the cashier there (at least a couple years ago) where you had someone to pay directly and complain to as you wished. Maybe even the cashier is gone now. :( PAT ------------------------------ From: Al Iverson Subject: Re: Spamming, etc Organization: Please don't email replies Date: Mon, 09 Sep 2002 22:28:18 -0500 In article , Dave Garland wrote: > It was a dark and stormy night when Pat wrote: >> I've also thought a great deal about emphasizing the use of the web- >> site mailing system I offer on http://telecom-digest.org/postoffice . > The url got grunged somewhere along the line to comp.dcom.telecom. > Maybe you'd like to repeat it? > [TELECOM Digest Editor's Note: The URL address shown above is correct. > http://telecom-digest.org/postoffice is a good address to use. Help > yourself to the web-based email there. Take a box, use it, pollute it, > dump it then get another one. PAT] http://telecom-digest.org/postoffice doesn't work. http://telecom-digest.org/postoffice/ does. Why, dunno. Al Iverson -- http://www.radparker.com -- Minneapolis, Minnesota, USA Support Minnesota Jazz -- Disclaimer: All of my opinions are mine alone. [TELECOM Digest Editor's Note: I dunno either. Use it that way if it works. I guess I could be like the porn web sites, and throw a fit and threaten to sue you for 'deep linking' into that back page and not going through the front door http://telecom-digest.org where you have to make a donation and read all my glories. If Noah M. at LCS-MIT is reading this, maybe he can make it work correctly once again without the need to use the slash on the end of the URL. PAT] ------------------------------ From: Anonymous User Subject: Re: Spam Filtering Date: Fri, 6 Sep 2002 00:10:36 UTC Hello Pat, If you are interested in spam filtering, here's the URL for a project that is generally regarded as the most industrial strength around. Its in use at well.com, etc. Note: it runs on UNIX, written in Perl. http://spamassassin.taint.org/ Enjoy. ------------------------------ From: Joey Lindstrom Date: Mon, 09 Sep 2002 17:39:12 -0600 Reply-To: Joey Lindstrom Subject: A Day Off From Telesleaze OMAHA, Neb. -- Recognizing that many Americans won't be in the mood to get sales calls, many of the nation's telemarketers plan to take the day off Wednesday on the anniversary of the terrorist attacks. (Sorry, this long URL is going to split onto two lines, you'll probably have to piece it back together.) http://www.newsday.com/news/local/wire/ny-bc-nj--sept11-telemarket0909sep09.story?coll=ny%2Dap%2Dregional%2Dwire / From the desk of Joey Lindstrom / / If you tell a joke in the forest, but nobody laughs, was it a joke? / --Steven Wright ------------------------------ From: Brian Kendig Subject: Telemarketers Who Say They're Not Telemarketers? Date: Thu, 05 Sep 2002 21:57:27 GMT Organization: Verio I've been trying to cut down on the number of telemarketing calls I get by following a simplified form of the JunkBusters (www.junkbusters.com) script: as soon as a telemarketer gives me a chance to speak, I ask, 'Does your organization have a don't call list?' and then when they say yes, I say 'Would you please put my phone number on that list?' About half the telemarketers who call me agree to do this. Most of them never call back (except the Florida Sheriff's organization asking for donations every few weeks and getting really rude with me when I ask to be off their list). If the telemarketer balks, or says 'um, no, we don't have a list like that,' then I go through the full script ('http://www.junkbusters.com/ht/en/script.html'), starting with 'Are you calling to sell something?' My question is, what should I do when the person answers 'no?' Like, today, I got a call from Macy's to let me know they're opening a new store in the area and to let me know they're sending me gift certificates, if I'd only verify my address. Of course I'm not going to verify my address; but they're not calling to *sell* me anything, they're only giving me a gift out of the kindness of their hearts ... *choke gag* What's the proper way to deal with calls like this? Are they legally allowed to keep calling me, because they're not really trying to sell me stuff? Another question: Are recorded telemarketers still illegal? Sometimes I come home to a long message on my answering machine about timeshare homes, and it sounds friendly and authentic except that the person never mentions my name. Other times I answer the phone and a recording begins to cheerfully blather at me. If these recordings don't give any way to get through to a human being, how do I fight them? And yet another question: I get very few phone calls on my home phone, so most of the calls I do get are telemarketers. If I pick up the phone within the first ring or two, it's a telemarketer. If I don't get to the phone until the third or fourh ring, then I get a *click* and a dialtone -- it's the telemarketer's wardialer having already reached enough people to connect to its handful of live human beings, so it doesn't really need to connect me to anyone, not even after I bothered to answer the phone. That's just RUDE. What's the best way to fight this? ____ |\/| Brian Kendig \ /\ / ..__. brian at enchanter net You are in a maze of twisty \/ \__\ _/ http://www.enchanter.net/ little passages, all alike. \__ __ \_ Be insatiably curious. \____\___\ Ask "why" a lot. ------------------------------ From: John Higdon Subject: Re: Finding CO? Organization: Green Hills and Cows Date: Mon, 09 Sep 2002 20:16:36 -0700 In article , wesrock@aol.com (Wes Leatherock) wrote: > A step office was even noisier and you could see a lot more action > taking place. Unfortunately, dial phones came too late to San Jose. The first automatic exchange switch in San Jose was crossbar. ------------------------------ TELECOM Digest is an electronic journal devoted mostly but not exclusively to telecommunications topics. It is circulated anywhere there is email, in addition to various telecom forums on a variety of networks such as Compuserve and America On Line, 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: 620-870-9697 Fax 1: 775-255-9970 Fax 2: 775-306-8390 Fax 3: 530-309-7234 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 second 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) Email <==> FTP: telecom-archives@telecom-digest.org Send a simple, one line note to that automated address for a help file on how to use the automatic retrieval system for archives files. You can get desired files in email. ************************************************************************* * 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. Access to Premium (P) links requires upgrade to a paid subscription. One click a day feeds a person a meal. Go to http://www.thehungersite.com Only subscribers or registered users of ICB Toll Free News web site will be able to access all or some of the full text of URLs provided. LEGAL STUFF: TELECOM Digest (sm) is owned by Patrick Townson. Copyright 2000 ICB, Inc. and TELECOM Digest. All rights reserved. Our attorney is Bill Levant, of Blue Bell, PA. --------------------------------------------------------------- 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 twenty 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 V22 #30 ***************************** From editor@telecom-digest.org Tue Sep 10 16:24:19 2002 Received: from localhost (localhost [[UNIX: localhost]]) by massis.lcs.mit.edu (8.11.3nb1/8.11.3) id g8AKOJg09401; Tue, 10 Sep 2002 16:24:19 -0400 (EDT) Date: Tue, 10 Sep 2002 16:24:19 -0400 (EDT) From: editor@telecom-digest.org Message-Id: <200209102024.g8AKOJg09401@massis.lcs.mit.edu> X-Authentication-Warning: massis.lcs.mit.edu: ptownson set sender to editor@telecom-digest.org using -f To: ptownson Approved: patsnewlist Subject: TELECOM Digest V22 #31 TELECOM Digest Tue, 10 Sep 2002 16:22:00 EDT Volume 22 : Issue 31 Inside This Issue: Editor: Patrick A. Townson Straight or Twisted Telephone Cables (xeondavis) Re: U.S. Answering Machine in Denmark (Richard D.G. Cox) Re: Telephone Surge Suppressor (w_tom) Re: MOH Volume and Fidelity on DBS VB-43000 (Steve Hayes) Re: Sprint RIPOFF Alert: DA is Now $2.49 per Call! MCI, Too! (John Stahl) Re: Dealing With SWB Business Office (Wes Leatherock) Re: Ringing a Phone?? (PaulCoxwell@aol.com) Re: Finding CO? (Ed Ellers) Re: How many CSU's Do I Need (Dave Phelps) Hourly Updated News Source For Telecom (Vojta Kalina) News Headlines of Interest 9/10/02 (Monty Solomon) 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. WE DO NOT PERMIT NAME/EMAIL ADDRESS HARVESTING FROM THIS JOURNAL. 'SALTED' EMAIL ADDRESSES APPEAR HEREIN TO VERIFY THIS. YOU GET SUED IN SMALL CLAIMS COURT IF YOU GET CAUGHT SPAMMING OR SENDING VIRUSES. DON'T DO IT. See the bottom of this issue for subscription and archive details and the name of our lawyer; other stuff of interest. ---------------------------------------------------------------------- From: aakomala@yahoo.com (xeondavis) Subject: Straight or Twisted Telephone Cables Date: 9 Sep 2002 23:30:07 -0700 Organization: http://groups.google.com/ I have a basic question. I was just setting up the telephone system for my friend's office, and I discovered that almost all RJ11 telephone cables were wired twisted, not straight-thru. I know for CAT5 (RJ45), you can have a straight-thru or cross-over cable. But for telephone cables, why didn't they use a straight-thru cable? Any pros or cons? Thanks, -a ------------------------------ Date: Tue, 10 Sep 2002 12:00:34 +0100 From: Richard D G Cox Subject: Re: U.S. Answering Machine in Denmark Reply-To: no-spam@mandarin.com Organization: Mandarin Technology Limited On 9 Sep 2002 06:45 UT shamann@mfi.ku.dk (Steffen) wrote: > I have recently purchased a new 900 Mhz Sony Telephone with internal > answering machine in the United States. I have brought it with me to > Denmark. The phone works fine (with a voltage converter), but when one > calls the answering machine does not start, as if it doesn't recognize > the calling tone or something. Could anyone please help me? I have seen a series of problems with answering machines seeming to fail to recognise the incoming ring signal. In fact what the machines were failing to detect correctly, was the inter-ring pause: being programmed to answer after a set number of "rings", as the inter-ring pause was too short, the machines never detected it and so always registered that they were receiving the first ring - therefore it was never the right time to cut in and answer! In the cases I investigated, we were blighted with a (Philips) PBX that had non-standard ringing cadences and the answering machines we started with (ironically, also "made" (i.e.branded) by Philips!) would always answer when on a direct CO line -- but never when on a PBX extension. The logical solution of changing the answering machine was unsuccessful: we soon discovered that the internal firmware built into rather a lot of (ostensibly different and unrelated) answering machines come from the same supplier (in Taiwan or Korea), and behaves in exactly the same manner. As that part of Philips seemed to be no more than a branding/marketing operation, we were unable to get any effective technical support for the product. Richard D G Cox ------------------------------ From: w_tom Subject: Re: Telephone Surge Suppressor Date: Tue, 10 Sep 2002 07:27:27 -0400 Organization: Posted via Supernews, http://www.supernews.com Ken demonstrates that some recommended surge protection even basic knowledge and that others in ignorance cry, "Woe is me. Nothing can protect from lightning". Surges are RF energy. Ken criticizes without even knowing what a transient is. RF energy involves wire impedance; not wire resistance. If surges were DC current, then a surge protector would work adjacent to a telephone appliance. But surges are RF energy which means central earth ground must connect short to a surge protector. Many installed plug-in protectors, suffered damage, than insist that nothing can protect from lightning. They failed to first learn surge protection fundamentals such as wire impedance, basic circuit theory, and single point grounding. Impedance - not resistance - must be understood for lightning protection which would explain why Ken could not protect from lightning strikes. He even thought transients were DC current - contrary to what is taught in any first Electrical Engineering course, or even in any math class that teaches Fourier Series. Ken did not understand basic electrical concepts, then in three previous posts, he posted no technical facts and instead insulted the messenger. Ken Abrams wrote: > 3) There is NO difference between resistance and impedance to DC current. [TELECOM Digest Editor's Note: We WILL CLOSE this thread as of today. Thanks to all participants who posted messages, etc. PAT] ------------------------------ From: Steve Hayes Subject: Re: MOH Volume and Fidelity on DBS VB-43000 Date: Tue, 10 Sep 2002 11:46:08 +0000 Hi Pat and all, In TELECOM Digest V22 #29, ghg5500@yahoo.com asked if there was a way to improve Music On Hold volume and fidelity on a particular Panasonic phone system. At present, the music clips if it is turned up at all and the fidelity is terrible. I don't know this system but suspect there isn't a simple or legal fix. About 20 years ago, I had to design a Music On Hold interface complying with FCC part 68 regulations. These regulations may have changed since then but I suspect they haven't. The regulations limit the transmit level of various signals. Voice levels can be pretty high, peaking at over 0 dbm. DTMF can be transmitted at around -4 dbm (I'm working from memory - don't count on these figures being exact). Continuous tones such as modem transmit tones are limited to -9 dbm. Limits are even lower at the extreme top of the audio band (near 3 kHz). These limits are mainly intended to reduce annoyance from the signals leaking into other phone circuits (crosstalk). The assumption is that the average level of voice signals will be much lower than the peak and that DTMF signals are only present for a moment. Crosstalk from continuous tones is more annoying. There were no specific regulations for music on hold. Since the equipment manufacturer can't control what someone might connect to the MOH input, the sure way to get FCC approval is to ensure that, whatever might be connected, the limits for continuous tones cannot be exceeded. The cheap and dirty way to do this (which I admit to using) is to clip the input signal so that the limit for continous tones at lower frequencies cannot be exceeded, then to use a fairly simple low pass filter to further limit the levels at the higher frequencies. The result sounds exactly as described but no-one ever seems to select equipment for its music on hold quality. All they require is to be able to tick the box saying that feature is included in the system. I'm just another old cynic ... Steve Hayes South Wales, UK ------------------------------ Date: Tue, 10 Sep 2002 09:21:40 -0400 From: John Stahl Subject: Re: Sprint RIPOFF Alert: DA is Now $2.49 per Call! MCI, Too!!! Why would anyone with access to the Internet, use a DA of any of the "dial-tone" or LD suppliers? There are many good "look-up" services on the Internet which are FREE. For example, for telephone numbers, I use: http://www.theultimates.com/ for both White pages and Yellow pages http://www.superpages.com/ for the same use http://www.switchboard.com/ for White,Yellow,(by) telephone number look-up, http://www.whitepages.com/ for White,Yellow,reverse look-up, by address look-up http://www.superpages.ca/ for Canadian telephone number look-up There are a bunch more of these (though one of the originals's in this group has gone to a cost basis -- www.555-1212.com -- there are plenty, free to use) which can be found on my favorite Reference site where just about anything (with applicable hyper-links) can be found!): http://www.refdesk.com/ John Stahl Telecom/Data Consultant Aljon Enterprises ------------------------------ From: wesrock@aol.com (Wes Leatherock) Date: 10 Sep 2002 13:49:53 GMT Organization: AOL http://www.aol.com Subject: Re: Dealing With SWB Business Office On Mon, 9 Sep 2002 23:37:45 EDT TELECOM Digest Editor ptownson@massis.lcs.mit.ed wrote: > Yeah, you bet. Now we call an 800 number on the phone and reach some > person (after waiting in an appropriately long queue) in the corporate > office in Dallas, TX, who knows from nothing but thinks she knows it > all. SWB corporate offices are in St. Louis, Mo. However, where you get a service representative is apparently pretty random. However, on a list for SWB retirees (not a company-sponsored list) I find that one of the business offices (or whatever they call them now) that handles accounts in Oklahoma City is located in Jonesboro, Arkansas. Apparently such calls are distributed to an open position in any one of several business offices which handles that group of accounts. Other than that minor point, while I haven't had your particular set of experiences, I have no reason to disagree with the general tenor of your post. Wes Leatherock wesrock@aol.com wleathus@yahoo.com [TELECOM Digest Editor's Note: There is *nothing* in the way of government/utility services available in a large urban area which is not also available in a small town as long as someone there has a hook or connection into the utility/government agency computer system, and it often times is more personal and individually centered than the large city. SWB for example, *had* a service rep here in Independence until about two years ago, at the phone exchange building at 6th and Maple Street downtown. You could walk in, and likely there was no one ahead of you at all, or maybe one customer. You told her your problem or whatever -- maybe you wanted a phone turned on or off, etc. She filled out the paperwork, typed a few things on the computer terminal and that was it; the job was finished. For some simple, purely local tasks, for example, 'put call waiting on line xxx' she would do the paperwork and the technician assigned to the office went upstairs to the switch and did the work. Chances are, later in the day the job was done. Everyone in town refers to their phone by four digits; if your number for example is 620-331-6019 for the taxicab service, you simply told her 'six oh one nine' and she had her books things there and was working on it that fast. You had to dial seven digits of course, but in speaking only refer to the last four. You gave her seven digits if you were inquiring about other than the default of Independence, for example (all 620) 251 or 252 for Coffeyville, 336 for Cherryvale, 847 for Caney, 289 for rural Independence service, such as Tyro, Dearing, Blake, Bolton, Liberty, etc. But she was old and got sick one day, and shortly thereafter they cleaned out her desk and locked up the office for a final time. A sign on the front door said 'If no one is here or office closed, use the phone (on wall by the door) to call 800-xxx-xxxx for service.' But no one ever did. They would come back later or the next day and see the lady instead. The Independence Social Security office is another example. Although a sign on the door says 'call anytime 24 hours for assistance at our national number 800-772-1213' people simply prefer to walk in and do business right there, from all over the county. Like the phone exchange, I have never seen more than one or two people ahead of me waiting for service. Being disabled as I have been since my brain aneurysm, I've had my share of dealings with Social Security Disability Services since that day in 1999 also. It is *so pleasant* to go in their office, walk up to the desk and be waited on instantly. I talk to my rep there every couple weeks or at least once a month lately, all because of problems caused in the Chicago office. Last time I was there to see her, I asked her in an off-hand way, 'have you ever had any dealings with Social Security in Chicago?' Her eyes got wide, and she said "I heard in Chicago you have to take a number, wait in line for about an hour, then when they call your number you go stand in a little stall where a clerk talks to you." I told her that was correct, and she continued, "When I have to call the midwest region service center in Chicago, I get the impression they are 'racially diverse' (code words for mostly black) and not terribly intelligent." I assured her that was also quite true, and told her if you need to actually speak to someone who can make any decisions, they give you an appointment for two months later. She thought all that was rather incredible. Ditto the Independence SRS office. Kind, thoughtful and intelligent people to deal with. Because this town is the 'county seat' for Montgomery County (all 31,000 people) therefore the Social Security and SRS (Social and Rehabilitative Services) offices are located here rather than Coffeyville, for example. All the necessary services (for someone like myself) in a tiny town 2 miles wide by 3 miles long; easy to walk to or take a $1.50 cab ride to go to. And the town subsidizes the rest of my cab ride, since I am disabled and considered a 'senior citizen' now. When SWB pulled out their 'service center' here two or three years ago it was very unfortunate. I guess they thought any local center should be a lot busier. They like to see those terminal input clerks stay busy all the time. PAT] ------------------------------ From: PaulCoxwell@aol.com Date: Tue, 10 Sep 2002 04:15:51 EDT Subject: Re: Ringing a Phone?? > Bell companies, and quite a few non-Bell companies, used divided > ringing on two-party lines (tip to ground or ring to ground), and on This was also the system used by the British GPO on the two-way party lines that were once very common in this country. Unlike the Bell System, the British arrangement also used a "call exchange" button on party-line phones which the subscriber had to press to get dial tone. The switch opened the loop and grounded the ring or tip side of the line as appropriate. Only then would the line be cut through to a sub's uniselector or linefinder. ------------------------------ From: Ed Ellers Subject: Re: Finding CO? Date: Tue, 10 Sep 2002 05:38:02 -0400 Steve Brack wrote: > Back in the good old days, a small suburban village near where I > grew up had a novel solution to the percieved "problem" of an ugly > CO building. When Ohio Bell cut them over from cordboard to dial > service, they couldn't get zoning approval to build a CO building, > so, in a pretty creative move, they bought the cordboard operator's > house, gutted it, and built a small switch (probably SxS) inside the > existing house. That way the village government couldn't say > anything, although the neighbors probably noticed that no one ever > came or went from this "house." > So, the best way to hide a CO is to make it look like one of the > innumerable and interchangeable houses in the neighborhood. South Central Bell used to have an SxS switch in a house in Anchorage, Kentucky (a suburb of Louisville). I have no idea what they did for ESS. Note that in some states local zoning boards don't have any authority over telephone company facilities, since those are regulated at the state level. ------------------------------ From: Dave Phelps Subject: Re: How many CSU's Do I Need Date: Tue, 10 Sep 2002 00:07:32 -0500 Organization: Posted via Supernews, http://www.supernews.com In article , willpski@hotmail.com says: > I am looking to connect a Cisco router to a Avaya Definity system and > I was wondering if I would need a CSU on both ends of the T-1 Tie line > or on just one. The Cisco Router has a CSU built into it but would I > need one on the Definity end as well. If the router and PBX are not using telco facilities, you don't need any CSU's at all. It is nice to be able to look at CSU stats if you have trouble though. -- Dave Phelps Phone Masters Ltd. deadspam=tippenring ------------------------------ From: vojta.kalina@einmedia.com (Vojta Kalina) Subject: Hourly Updated News Source For Telecom Date: 10 Sep 2002 03:07:19 -0700 Organization: http://groups.google.com/ Hello, I am editor of Telecom Report http://www.europeaninternet.com/telecom/ Our editorial team works hard to bring you 25,000 daily and hourly updated news, exchange rates, market news and other important information. Please visit my site and see how much news you have been missing. Take care, Vojta Kalina Editor of Telecom Report ------------------------------ Date: Mon, 9 Sep 2002 23:53:34 -0400 From: Monty Solomon Subject: News Headlines of Interest 9/10/02 Faster Wi-Fi standard gets nod By Ben Charny Staff Writer, CNET News.com September 9, 2002, 5:13 PM PT A new wireless standard five times faster than Wi-Fi got an important approval Monday. The Institute of Electrical and Electronic Engineers (IEEE) said Monday that a draft of the standard, 802.11g, passed the first of several votes needed before it's ultimately approved. The IEEE said it intends to finalize the 802.11g standard by May 2003. The 802.11g standard is part of the thicket of wireless networking standards. The most popular is Wi-Fi, or 802.11b, which has been installed in 15 million to 18 million homes and offices worldwide. The networks provide wireless Internet access within a radius of about 300 feet of an access point. The 802.11g network is much faster, although it operates in the same radio frequency as Wi-Fi. Equipment using 802.11g can download files or access the Web at 54 megabits per second, compared with Wi-Fi's rate of 11 megabits per second. It is also more secure than Wi-Fi and is compatible with existing Wi-Fi networks, meaning customers could use an 802.11g card to access a Wi-Fi access point. http://news.com.com/2100-1033-957229.html Developers Rapidly Adopt Apple's Rendezvous Networking Technology APPLE EXPO, PARIS, Sept. 10 /PRNewswire-FirstCall/ -- Developers are rapidly adopting Apple's (NASDAQ:AAPL) innovative new Rendezvous(TM) networking technology for incorporation into everything from consumer electronics to printers, enterprise database management and educational applications. Today Philips, Canon, Xerox, Sybase and World Book announced support for Rendezvous in current or future products, joining previous Rendezvous adopters Hewlett-Packard, Epson and Lexmark. Rendezvous uses industry standard networking protocols and zero configuration technology to automatically discover and connect devices over any IP network, including Ethernet and 802.11 wireless networking. Rendezvous is integrated into Apple's Mac(R) OS X version 10.2 "Jaguar" operating system, and dozens of companies are working to integrate it into their products. http://finance.lycos.com/home/news/story.asp?story=28613545 ISPs Gird For Copyright Fights By John Borland Staff Writer, CNET News.com September 9, 2002, 4:00 AM PT A delicate detente is breaking down under pressure from peer-to-peer networks, placing two powerful industries on a collision course that could reshape the legal landscape for online file-swapping. Record companies and movie studios have long turned to Internet service providers for help in their battle against online piracy, but ISPs are beginning to balk at what they see as increasingly onerous demands to step up pressure against online copyright infringement. Last month saw a two-pronged expansion of that strategy, resulting in separate legal skirmishes between the record labels' trade association, Verizon Communications and a handful of large backbone service providers. Internet service providers now say they're increasingly concerned that their hard-won position of neutrality in the copyright wars is being undermined. "It's absolutely worrisome," said Robin O'Reilly, congressional affairs adviser for Cable & Wireless, a large Internet backbone company. "This is not a role we want to get into." The budding conflict will ultimately help determine how much anonymity ISP subscribers can expect, as well as potentially shape new copyright laws and Net anti-piracy practices. In past policy battles, telecommunications companies have been among the only political forces powerful enough to push back against the entertainment industry and win. http://news.com.com/2100-1023-957023.html ------------------------------ TELECOM Digest is an electronic journal devoted mostly but not exclusively to telecommunications topics. It is circulated anywhere there is email, in addition to various telecom forums on a variety of networks such as Compuserve and America On Line, 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: 620-870-9697 Fax 1: 775-255-9970 Fax 2: 775-306-8390 Fax 3: 530-309-7234 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 second 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) Email <==> FTP: telecom-archives@telecom-digest.org Send a simple, one line note to that automated address for a help file on how to use the automatic retrieval system for archives files. You can get desired files in email. ************************************************************************* * 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. Access to Premium (P) links requires upgrade to a paid subscription. One click a day feeds a person a meal. Go to http://www.thehungersite.com Only subscribers or registered users of ICB Toll Free News web site will be able to access all or some of the full text of URLs provided. LEGAL STUFF: TELECOM Digest (sm) is owned by Patrick Townson. Copyright 2000 ICB, Inc. and TELECOM Digest. All rights reserved. Our attorney is Bill Levant, of Blue Bell, PA. --------------------------------------------------------------- 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 twenty 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 V22 #31 ***************************** From editor@telecom-digest.org Wed Sep 11 17:06:52 2002 Received: from localhost (localhost [[UNIX: localhost]]) by massis.lcs.mit.edu (8.11.3nb1/8.11.3) id g8BL6qV15497; Wed, 11 Sep 2002 17:06:52 -0400 (EDT) Date: Wed, 11 Sep 2002 17:06:52 -0400 (EDT) From: editor@telecom-digest.org Message-Id: <200209112106.g8BL6qV15497@massis.lcs.mit.edu> X-Authentication-Warning: massis.lcs.mit.edu: ptownson set sender to editor@telecom-digest.org using -f To: ptownson Approved: patsnewlist Subject: TELECOM Digest V22 #32 TELECOM Digest Wed, 11 Sep 2002 16:53:00 EDT Volume 22 : Issue 32 Inside This Issue: Editor: Patrick A. Townson Help Wanted! Looking for Expert or Knowledgable Teacher (Margaret Felts) Re: Finding CO? (Clarence Dold) Re: Finding CO? (Wes Leatherock) Re: Sprint RIPOFF Alert: DA is Now $2.49 per Call! MCI, Too (JM Hoffman) Re: Sprint RIPOFF Alert: DA is Now $2.49 per Call! MCI, Too (Doug) Re: Sprint RIPOFF Alert: DA is Now $2.49 per Call! MCI, Too (D. Garland) Re: Straight or Twisted Telephone Cables (Shaun Ewing) Re: Straight or Twisted Telephone Cables (Wes Leatherock) Re: Straight or Twisted Telephone Cables (Tom Schmidt) Re: Spamming, etc (Steven Lichter) Re: Spamming, etc (Waldo Kitty) Re: U.S. Answering Machine in Denmark (Paul Coxwell) Re: Extra Charge to Call Cell Phone in US? (John R. Levine) Re: Dealing With SWB Business Office (Ken Abrams) Re: Alternative Local Dialtones (David) 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. WE DO NOT PERMIT NAME/EMAIL ADDRESS HARVESTING FROM THIS JOURNAL. 'SALTED' EMAIL ADDRESSES APPEAR HEREIN TO VERIFY THIS. YOU GET SUED IN SMALL CLAIMS COURT IF YOU GET CAUGHT SPAMMING OR SENDING VIRUSES. DON'T DO IT. See the bottom of this issue for subscription and archive details and the name of our lawyer; other stuff of interest. ---------------------------------------------------------------------- Reply-To: Margaret Felts From: Margaret Felts Subject: Help Wanted! Looking for Expert or Knowledgable Teacher Date: Tue, 10 Sep 2002 14:01:13 -0700 Organization: California Telephone Assn [TELECOM Digest Editor's Note: Today I decided to save the best for first! This is a good opportunity for one of you guys to get your name out before the industry. PAT] We are setting up our Annual Conference for the first week of February 2003. In the process, I am trying to find someone who can speak to the following issues and who would be able to lead a discussion with phone company technical staff and managers: "The usage of our networks without compensation via virtual NXX assignments which route traffic over toll trucks and rate as local. Also usage of our networks without compensation in the VOIP area, where by internet traffic that carries voice is exempt from access charges. And the usage without compensation of our networks without compensation by any scheme devised." We would provide transportation, room, meals, participation in Golf and the conference, plus a reasonable fee. If you know of anyone who would be interested, please send contact information. Margaret Felts President, CTA ------------------------------ From: dold@19.usenet.us.com Subject: Re: Finding CO? Date: 10 Sep 2002 21:45:53 GMT Organization: Wintercreek Data Steve Brack wrote: > service, they couldn't get zoning approval to build a CO building, so, > in a pretty creative move, they bought the cordboard operator's house, > gutted it, and built a small switch (probably SxS) inside the existing The first IXC that I worked for bought a house adjacent to the CO. It was in a historical district, so they couldn't make external changes to the house. They gutted the garage ... actually, they took down the walls, built a small switch room, and put the walls back up on the outside. The giveaway was the big honkin' overhead cable coming down the driveway, and maybe the exhaust for the UPS generator, poking out of the carport. Clarence A Dold - dold@email.rahul.net - Hidden Valley (Lake County) CA. ------------------------------ From: Wesrock@aol.com Date: Tue, 10 Sep 2002 19:58:06 EDT Subject: Re: Finding CO? On Tue, 10 Sep 2002 05:38:02 -0400 Ed Ellers ed_ellers@msn.com wrote: > Note that in some states local zoning boards don't have any > authority over telephone company facilities, since those are regulated > at the state level. In Oklahoma it's "telephone exchange buildings." This caused some concern during a period when Southwestern Bell was putting TSPS offices in leased quarters in shopping centers. Were TSPS offices "exchanges," since no switching was done there? Wes Leatherock wesrock@aol.com wleathus@yahoo.com ------------------------------ Subject: Re: Sprint RIPOFF Alert: DA is Now $2.49 per Call! MCI, Too!!! Organization: Excelsior Computer Services From: joel@exc.com (Dr. Joel M. Hoffman) Date: Wed, 11 Sep 2002 01:53:01 GMT Relatedly, I recently tried to get 1-800 directory assitance on a weekend, and ALL I could get was a computer with voice-recognition s/w. I was told that operators are ONLY available Monday through Friday. Is there anyone left who thinks that a free market will make our phone service better? -Joel ------------------------------ From: Doug Subject: Re: Sprint RIPOFF Alert: DA is Now $2.49 per Call! MCI, Too!!! Organization: Totally disorganized Date: Wed, 11 Sep 2002 01:53:34 GMT John Stahl wrote in message news:telecom22.31.5@telecom-digest.org: > Why would anyone with access to the Internet, use a DA of any of the > "dial-tone" or LD suppliers? In my case, it was a matter of time. It was a medical emergency situation where a friend was in the ER, and his grandparents (legal guardians) were at the church camp. My computer wasn't on, and it would have taken a lot longer to get online (dial up access!) and find the number than using DA. As it was, the LD call was just over 6 minutes because I misunderstood the name of the camp. (T and P sound too much alike when you are using a cell phone.) Doug [TELECOM Digest Editor's Note: Not only on cell phones and not only with T and P. That's why it helps to spell out the first (or any critical letter) in a name when talking to DA. As in P Paul, T Tom, O Oliver, L London, etc. PAT] ------------------------------ From: Dave Garland Subject: Re: Sprint RIPOFF Alert: DA is Now $2.49 per Call! MCI, Too!!! Organization: Wizard Information Date: Tue, 10 Sep 2002 21:18:01 -0500 It was a dark and stormy night when John Stahl wrote: > Why would anyone with access to the Internet, use a DA of any of the > "dial-tone" or LD suppliers? Because they don't have a networked computer by each telephone (including cordless handsets)? Because they're in a hurry? I don't use DA, but there are certainly valid reasons to do so. ------------------------------ From: Shaun Ewing Subject: Re: Straight or Twisted Telephone Cables Date: Wed, 11 Sep 2002 08:15:55 +1000 xeondavis wrote in message news:telecom22.31.1@telecom-digest.org: > I have a basic question. I was just setting up the telephone system > for my friend's office, and I discovered that almost all RJ11 > telephone cables were wired twisted, not straight-thru. I know for > CAT5 (RJ45), you can have a straight-thru or cross-over cable. But for > telephone cables, why didn't they use a straight-thru cable? Any pros > or cons? I assume that it has got something to do with polarity. Most standard phones don't care, but some (such as those on my phone system) require them to be wired in this fashion. If the cable on the CO lines isn't like that, the line lights on the phones keep blinking as if there is a call. If the cable between the KSU and the phones isn't like that, the phones don't work at all. My cordless phone is also polarity sensitive; if the polarity is wrong then it doesn't detect ringing. --Shaun ------------------------------ From: wesrock@aol.com (Wes Leatherock) Date: 10 Sep 2002 23:52:01 GMT Organization: AOL http://www.aol.com Subject: Re: Straight or Twisted Telephone Cables On 9 Sep 2002 23:30:07 -0700 aakomala@yahoo.com (xeondavis) wrote: > I have a basic question. I was just setting up the telephone system > for my friend's office, and I discovered that almost all RJ11 > telephone cables were wired twisted, not straight-thru. I know for > CAT5 (RJ45), you can have a straight-thru or cross-over cable. But for > telephone cables, why didn't they use a straight-thru cable? Any pros > or cons? Twisted pair has reduced pickup of hum, transients, and other noise because they are cancelled out by the constant reversal of polarity in the noise pickup. Wes Leatherock wesrock@aol.com wleathus@yahoo.com ------------------------------ Reply-To: Tom Schmidt From: Tom Schmidt Subject: Re: Straight or Twisted Telephone Cables Date: Wed, 11 Sep 2002 13:03:05 GMT xeondavis wrote in message news:telecom22.31.1@telecom-digest.org: > I have a basic question. I was just setting up the telephone system > for my friend's office, and I discovered that almost all RJ11 > telephone cables were wired twisted, not straight-thru. I know for > CAT5 (RJ45), you can have a straight-thru or cross-over cable. But for > telephone cables, why didn't they use a straight-thru cable? Any pros > or cons? Twisting each pair improves the ability to reject interference. Telephone and data cables have used this technique for years. The FCC recently mandated that all telephone inside wire use twisted pair. The Quad-four non-twisted wiring used for inside wire causes many crosstalk problems as folks get second lines, DSL etc. Straight-thru vs crossover refers to something else. TIA 568 Category rated cable is optimized for one-to-one wiring. That means the same wire uses the same connector pin all the way through the network. 10 and 100 Mbps Ethernet use two of the four pair, one for transmit and one for receive. Normally in the case of a computer and hub the clever authors of the spec designed it so the wiring is 1:1. In this case the TX and RX side of the hub is the opposite compared to the PC so everything lines up. In some special cases such as direct connection of two PCs or hub to hub without an uplink port the TX and RX terminations need to be swapped on one side of the connection. That is what a crossover cable does. /Tom ------------------------------ From: stevenl11@aol.com (Steven Lichter) Subject: Re: Spamming, etc Date: 10 Sep 2002 20:04:20 -0700 Organization: http://groups.google.com/ For the past few days I have been using Spamarrest.com. Once I set it up it seemed to work OK. I have had to set a few addresses so they would come to my e-mail account, via Spam Arrests web site. I think once I get all the address in there it should work OK. I'm not sure how it works other then trying to ID the address before sending it on, if it can't I have to verify it before it come through. At least I now don't get any spam on my regular address and this posting one if blocked so I don't worry about it. The FTC and the FCC want to take some kind of action against spammers, make it a Capital Crime with the Death penalty, that will make them think. You catch them, they are arrested, taken to the street and shot on the spot. Copies are then sent to other spammers showing what will happen. Apple Elite II 909-359-5338. Home of GBBS/LLUCE,support for the Apple II and Macintosh 24 hours 2400/14.4. OggNet Server. The only good spammer is a dead one! Have you hunted one down today? (c) I Kill Spammers, Inc. A Rot In Hell Company. ------------------------------ From: waldo kitty Subject: Re: Spamming, etc Date: 11 Sep 2002 14:52:23 GMT Organization: who? me? organized? HA! Al Iverson wrote in news:telecom22.30.5@telecom- digest.org: >> [TELECOM Digest Editor's Note: The URL address shown above is correct. >> http://telecom-digest.org/postoffice is a good address to use. Help >> yourself to the web-based email there. Take a box, use it, pollute it, >> dump it then get another one. PAT] > http://telecom-digest.org/postoffice doesn't work. > http://telecom-digest.org/postoffice/ does. > Why, dunno. The first one generally causes two "hits" to be registered on the server, if it is configured to do so. The first hit returns a 302 error (we've all seen 404 errors, right?). 302 means that the page has moved and the code returns the new location. The new location will have the trailing '/' on it. The second one is how they should be done in most cases. > [TELECOM Digest Editor's Note: I dunno either. Use it that way if it > works. I guess I could be like the porn web sites, and throw a fit and > threaten to sue you for 'deep linking' into that back page and not > going through the front door http://telecom-digest.org where you have > to make a donation and read all my glories. If Noah M. at LCS-MIT is > reading this, maybe he can make it work correctly once again without > the need to use the slash on the end of the URL. PAT] If the server that telecom-digest.org is hosted on is running apache, the fix is likely as simple as redefining the Location or Directory container for the telecom-digest directories without the trailing '/' in the httpd.conf file ... with the apache server, defining a location or directory with a trailing '/' means that the '/' _must_ appear on the url as entered by visitors or the server will return a 404 ... [Yes, I'm a sysadmin <>] [TELECOM Digest Editor's Note: Thank you very much for that explanation. Yes, massis.lcs.mit.edu runs apache. Two things are going on here. The URL 'telecom-digest.' (org or com or net I think, but I give out .org) is simply aliased by John Levine to point to a directory at massis called massis.lcs.mit.edu/telecom-archives and by default on either address you will wind up on index.html . That's why if you try a command such as 'telnet telecom-digest.whatever' or 'ftp telecom-digest' you wind up looking at John Levine's machine xuxa.iecc.com . If you prefer FTP over HTTP, that's fine, some people do, but you have to say 'ftp massis.lcs.mit.edu/telecom-archives/archives' to reach us. The reason is the second instance of /archives starts the actual Archives, while 'telecom-archives' reaches the index.html page, other window-dressing stuff. That's since the Archives was around and avail- able using FTP for many, many years and the very top level is just the window dressing for the HTML, which I had to construct when the Archives was 'rebuilt' for use as a 'web site' back in 1994-95. I could have gone through several levels downward from telecom-archives renaming them all and shoving everything down but it seemed to me to make better sense to rename telecom-archives as 'archives' and create a new level above it called 'telecom-archives' for the window dressing. I know, I could have just created index.html amd dropped it in the top page of the existing telecom-archives and HTTP calls would have defaulted to the index.html anyway. But then people who looked at the directory would have seen other stuff, and I didn't want that. Where is Tim Berners-Lee when you want someone to assault or hurt bad! (tongue in cheek, and a wink, of course). Has Tim B-L *ever* commented on how his software completely overturned 'our' net; completely and very radically changed the entire system or way of doing things here? Is he still over in Switzerland? To make things worse, in July, the bright folks at LCS-MIT decided to make some changes. Massis was an elderly machine, getting very feeble by modern standards. I was, and still am, the only user on it. So the LCS people decided let's get old and feeble PAT a new work station. No matter that since his brain aneurysm he won't remember how most of his scripts and web pages work, put in a new-massis, very slight changes in how it operates so it screws up his scripts; directories arranged a little differently so his PATH has to be re-written and his local aliases run down the wrong paths, etc. I am *still* trying to get my .forward to work correctly so you all will start getting autoreplies once again, and I can start getting my stats correctly. Whether or not you need a slash / at the end of a directory name when using apache is the least of my problems here. I would however wish Tim B-L would show up around here so I could give him a piece of my mind in the form of an Editor's Note Bashing sometime soon. Wouldn't take very long, since I don't have much of my deseased brain left these days. PAT] ------------------------------ From: PaulCoxwell@aol.com Date: Wed, 11 Sep 2002 14:17:08 EDT Subject: Re: U.S. Answering Machine in Denmark >> I have recently purchased a new 900 Mhz Sony Telephone with internal >> answering machine in the United States. I have brought it with me to >> Denmark. The phone works fine (with a voltage converter), but when one >> calls the answering machine does not start, as if it doesn't recognize >> the calling tone or something. Could anyone please help me? > I have seen a series of problems with answering machines seeming to > fail to recognise the incoming ring signal. In fact what the machines > were failing to detect correctly, was the inter-ring pause: being > programmed to answer after a set number of "rings", as the inter-ring > pause was too short, the machines never detected it and so always > registered that they were receiving the first ring - therefore it was > never the right time to cut in and answer! That sounds plausible, although along a similar line it might even be that the machine doesn't even recognize the first ring. Each ringing burst on a standard U.S. line is two seconds. I don't have the specifications for Denmark to hand, but most Continental systems use only a 1-second ring. ------------------------------ Date: 11 Sep 2002 12:25:09 -0400 From: johnl@iecc.com (John R. Levine) Subject: Re: Extra Charge to Call Cell Phone in US? Organization: I.E.C.C., Trumansburg NY USA > Now I don't really care if the hotel wants to charge extra for some > calls, so long as I'm told in advance, as I was. But, as a visitor, I > would have no way to distinguish a local cell number, so how could I > avoid such calls? Stay at a different hotel. > And I don't understand the purpose of this charge. To increase the hotel's revenue, of course. You correctly understand that a local call is a local call, and all calls to prefixes in the same rate center should cost the same. John R. Levine, IECC, POB 727, Trumansburg NY 14886 +1 607 387 6869 johnl@iecc.com Village Trustee and Sewer Commissioner http://iecc.com/johnl, Member, Provisional board, Coalition Against Unsolicited Commercial E-mail ------------------------------ From: Ken Abrams Subject: Re: Dealing With SWB Business Office Date: Tue, 10 Sep 2002 17:37:23 -0500 TELECOM Digest Editor commented on SWB: > At the same time, I sent them a blank, > voided check and a slip to authorize future payments from my bank > account. So far, so good. Big mistake. BIG,BIG mistake. Once you do this, you effectively give up your right to dispute anything on your bill because they will already have your money. More often than not, getting back money they take that they don't deserve requires court action. About the only company that it is safe to do this with is the Power/Gas/Water companies. They seem to be much less prone to screw it up, but it is still a risk. Do you get the Clark Howard radio program in your area? It is excellent. Consumer protection information. Sometimes banks even make payments from CLOSED accounts and then bill you for the amount PLUS an over-draft charge!!! Once you get it started, it is often almost impossible to stop it, even by closing your account. [TELECOM Digest Editor's Note: A very valid concern! In this small town, with a small town bank and appropriate attitudes, I don't think it applies to me. Plus which, SWB does say on their e-bill web site that once the bill is displayed it will be actually debited to your account fourteen days later. I discussed this with our bank manager (her, I trust, but not SWB) and she said anytime I wanted I could notify her to have the auto-draft cancelled. If I were still a customer at First National Bank in Chicago, or Bank One, or Citicorp or MegaBank and Trust Company, I'd be scared also. PAT] ------------------------------ From: davidgoNOSPAM@excite.com (David) Subject: Re: Alternative Local Dialtones Organization: AT&T Broadband Date: Tue, 10 Sep 2002 23:53:18 GMT Be VERY careful. I just found a business that is paying $65.00 for each of 6 lines to a company called CoreComm. Verizon will charge $23.00 per line. I don't know how long the ripoff has been going on. Unless you can save really big bucks, it is usually not worth it (unless you are using a partial or full T1 with DID, and other features). Remember, if the line to your building has a problem, you can't call Verizon, but will have to go through the other provider. This usually adds at least a day to service calls. David On 3 Sep 2002 10:39:54 -0700, jpvenezia@veneziainc.com (JPVENEZIA) wrote: > I have a company named Choras coming in to try to switch me away from > Verizon for my local Dialtone. Does anyone have any stories/issues > from switching to an alternate provider/reseller of local dialtone? ------------------------------ TELECOM Digest is an electronic journal devoted mostly but not exclusively to telecommunications topics. It is circulated anywhere there is email, in addition to various telecom forums on a variety of networks such as Compuserve and America On Line, 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: 620-870-9697 Fax 1: 775-255-9970 Fax 2: 775-306-8390 Fax 3: 530-309-7234 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 second 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) Email <==> FTP: telecom-archives@telecom-digest.org Send a simple, one line note to that automated address for a help file on how to use the automatic retrieval system for archives files. You can get desired files in email. ************************************************************************* * 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. Access to Premium (P) links requires upgrade to a paid subscription. One click a day feeds a person a meal. Go to http://www.thehungersite.com Only subscribers or registered users of ICB Toll Free News web site will be able to access all or some of the full text of URLs provided. LEGAL STUFF: TELECOM Digest (sm) is owned by Patrick Townson. Copyright 2002 ICB, Inc. and TELECOM Digest. All rights reserved. Our attorney is Bill Levant, of Blue Bell, PA. --------------------------------------------------------------- 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 twenty 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 V22 #32 ***************************** From editor@telecom-digest.org Wed Sep 11 19:08:50 2002 Received: from localhost (localhost [[UNIX: localhost]]) by massis.lcs.mit.edu (8.11.3nb1/8.11.3) id g8BN8od16517; Wed, 11 Sep 2002 19:08:50 -0400 (EDT) Date: Wed, 11 Sep 2002 19:08:50 -0400 (EDT) From: editor@telecom-digest.org Message-Id: <200209112308.g8BN8od16517@massis.lcs.mit.edu> X-Authentication-Warning: massis.lcs.mit.edu: ptownson set sender to editor@telecom-digest.org using -f To: ptownson Approved: patsnewlist Subject: TELECOM Digest V22 #33 TELECOM Digest Wed, 11 Sep 2002 19:08:00 EDT Volume 22 : Issue 33 Inside This Issue: Editor: Patrick A. Townson Strowger Gravesite (Newspaper Article About) (Neal McLain) Re: Hourly Updated News Source For Telecom (Geoffrey Welsh) Is This Possible (Sean Flanagan) Re: MOH Volume and Fidelity on DBS VB-43000 (David) How Can Someone Receive a Call From 555-XXXX? (Richard Haendel) News Headlines of Interest 9/11/02 (Monty Solomon) Re: How many CSU's Do I Need (Steve2316) I Got Certified and a New Job!! (berniekinkos2@yahoo.com) Know Your Alpha Bravo Charlies (Joey Lindstrom) FA: Turn Your Answering Machine Into a TeleZapper!! (Entropy Music) 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. WE DO NOT PERMIT NAME/EMAIL ADDRESS HARVESTING FROM THIS JOURNAL. 'SALTED' EMAIL ADDRESSES APPEAR HEREIN TO VERIFY THIS. YOU GET SUED IN SMALL CLAIMS COURT IF YOU GET CAUGHT SPAMMING OR SENDING VIRUSES. DON'T DO IT. See the bottom of this issue for subscription and archive details and the name of our lawyer; other stuff of interest. ---------------------------------------------------------------------- Date: Wed, 11 Sep 2002 07:08:00 -0600 From: Neal McLain Subject: Strowger Gravesite (Newspaper Article About) > Newfound fame good news for cemetery > http://www.sptimes.com/2002/09/11/SouthPinellas/Newfound_fame_good_ne.shtml > More news of Strowger's final resting place, and some background on > the man and the invention. > Chris Kelly > www.roserpark.net Neal McLain nmclain@annsgarden.com ------------------------------ From: Geoffrey Welsh Subject: Re: Hourly Updated News Source For Telecom Date: Wed, 11 Sep 2002 14:36:47 -0400 Vojta Kalina wrote: > I am editor of Telecom Report http://www.europeaninternet.com/telecom/ You didn't mention that the site requires readers to register before they can access any of the stories. So some (well, at least me) that's an important fact. [TELECOM Digest Editor's Note: I wonder if anyone would like to register for this new service, then prepare little excerpts weekly to send here to the Digest, just as Monty Solomon does or Judith Oppenheimer or the Canadian guy I publish every Monday. Any volunteers? PAT] ------------------------------ From: sean.flanagan@patlive.com (Sean Flanagan) Subject: Is This Possible Date: Wed, 11 Sep 2002 18:45:54 GMT Organization: PATLive Reply-To: sean.flanagan@patlive.com We've got a channellized DS3 coming in to our building that is muxed out to individual Ts that run into various telephony servers (read voicemail/call center). We would like to add a (switch?) that will allow us to dynamically decide where to route a call PRIOR to being answered by voicemail or the call center. We also make outbound calls as well as call from the voicemail to the call center and back so we'd like to be able to base the destination of the call on either the dialed number (for a real network call) or a faked ANI/DNIS combination (to determine where in the call center the call should go. I'm not looking for hand-holding, just a general point in the right direction (web sites/products). Thanks, Sean ------------------------------ From: davidgoNOSPAM@excite.com (David) Subject: Re: MOH Volume and Fidelity on DBS VB-43000 Organization: AT&T Broadband Date: Tue, 10 Sep 2002 23:57:43 GMT Many of our customers use inexpensive CD players configured just as you have with fine sound quality. The newer DBS systems control the MOH level by programming. Ask your dealer to help you. David On 6 Sep 2002 14:06:00 -0700, ghg5500@yahoo.com (ghg5500@yahoo.com) wrote: > Hello there, I was wondering if someone knew if it is possible to > improve the fidelity and volume level of the music-on-hold for a > Panasonic DBS VB-43060 system. Or perhaps someone can recommend some > alternative methods to my solution of a ~$30 CD player plugged into > the MOH. ;) > Currently I have a portable CD player connected through the headphones > output into the single MOH RCA jack of the DBS. The volume can only > be increased slightly before it begins to clip, and the fidelity is > horrible. I thought I saw something that mentioned an internal knob > or dial that would help with this (maybe a gain knob or something?) -- > however if it it exists I cannot find it. > Thanks much. ------------------------------ From: Richard Haendel Subject: How Can Someone Receive a Call From 555-XXXX? Date: Wed, 11 Sep 2002 04:02:09 GMT Organization: AT&T Worldnet Recently, I got a call from some telemarketer for which the number displayed as "614-555-5555" on my caller id. How is this possible? Everyone knows that 555 is a fictional number reserved for TV shows, movies, etc. So how can anyone have a number that starts with 555? Are they manipulating the caller-id number? I did not think that was possible, either. Thanks, Richard Haendel [TELECOM Digest Editor's Note: 'Everyone knows' also that 555 is a fictional thing for telemarketers to present for numbers. This is just another reason that SWB's 'Privacy Manager' service is so bogus. On the caller-id box which you have to get to buy Privacy Manager, any of these phrases will qualify as a valid 'name' on the name line of the ID box: 'Name Withheld', 'Wireless Caller', 'Out of Area', maybe others. Qualifying 'phone numbers' include '555-555-1212', '555-555-5555' and '000-000-0000'. Any two of those meets the Privacy Manager requirements and gets passed through to you, no questions. As far as SWB is concerned, they gave you a name and number. Someone please explain to Mr. Haendel how the telemarketers do it. It was explained here recently but I do not remember all the details. PAT] ------------------------------ Date: Tue, 10 Sep 2002 23:19:11 -0400 From: Monty Solomon Subject: News Headlines of Interest 9/11/02 Hot spots: Free and for-profit Net zones pop up everywhere By D.C. Denison, Globe Staff, 9/9/2002 The two cafes are located on the same trendy block on Newbury Street, between Hereford Street and Massachusetts Ave. The Trident Booksellers and Cafe and Starbucks are separated by less than a hundred yards of red brick storefronts. But in the nascent field of WiFi technology, they are worlds apart. Turn on a wirelessly enabled laptop computer inside the Booksellers Cafe and you are automatically connected to the Internet through the free NewburyOpen.net, an idealistic attempt to build a free and open wireless community. A few doors down the street, Starbucks also offers wireless Internet connectivity as part of a nationwide partnership with T-Mobile ... for a fee. At this point in the development of WiFi, both ''hotspots'' - the name that has emerged for these wireless zones - represent distinct approaches to dealing with the kinds of issues that typically influence the adoption of new technology; both projects are also targeting radically different markets. Yet it's somewhere around the middle of the block, where their signals overlap for just a few yards in a mix of free and paid connectivity, that the future of this new WiFi technology probably lies. ... http://www.boston.com/dailyglobe2/252/business/Hot_spots+.shtml 10 September 2002 Source: US Patent Office: http://www.uspto.gov United States Patent 6,389,533 Davis , et al. May 14, 2002 Anonymity server Abstract An anonymity system including a cryptographic device. The cryptographic device of the anonymity system is adapted to initially determine whether a response to an incoming electronic message is requested. If so, an address of the anonymity system is encrypted with a key. In one embodiment, the key may be a public key of a system targeted to receive an outgoing electronic message from the anonymity system inclusive of data contained in the incoming electronic message. The encrypted address is placed into an outgoing electronic message before re-routing to the target system to allow the target system to re-route the response back to the anonymity system. ... http://cryptome.org/intel-anon.htm Is roaming coming to Wi-Fi? By Ben Charny Staff Writer, CNET News.com September 10, 2002, 3:29 PM PT Networking groups around the globe are working on ways for Web surfers to roam on any number of wireless networks -- just as mobile phone users roam on cellular networks. The popularity of Wi-Fi -- which features networking nodes that use the 802.11b wireless technology to broadcast an Internet connection over a radius of 300 feet -- has spawned a number of independent companies that offer wireless services. Yet it is difficult, and prohibitively expensive, for many customers of a Wi-Fi service to use the network of another. The barrier to wireless roaming lies not in technology, but in that carriers have only just started to iron out billing issues. "The bits, the bytes and the hardware exist for roaming. We just need someone to start pulling it all together," said Barry Davis, Intel's director of platform architecture. He's attending a meeting this week of the Institute of Electrical and Electronic Engineers (IEEE) in Monterey, Calif., held to discuss how to jumpstart Wi-Fi roaming. ... http://news.com.com/2100-1033-957411.html ------------------------------ From: steve2316@aol.com (Steve2316) Date: 10 Sep 2002 21:05:32 GMT Organization: AOL http://www.aol.com Subject: Re: How many CSU's Do I Need If the CSU card in the CISCO is a T1 all you would need is a CSU for the other end. If the CSU (WIC Card) isn't a T1 CSU then you'll need 2. ------------------------------ From: berniekinkos2@yahoo.com Subject: I Got Certified and a New Job !! Organization: Prodigy Internet http://www.prodigy.com Date: Tue, 10 Sep 2002 22:55:28 GMT Check out ABC University's online computer training courseware. Get access to certification classes for 1 year for as low as $125.00 per year. Learn Word, Excel, Unix, Oracle, Java, or Networking for pennies a day. Take Free classes http://www.wbcnet.net/signon1.htm Check out course catalog http://www.wbcnet.net/dpec/webpromo/catalog/contents.htm Register at: http://www.wbcnet.net/dpec/webpromo/psu/corporate.htm [TELECOM Digest Editor's Note: Is this message spam, or not? I am totally in favor of all the low-cost educational opportunities we can have, even this on-line thing. I have mixed emotions about messages like this, which seem to be okay, even though many would say it is not. But if I did not run this kind of message then what about the occassional messages I get from UCLA offering 'real' (in person with a real, live instructor) classes I get? Decisions, decisions! PAT] ------------------------------ From: Joey Lindstrom Date: Wed, 11 Sep 2002 15:57:02 -0600 Reply-To: Joey Lindstrom Subject: Know Your Alpha Bravo Charlies On Wed, 11 Sep 2002 17:06:52 -0400 (EDT), editor@telecom-digest.org wrote: > [TELECOM Digest Editor's Note: Not only on cell phones and not only > with T and P. That's why it helps to spell out the first (or any > critical letter) in a name when talking to DA. As in P Paul, T Tom, > O Oliver, L London, etc. PAT] Like many things in the telecommunications field, this practice, too, is standardized, as follows: Alpha Bravo Charlie Delta Echo Foxtrot Golf Hotel India Juliet Kilo (KEE-loh) Lima (LEE-muh) Mike November Oscar Papa Quebec Romeo Sierra Tango Uniform Victor Whistkey X-Ray Yankee Zulu. Also, when saying numbers, "five" and "nine" can sound the same, so "nine" should be stretched to two syllables, to sound like "niner". Joey Lindstrom - Laird's Flooring joey@lairdsflooring.com [TELECOM Digest Editor's Note: I thought fives and nines were supposed to be fi-of and nye-unn? That's always how I used to hear operators say them. PAT] ------------------------------ From: Entropy Music Subject: FA: Turn Your Answering Machine Into a TeleZapper!! Organization: AT&T Broadband Date: Wed, 11 Sep 2002 22:07:17 GMT I am auctioning the same tones sent by the TeleZapper to a telemarketer's dialing computers, informing it that your phone number is no longer in service. The telemarketer's computers will automatically take your number off of their call list and you won't have to talk with sales people to do this!! This is a better technology solution than buying a TeleZapper because you can put it on any or all of your answering machines ... with no cords or fuss. Here is the link: http://cgi.ebay.com/ws/eBayISAPI.dll?ViewItem&item=1380184660 ------------------------------ TELECOM Digest is an electronic journal devoted mostly but not exclusively to telecommunications topics. It is circulated anywhere there is email, in addition to various telecom forums on a variety of networks such as Compuserve and America On Line, 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: 620-870-9697 Fax 1: 775-255-9970 Fax 2: 775-306-8390 Fax 3: 530-309-7234 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 second 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) Email <==> FTP: telecom-archives@telecom-digest.org Send a simple, one line note to that automated address for a help file on how to use the automatic retrieval system for archives files. You can get desired files in email. ************************************************************************* * 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. Access to Premium (P) links requires upgrade to a paid subscription. One click a day feeds a person a meal. Go to http://www.thehungersite.com Only subscribers or registered users of ICB Toll Free News web site will be able to access all or some of the full text of URLs provided. LEGAL STUFF: TELECOM Digest (sm) is owned by Patrick Townson. Copyright 2000 ICB, Inc. and TELECOM Digest. All rights reserved. Our attorney is Bill Levant, of Blue Bell, PA. --------------------------------------------------------------- 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 twenty 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 V22 #33 ***************************** From editor@telecom-digest.org Thu Sep 12 00:03:08 2002 Received: from localhost (localhost [[UNIX: localhost]]) by massis.lcs.mit.edu (8.11.3nb1/8.11.3) id g8C438Y18387; Thu, 12 Sep 2002 00:03:08 -0400 (EDT) Date: Thu, 12 Sep 2002 00:03:08 -0400 (EDT) From: editor@telecom-digest.org Message-Id: <200209120403.g8C438Y18387@massis.lcs.mit.edu> X-Authentication-Warning: massis.lcs.mit.edu: ptownson set sender to editor@telecom-digest.org using -f To: ptownson Approved: patsnewlist Subject: TELECOM Digest V22 #34 TELECOM Digest Thu, 12 Sep 2002 00:03:00 EDT Volume 22 : Issue 34 Inside This Issue: Editor: Patrick A. Townson Re: FA: Turn Your Answering Machine Into a TeleZapper!! (John Galt) Re: FA: Turn Your Answering Machine Into a TeleZapper!! (Bit Twister) Re: FA: Turn Your Answering Machine Into a TeleZapper!! (John Higdon) Re: Know Your Alpha Bravo Charlies (Wes Leatherock) Re: Know Your Alpha Bravo Charlies (William Warren) Re: Know Your Alpha Bravo Charlies (Hudson Leighton) Nye-unn Niner - the Number of the Great One (Joey Lindstrom) Re: How Can Someone Receive a Call From 555-XXXX? (John Higdon) Re: How Can Someone Receive a Call From 555-XXXX? (Mark Brader) Re: Sprint RIPOFF Alert: DA is Now $2.49 per Call! MCI, Too!!! (J Galt) Yahoo Set to Take Speed Challenge (Monty Solomon) Ring Trip BER - Alcatel DSLAM (t0rk) Re: I Got Certified and a New Job !! (John Higdon) 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. WE DO NOT PERMIT NAME/EMAIL ADDRESS HARVESTING FROM THIS JOURNAL. 'SALTED' EMAIL ADDRESSES APPEAR HEREIN TO VERIFY THIS. YOU GET SUED IN SMALL CLAIMS COURT IF YOU GET CAUGHT SPAMMING OR SENDING VIRUSES. DON'T DO IT. See the bottom of this issue for subscription and archive details and the name of our lawyer; other stuff of interest. ---------------------------------------------------------------------- From: John David Galt Subject: Re: FA: Turn Your Answering Machine Into a TeleZapper!! Date: Wed, 11 Sep 2002 16:37:33 -0700 Organization: Diogenes the Cynic Hot-Tubbing Society Entropy Music wrote: > I am auctioning the same tones sent by the TeleZapper to a > telemarketer's dialing computers, informing it that your phone number > is no longer in service. The telemarketer's computers will > automatically take your number off of their call list and you won't > have to talk with sales people to do this!! > This is a better technology solution than buying a TeleZapper because > you can put it on any or all of your answering machines ... with no > cords or fuss. Perhaps it is, but why would anyone pay for it when anyone can download it for free? http://bobcat.bbn.com/bobcatftp/pub/telecom/intercepts/sit.wav ------------------------------ From: BitTwister@localhost.localdomain (Bit Twister) Subject: Re: FA: Turn Your Answering Machine Into a TeleZapper!! Organization: attbi.com user getting ~16.9 kbyte/sec news feed Date: Thu, 12 Sep 2002 00:00:09 GMT On Wed, 11 Sep 2002 22:07:17 GMT, Entropy Music wrote: > I am auctioning the same tones sent by the TeleZapper to a > telemarketer's dialing computers, informing it that your phone number > is no longer in service. Why not download them for free: http://www.privatecitizen.com/sit-tone.wav ------------------------------ From: John Higdon Subject: Re: FA: Turn Your Answering Machine Into a TeleZapper!! Organization: Green Hills and Cows Date: Wed, 11 Sep 2002 17:02:34 -0700 In article , Entropy Music wrote: > I am auctioning the same tones sent by the TeleZapper to a > telemarketer's dialing computers, informing it that your phone number > is no longer in service. I don't mean to be a pill, but why would anyone pay you for something they can generate themselves for free? Or they can download them: http://www.dianamey.com/SIT_tones.html John Higdon | Email Address Valid | SF: +1 415 428-COWS +1 408 264 4115 | Anytown, USA | FAX: +1 408 264 4407 [TELECOM Digest Editor's Note: Isn't that a great thing about this telecom newsgroup! Three different writers, three different sources for free tones, which Mr. Entropy was going to sell to us. Anyway, the TeleZapper is a total ripoff. It only puts out *one* of the tones rather than all three which are needed. Here is a fourth source, for guys who would rather just purchase it instead of cluttering up thier homes with another answering machine or tape player. Ask for details on Telemarketer Stopper from mike@sandman.com . It got one of his and it works just fine. PAT] ------------------------------ From: wesrock@aol.com (Wes Leatherock) Date: 11 Sep 2002 23:51:35 GMT Organization: AOL http://www.aol.com Subject: Re: Know Your Alpha Bravo Charlies On Wed, 11 Sep 2002 15:57:02 -0600 Joey Lindstrom joey@lairdsflooring.com wrote: > On Wed, 11 Sep 2002 17:06:52 -0400 > Also, when saying numbers, "five" and "nine" can sound the same, so > "nine" should be stretched to two syllables, to sound like "niner". G. Gordon Liddy always pronounces it "niner" on his talk show, even in ordinary conversation when there is no possibility of confusion. (Is he still on? I haven't heard him recently while surfing the stations in Oklahoma.) A columnist in the magazine "Popular Communications" notes that most public safety agencies in the U.S.A. use a different set of phonetics promulgated by the Association of Public Safety Communications Officers: Adam Baker Charles David Edward Frank George Henry Ida John King Lincoln Mary Nora Ocean Paul Queen Robert Sam Tom Union Victor William X-Ray Young Zebra. In any event, most of the people calling Directory Assistance have no idea of any system of phonetics, so it doesn't really matter what the ITU and the ICAO say. Some callers will remember the old military phoentics that begin Able Baker Charlie. Wes Leatherock wesrock@aol.com wleathus@yahoo.com ------------------------------ Reply-To: William Warren From: William Warren Subject: Re: Know Your Alpha Bravo Charlies Organization: Church of the Swimming Bullfrog Date: Thu, 12 Sep 2002 00:13:35 GMT Joey Lindstrom wrote in message news:telecom22.33.9@telecom-digest.org: > On Wed, 11 Sep 2002 17:06:52 -0400 (EDT), editor@telecom-digest.org > wrote: >> [TELECOM Digest Editor's Note: Not only on cell phones and not only >> with T and P. That's why it helps to spell out the first (or any >> critical letter) in a name when talking to DA. As in P Paul, T Tom, >> O Oliver, L London, etc. PAT] > Like many things in the telecommunications field, this practice, too, > is standardized, as follows: > Alpha Bravo Charlie Delta Echo Foxtrot Golf Hotel India Juliet Kilo > (KEE-loh) Lima (LEE-muh) Mike November Oscar Papa Quebec Romeo Sierra > Tango Uniform Victor Whistkey X-Ray Yankee Zulu. > Also, when saying numbers, "five" and "nine" can sound the same, so > "nine" should be stretched to two syllables, to sound like "niner". > [TELECOM Digest Editor's Note: I thought fives and nines were > supposed to be fi-of and nye-unn? That's always how I used to hear > operators say them. PAT] Pat, The ICAO phonetic alphabet that Joey illustrated was adopted by the military sometime between the Korean and Vietnam wars, and along with the different phonetic names it also has some different customs as to pronunciation. HTH. William ------------------------------ From: hudsonl@skypoint.com (Hudson Leighton) Subject: Re: Know Your Alpha Bravo Charlies Date: Wed, 11 Sep 2002 20:10:26 -0500 Organization: MRRP In article , Joey Lindstrom wrote: > Like many things in the telecommunications field, this practice, too, > is standardized, as follows: > Alpha Bravo Charlie Delta Echo Foxtrot Golf Hotel India Juliet Kilo > (KEE-loh) Lima (LEE-muh) Mike November Oscar Papa Quebec Romeo Sierra > Tango Uniform Victor Whistkey X-Ray Yankee Zulu. > Joey Lindstrom - Laird's Flooring > joey@lairdsflooring.com Why do I always think of Russian Submarines when I hear the above? -Hudson -- http://www.skypoint.com/~hudsonl ------------------------------ From: Joey Lindstrom Date: Wed, 11 Sep 2002 17:49:41 -0600 Reply-To: Joey Lindstrom Subject: Nye-unn Niner - the Number of the Great One On Wed, 11 Sep 2002 19:08:50 -0400 (EDT), editor@telecom-digest.org wrote: > [TELECOM Digest Editor's Note: I thought fives and nines were > supposed to be fi-of and nye-unn? That's always how I used to hear > operators say them. PAT] You're probably right. While the Alpha Bravo Charlies are fairly standard, differences arise with numbers. The info I quoted is generally true in RADIO communications (especially between ground and aircraft). Both schemes work well: on a crackly line or a poor radio signal, both get the point across. Whenever I'm on the phone and have to spell my name (not a common one) to someone, say the droid at the phone company, I usually say "it's tough to spell so I'll say it phonetically. L as in Lima, I as in India, November, Delta, Sierra ..." etc. With most of these droids, if you just launch into phonetics without preamble and say Papa Alpha Tango Romeo India Charlie Kilo, they'll think you're screwing with them. :-) / From the desk of Joey Lindstrom / I saw a small bottle of cologne and asked if it was for sale. She said, / "It's free with purchase." I asked her if anyone bought anything today. / --Steven Wright ------------------------------ From: John Higdon Subject: Re: How Can Someone Receive a Call From 555-XXXX? Organization: Green Hills and Cows Date: Wed, 11 Sep 2002 16:40:34 -0700 In article , Richard Haendel wrote: > Are they manipulating the caller-id number? I did not think that was > possible, either. The Caller-ID from a PRI-connected PBX comes from the PBX switch itself. Whoever configures the PBX controls what the phone sends as Caller-ID. > [TELECOM Digest Editor's Note: 'Everyone knows' also that 555 is a > fictional thing for telemarketers to present for numbers. This is > just another reason that SWB's 'Privacy Manager' service is so > bogus. On the caller-id box which you have to get to buy Privacy > Manager, any of these phrases will qualify as a valid 'name' on the > name line of the ID box: 'Name Withheld', 'Wireless Caller', 'Out of > Area', maybe others. Qualifying 'phone numbers' include '555-555-1212', > '555-555-5555' and '000-000-0000'. Of course, when you see numbers like that, you let the call go to voicemail. Very rarely is a "bogus number" a legitimate call. -- John Higdon | Email Address Valid | SF: +1 415 428-COWS +1 408 264 4115 | Anytown, USA | FAX: +1 408 264 4407 [TELECOM Digest Editor's Note: That's assuming I am sitting at the table where my caller id box is located. (Actually its on top of the microwave oven in the kitchen.) What happens if I am in my bedroom or the computer room? I have phones there also but only one caller id box as mentioned above. It would be nice if SWB did their job as well. I wonder if Privacy Manager has any way to manually edit 'obvious' choices? PAT] ------------------------------ Subject: Re: How Can Someone Receive a Call From 555-XXXX? Date: Wed, 11 Sep 2002 21:05:46 EDT From: msb@vex.net (Mark Brader) Richard Haendel writes: > Recently, I got a call from some telemarketer for which the number > displayed as "614-555-5555" on my caller id. > How is this possible? I have no idea. Someone else can answer that. > Everyone knows that 555 is a fictional number reserved for TV shows, > movies, etc. This hasn't been true for quite a few years. Only 555-01XX, a range of 100 numbers, is now reserved for fictitious use. This is why you now see the same fictitious phone number coming up in different movies; the scriptwriters have too few to choose from! (For example, in 1999 "The Insider" and "American Beauty" both used 555-0199.) Most 555-numbers are now allocated to commercial "information services"; the same number may be allocated to different users in different areas code. You can download the current allocations (zipped text file) from under . However, most of the 555- numbers that end with a quadrupled digit are among the 116 numbers whose ownership is disputed, and 555-5555 is one of these. So I presume it is indeed a bogus number until that dispute is resolved. Mark Brader | "I do not want to give the impression I spend all Toronto | my time on the Internet, but in the right hands msb@vex.net | it is a wondrous tool, and in the wrong hands | it is an even better one." -- Cecil Adams My text in this article is in the public domain. ------------------------------ From: John David Galt Subject: Re: Sprint RIPOFF Alert: DA is Now $2.49 per Call! MCI, Too!!! Date: Wed, 11 Sep 2002 16:23:02 -0700 Organization: Diogenes the Cynic Hot-Tubbing Society Dr. Joel M. Hoffman wrote: > Relatedly, I recently tried to get 1-800 directory assitance on a > weekend, and ALL I could get was a computer with voice-recognition > s/w. I was told that operators are ONLY available Monday through > Friday. > Is there anyone left who thinks that a free market will make our phone > service better? I do. But it has to be a market with truly equal competition, which can only come from unbundling the local loop (and all ISPs) from the LECs. If the FCC weren't bought and paid for by the RBOCs, this would be the law by now. CLEC service has been available in my neighborhood for only the last few months, and only because the county owns the poles and easements so that all companies can use them. Most of the rest of the state is still out of luck, especially WRT broadband. I can't wait until the newcomers get around to actually implementing LNP. ------------------------------ Date: Wed, 11 Sep 2002 19:27:28 -0400 From: Monty Solomon Subject: Yahoo Set to Take Speed Challenge By Jim Hu Staff Writer, CNET News.com September 11, 2002, 4:00 AM PT Yahoo is poised to unveil its long-awaited broadband partnership with SBC Communications, a deal that marks a major test in the Web portal's bid to turn millions of its users, first attracted by free services, into paying customers. Sources close to the company said Yahoo and SBC will launch a co-branded DSL (digital subscriber line) service by early next week, rebutting doubters who had suggested the product might not get off the ground before the end of the year. Now comes the hard part: Yahoo enters an arena littered with deals gone bad, from the spectacular blowout of Excite@Home, to its own earlier failed dial-up offerings with partners including MCI Internet and AT&T. History aside, the potential rewards may well be worth the risks. With the broadband deal, Yahoo CEO Terry Semel hopes to create a springboard to sell a lucrative new class of high-speed Net services, such as online music subscriptions -- which have thus far failed to take off. Even naysayers admit there may be a strategic significance to the deal if the two companies can carry out the plan. ... http://news.com.com/2100-1023-957432.html [TELECOM Digest Editor's Note: Well, SBC Global (SWB's high speed internet service) and Yahoo have both been hawking it for quite a while now. SBC and Prodigy have a deal also. Prodigy operates the 'web page features' and the Usenet and other newsgroups for SBC that I get when I (using DSL) ask for http://sbcglobal.net . You ask for that page and it comes up saying SBC/Prodigy with all sorts of links to things that Prodify operates. Now about two weeks ago I got a CD from SBC which turned out to be used for 'Yahoo/SBC Internet Dialup Service', in other words for use with a 'regular' (up to 56k) modem. All I wanted was the front end browser, which sort of resembles MSN's browser which immediatly did the same thing as MSN's browser by installing itself in the Windows registry and demanded to be used as the 'default' browser instead of IE or Netscape or Opera, all of which I have on my desktop and prefer over MSN or the new Yahoo/SBC Dialup. I would not have bothered with it at all, except the Yahoo/SBC browser includes some buttons to get radio stations easily. Part of the deal also was Yahoo now has an internet money transfer feature similar to PayPal which was included in the CD I got from SWB/SBCGlobal. So it would appear Prodigy and Yahoo are in it together with SBCGlobal. It should be interesting to see how it works out a year from now. PAT] ------------------------------ From: t0rk@hotmail.com (t0rk) Subject: Ring Trip BER - Alcatel DSLAM Date: 11 Sep 2002 16:34:12 -0700 Organization: http://groups.google.com/ Hello, Does anyone know how to test for Ring Trip BER? I have the capability to pull information right off the DSLAM, I just don't know how to calculate it. I have the ATU-C and ATU-R in synchronization. I have -48v on the line and the ability to ring a phone and go on-hook and off-hook. I am just confused if I should pull the information off the DSLAM or the Modem. If I pull the info off the DSLAM what commands should I look for or how do I calculate it? Thanks, t0rk ------------------------------ From: John Higdon Subject: Re: I Got Certified and a New Job !! Organization: Green Hills and Cows Date: Wed, 11 Sep 2002 16:56:48 -0700 In article , berniekinkos2@yahoo.com wrote: > [TELECOM Digest Editor's Note: Is this message spam, or not? Yep: host mx1.mail.yahoo.com [64.157.4.83]: 554 delivery error: dd Sorry your message to berniekinkos2@yahoo.com cannot be delivered. This account has been disabled or discontinued [#101]. - mta502.mail.yahoo.com > I am totally in favor of all the low-cost educational opportunities > we can have, even this on-line thing. I have mixed emotions about > messages like this, which seem to be okay, even though many would > say it is not. But if I did not run this kind of message then what > about the occassional messages I get from UCLA offering 'real' (in > person with a real, live instructor) classes I get? Decisions, > decisions! PAT] This is true. But remember, community colleges all over the country offer low-cost opportunities for education in relevant fields. These are not "special opportunities" but ongoing educational programs that culminate in a real diploma. Please differentiate between these programs and the thousands of commercial training mills that are after one thing: educational assistance money. The targets of this advertising are unemployed people who don't understand that, in general, the best training for a job ... is a job. Personnel directors practically give a negative weighting to certificates from training mills. Of course, you are running the show, but my two cents would be to can the spam from training mills and publish truly exceptional or unusual course offerings from accredited colleges and universities. There won't be very many of them because this is what our colleges and universities do day in and day out: educate people with relevant skills and then certify them with degrees. -- John Higdon | Email Address Valid | SF: +1 415 428-COWS +1 408 264 4115 | Anytown, USA | FAX: +1 408 264 4407 [TELECOM Digest Editor's Note: I used to get messages from UCLA (I think maybe because of my personal account on berkeley.edu) sent by a guy who was in charge of their frequent one-day seminars and such. And you may remember I would always run them here because they seemed very worthwhile, although a trifle expensive. And I would also run the announcements of seminars, etc I got on my account at cs.bu.edu for the same reason. A lot of guys can profit by attending those one/two-day seminar things, even if they are already employed. I dunno about myself; the aneurysm left my brain in such bad condition I can't concentrate more than a few minutes at a time. I'm not one to get dressed and fly off to Berkeley or Boston to go to a seminar anyway. No money, but more important, these days no patience, and I tire easily. And that's where things like 'ABC University' -- as it calls itself -- and its email-order diploma mill might be very handy. It arrives in email; you work on it at your leisure. If you benefit and learn new programming skills, etc or how to get 'Microsoft certified' who am I to complain? God only knows we need more educated netizens. Unlike the 1980's all netizens are not computer scientists, like it or not. That's the tricky thing about 'spam'. We are all against it, yet my 'spam' is (to you) valued information and vice-versa. And really, who do you hear complaining about spam except the better educated members of our community, such as this newsgroup you are reading now. How many of the very young guys you see hanging out on Yahoo Messenger or AOL chat lines do you hear complaining about it? I dunno the answer, John. I really don't. I only wish that when I was a teenager there had been an internet, spam or otherwise on it. I also wish that as a seventeen year old junior in high school employed as a PBX operator by the University of Chicago I had done things differently also. When (then, UC President) Beadle offered me a full scholarship for four years at UC ('don't worry about the cost, I will get it cleared with the Trustees') I wish I had taken him up on that also, instead of issuing the first of many to follow Editor's Notes on various topics. But I didn't, and now my deseased brain is too far gone to backtrack in life. What do 'they' say about better to suffer skinned knees and broken bones as a child than endure the broken heart and unfulfilled dreams of an older adult? Ah, but I better quit crying in my beer and close this issue of the Digest before I lose control completely. No Last Laugh! this time ... 'taint a bit funny, not at all. PAT] ------------------------------ TELECOM Digest is an electronic journal devoted mostly but not exclusively to telecommunications topics. It is circulated anywhere there is email, in addition to various telecom forums on a variety of networks such as Compuserve and America On Line, 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: 620-870-9697 Fax 1: 775-255-9970 Fax 2: 775-306-8390 Fax 3: 530-309-7234 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 second 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) Email <==> FTP: telecom-archives@telecom-digest.org Send a simple, one line note to that automated address for a help file on how to use the automatic retrieval system for archives files. You can get desired files in email. ************************************************************************* * 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. Access to Premium (P) links requires upgrade to a paid subscription. One click a day feeds a person a meal. Go to http://www.thehungersite.com Only subscribers or registered users of ICB Toll Free News web site will be able to access all or some of the full text of URLs provided. LEGAL STUFF: TELECOM Digest (sm) is owned by Patrick Townson. Copyright 2000 ICB, Inc. and TELECOM Digest. All rights reserved. Our attorney is Bill Levant, of Blue Bell, PA. --------------------------------------------------------------- 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 twenty 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 V22 #34 ***************************** From editor@telecom-digest.org Fri Sep 13 14:08:55 2002 Received: from localhost (localhost [[UNIX: localhost]]) by massis.lcs.mit.edu (8.11.3nb1/8.11.3) id g8DI8tC28919; Fri, 13 Sep 2002 14:08:55 -0400 (EDT) Date: Fri, 13 Sep 2002 14:08:55 -0400 (EDT) From: editor@telecom-digest.org Message-Id: <200209131808.g8DI8tC28919@massis.lcs.mit.edu> X-Authentication-Warning: massis.lcs.mit.edu: ptownson set sender to editor@telecom-digest.org using -f To: ptownson Approved: patsnewlist Subject: TELECOM Digest V22 #35 TELECOM Digest Fri, 13 Sep 2002 14:07:00 EDT Volume 22 : Issue 35 Inside This Issue: Editor: Patrick A. Townson Re: I Got Certified and a New Job !! (Robert Bonomi) Re: I Got Certified and a New Job !! (John R. Levine) And Now For Something Completely Different (Joey Lindstrom) Re: Know Your Alpha Bravo Charlies (GHS) Re: Know Your Alpha Bravo Charlies (George Mitchell) Re: Nye-unn Niner - the Number of the Great One (Justin Time) Re: Is This Possible (Paul A Lee) Re: FA: Turn Your Answering Machine Into a TeleZapper!! (Karla) Re: How Can Someone Receive a Call From 555-XXXX? (Gordon Hlavenka) Re: How Can Someone Receive a Call From 555-XXXX? (Fritz Whittington) Re: How Can Someone Receive a Call From 555-XXXX? (The Masked Marvel) Re: Yahoo Set to Take Speed Challenge (Jeff Grossman) Re: Yahoo Set to Take Speed Challenge (Wes Leatherock) SBC Yahoo! DSL (Monty Solomon) 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. WE DO NOT PERMIT NAME/EMAIL ADDRESS HARVESTING FROM THIS JOURNAL. 'SALTED' EMAIL ADDRESSES APPEAR HEREIN TO VERIFY THIS. YOU GET SUED IN SMALL CLAIMS COURT IF YOU GET CAUGHT SPAMMING OR SENDING VIRUSES. DON'T DO IT. See the bottom of this issue for subscription and archive details and the name of our lawyer; other stuff of interest. ---------------------------------------------------------------------- Subject: Re: I Got Certified and a New Job !! Organization: Not Much From: bonomi@c-ns (Robert Bonomi) Date: Fri, 13 Sep 2002 09:52:35 GMT In article , wrote: [[.. spam removed ..]] > [TELECOM Digest Editor's Note: Is this message spam, or not? I am > totally in favor of all the low-cost educational opportunities we > can have, even this on-line thing. I have mixed emotions about > messages like this, which seem to be okay, even though many would > say it is not. But if I did not run this kind of message then what > about the occassional messages I get from UCLA offering 'real' (in > person with a real, live instructor) classes I get? Decisions, > decisions! PAT] It's really _easy_ to cull out *most* of the spam, while letting the (e.g.) UCLA messages through. For starters: 1) Does it come from a 'trusted' source? If somebody like Judith, or Monty, submits it, it's almost assuredly legit. It's _possible_ they got fooled by something, but *not* at all likely. :) 2) Does it come from someone who has sent you legitimate stuff previously? Not worth 'significant' effort to research, as much as "does the email address 'ring a bell'?" If 'yes', probably legit' if 'no', it does -not- imply spam, per se -- just that the question is 'still open'. 3) Is there an "obvious" relationship between the sender, and the material being promoted? E.g., if it's UCLA courses, does it come _from_ UCLA, or the course instructor? 4) Does it have 'forged' headers, or was it 'relayed' through some intermediary, rather than direct from the putative sender's system? For Example, why would a -legitimate- 'low-cost educational opportunity' feel the need to relay their messages of a mailserver located at an elementary school in Korea? {that is a "_Rhett_-orical" question, by the way -- which is defined as one that you ask, "But frankly, my dear, don't give a Damn" about the answer. } These are *absolutely*reliable* indicators of spam. 5) "testimonials" are highly suspect. "testimonials" in the subject line, _without_ any 'supporting details' in the body, are -virtually- sure sign of spam. A large part of the -value- of a moderated mailing-list and discussion group is that the cr*p _is_ filtered out. Please, _if_ you include things like this, of 'questionable' quality, *TAG* them in the subject line, in a 'standardized' form, so that the readershp -knows- what they are, _before_ reading. General convention for such tagging is something in square brackets at the beginning of the subject line. I'd suggest maybe "[Mod. ??]", for stuff you're not sure is legit/appropriate. Or even "[Spam]". ------------------------------ Date: 11 Sep 2002 22:36:19 -0400 From: johnl@iecc.com (John R. Levine) Subject: Re: I Got Certified and a New Job !! Organization: I.E.C.C., Trumansburg NY USA In article you write: > Check out ABC University's online computer training courseware. > [TELECOM Digest Editor's Note: Is this message spam, or not? It's spam. I got several. The only legit outfit running much distance education is the University of Phoenix. John R. Levine, IECC, POB 727, Trumansburg NY 14886 +1 607 387 6869 johnl@iecc.com Village Trustee and Sewer Commissioner http://iecc.com/johnl Member, Provisional board, Coalition Against Unsolicited Commercial E-mail ------------------------------ From: Joey Lindstrom Date: Thu, 12 Sep 2002 09:57:36 -0600 Reply-To: Joey Lindstrom Subject: And Now For Something Completely Different On Thu, 12 Sep 2002 00:03:08 -0400 (EDT), editor@telecom-digest.org wrote: > That's the tricky thing about 'spam'. We are all against it, yet > my 'spam' is (to you) valued information and vice-versa. Not really, Pat. You fall into the trap (as I have a few times) of believing that there should be a subjective, rather than objective, definition of spam. But the definition IS objective. I decided to look the word up on dictionary.com and here's what it came back with: spam n. Unsolicited e-mail, often of a commercial nature, sent indiscriminately to multiple mailing lists, individuals, or newsgroups; junk e-mail. tr.v. spammed, spamming, spams To send unsolicited e-mail to. To send (a message) indiscriminately to multiple mailing lists, individuals, or newsgroups. [From Spam(probably inspired by a comedy routine on the British television series Monty Python's Flying Circus, in which the word is repeated incessantly).] ================================================================= I've seen several worthwhile things advertised in spam. Lately it's Norton Systemworks - ok, some of you might not like it but a lot of people do, and it's hard to argue that it's not a "legitimate" product (as opposed to the make money fast, viagra, and Nigerian scam emails that litter our inboxes). But regardless of how worthwhile the product, be it Norton Systemworks or educational courses, the fact remains: it's spam. We didn't ask for it, it's commercial, and it's email. UCE, QED. To my mind, it's the principle of the thing: regardless of what you're advertising, you (the spammer) have *NO* right to require *ME* to pay for the cost of your advertising, which is what all spammers (and unsolicited faxers) do. Any other anti-spam argument is superfluous: I may agree with it, but the bottom line is the "I'm paying to receive advertising" argument. BTW, for what it's worth, I've sent several copies of these Nortons Systemworks spams to the good folks at Symantec, informing them of what's going on and suggesting they crack down on the sellers. I haven't had so much as an acknowledgement, never mind a thank-you, and the spams keep coming. Given Symantec's silence, I am left with no choice but to assume Symantec is either in league with the spammers or has at least given them their tacit approval. And that makes them just as bad as the spammers. Today, I removed Norton Anti-Virus from several machines and replaced it with the AVG virus-scanner (free, downloadable at http://www.grisoft.com). Joey Lindstrom - Laird's Flooring joey@lairdsflooring.com ------------------------------ From: GHS Subject: Re: Know Your Alpha Bravo Charlies Date: Thu, 12 Sep 2002 02:06:51 UTC Organization: Cavalier Telephone, LLC. The NATO version is written "Alpha Juliet Xray" and the ITU version is "Alfa Juliett X-ray". Here's a reference from a collector of phonetic alphabets, follow the link to the full list to see a lot of variations. http://www.bckelk.uklinux.net/menu.html Joey Lindstrom posted message news:telecom22.33.9@telecom-digest.org in comp.dcom.telecom: > Like many things in the telecommunications field, this practice, too, > is standardized, as follows: > Alpha Bravo Charlie Delta Echo Foxtrot Golf Hotel India Juliet Kilo > (KEE-loh) Lima (LEE-muh) Mike November Oscar Papa Quebec Romeo Sierra > Tango Uniform Victor Whistkey X-Ray Yankee Zulu. > Also, when saying numbers, "five" and "nine" can sound the same, so > "nine" should be stretched to two syllables, to sound like "niner". ------------------------------ From: George Mitchell Subject: Re: Know Your Alpha Bravo Charlies Date: Thu, 12 Sep 2002 12:24:47 -0700 Organization: Posted via Supernews, http://www.supernews.com Joey Lindstrom wrote: > Like many things in the telecommunications field, this practice, too, > is standardized, as follows: > Alpha Bravo Charlie Delta Echo Foxtrot Golf Hotel India Juliet Kilo > (KEE-loh) Lima (LEE-muh) Mike November Oscar Papa Quebec Romeo Sierra > Tango Uniform Victor Whistkey X-Ray Yankee Zulu. > Also, when saying numbers, "five" and "nine" can sound the same, so > "nine" should be stretched to two syllables, to sound like "niner". In the days of yore when John Campbell was editing Analog, he proposed a phonetic alphabet for obfuscation. For example, using "phthisic" (pronounced "tisik") for the letter "p". I haven't been able to find the rest of his alphabet online. Does anyone else remember this? -- George Mitchell (obfuscated email address to reduce spam) ------------------------------ From: a_user2000@yahoo.com (Justin Time) Subject: Re: Nye-unn Niner - the Number of the Great One Date: 12 Sep 2002 06:06:49 -0700 Organization: http://groups.google.com/ Joey Lindstrom wrote in message news:: > On Wed, 11 Sep 2002 19:08:50 -0400 (EDT), editor@telecom-digest.org > wrote: >> [TELECOM Digest Editor's Note: I thought fives and nines were >> supposed to be fi-of and nye-unn? That's always how I used to hear >> operators say them. PAT] > You're probably right. While the Alpha Bravo Charlies are fairly > standard, differences arise with numbers. The info I quoted is > generally true in RADIO communications (especially between ground and > aircraft). Both schemes work well: on a crackly line or a poor radio > signal, both get the point across. Whenever I'm on the phone and have > to spell my name (not a common one) to someone, say the droid at the > phone company, I usually say "it's tough to spell so I'll say it > phonetically. L as in Lima, I as in India, November, Delta, > Sierra ..." etc. With most of these droids, if you just launch into > phonetics without preamble and say Papa Alpha Tango Romeo India > Charlie Kilo, they'll think you're screwing with them. :-) > / From the desk of Joey Lindstrom > / I saw a small bottle of cologne and asked if it was for sale. She said, > / "It's free with purchase." I asked her if anyone bought anything today. > / --Steven Wright Now I'm really beginning to date myself, but back in the early 60's I was a ground radio operator for a small airline. The phonetic alphabet was just in the process of being "internationalized" and changing from Able - Baker - Charlie to Alpha - Bravo - Cocoa. We were instructed to speak numbers as if they had a single syllable. Thus three was "Tree", five was "Fife" and nine was "nine". The only exception was zero. We could pronounce it as "zee-ro" or "zaro." Punctuation marks were always preceeded by the word "Puctuation," while decimal points were stated as "decimal." Thus telling a pilot to change radio frequencies to 112.5 was spoken as "wun wun too decimal fife." But practices have changed over the past 40 years. [TELECOM Digest Editor's Note: Sometime in the sixties I put through a call for someone to a geologist, or earth scientist who was working on a project on the frozen ground in the Arctic Circle area of far northern Canada. 'Rate and Route' (remember them, operator routing plus 131 plus) told the local long distance operator it was handled by the Montreal Operator (position number) to some tiny, god-forsaken little town with no roads to it in northern Quebec. The local LD oper- ator got her on the line (I think 817+161+ or something like that) and told her what was wanted. The local LD operator was totally lost on it. First of all, Montreal answered in French, but she graciously switched to perfect English when she found out the local LD could not speak her language. "Well," she explained, "they only guarentee to answer between one and five pm Eastern; we are not supposed to bother them at other times unless it is an emergency. Is your call an emergency?" My LD was blown out of the water by that response, but she was advised on this end the call was not an emergency, and we would try the call again in the suggested time period. At the appointed time the call was tried again. I got through faster by asking local LD for 'Montreal Operator number (position number)' and we asked for the connection again. Again, Montreal answered in French, and switched to English when she found the calling operator could not speak French. This time Montreal said, "I will try to reach them on the radio, hold on please." Then she started asking for them to answer her on the radio, speaking in French, using the kind of Alpha Beta we have discussed here, with letter-word combinations. As before, my LD was blown out of the water. Eventually (I think it was called 'Elsemere Island') answered Montreal and *she* told him in French what was wanted. After they discussed it in French for a few seconds, she switched back to English and said to Chicago, "they are going to get him to come to the radio." When the called party answered on the radio, Montreal switched back to English and said to Chicago, "your party is on the line, mark your ticket as 'person to person'; that is the only way these radio calls are handled, not 'station to station'." I remember her use of Alpha, Beta, London, etc. As Lily Tomlin once said in an interview printed in the Christian Science Monitor around 1965 regards her 'Ernestine' routine, 'you knew things were gonna start going to hell in a hastily prepared handbasket once they started hiring racially diverse ladies who were not that well educated down at the phone company.' PAT] ------------------------------ From: Paul A Lee Subject: Re: Is This Possible Date: Thu, 12 Sep 2002 10:51:45 -0400 Sean Flanagan wrote: > We've got a channellized DS3 coming in to our building that is muxed > out to individual Ts that run into various telephony servers (read > voicemail/call center). > We would like to add a (switch?) that will allow us to dynamically > decide where to route a call PRIOR to being answered by voicemail or > the call center. We also make outbound calls as well as call from the > voicemail to the call center and back so we'd like to be able to base > the destination of the call on either the dialed number (for a real > network call) or a faked ANI/DNIS combination (to determine where in > the call center the call should go. With an M13 mux and an Avaya Definity R with Call Vectoring, it would be a piece of cake. If you use a very large number of different number combinations and digit patterns (masks) to base routing decisions on, you might need an adjunct processor. The latest Definity release has a lot of call processing built right in, though -- I'm not sure what limitations you'd face, if any. Paul A Lee Voice: +1 717 730-8355 Sr Telecom Engineer [Voice & Transmission] Fax: +1 717 975-3789 Rite Aid Corporation, Telecomm, 30 Hunter Lane, Camp Hill, PA 17011-2410 ------------------------------ From: Karla Subject: Re: FA: Turn Your Answering Machine Into a TeleZapper!! Date: Wed, 11 Sep 2002 22:35:58 -0400 Entropy Music wrote: > I am auctioning the same tones sent by the TeleZapper to a > telemarketer's dialing computers, informing it that your phone number > is no longer in service. The telemarketer's computers will > automatically take your number off of their call list and you won't > have to talk with sales people to do this!! > This is a better technology solution than buying a TeleZapper because > you can put it on any or all of your answering machines ... with no > cords or fuss. Hi Entropy, You can also find these tones all over the net, as well as their specifications. Just search for < sit tones >. Good sound quality helps, but most likely it will be limited by a typical answering machine's (lack of) fidelity anyway. Unfortunately, it seems that telemarketers are beginning to disregard these tones, so their lifetime of usefulness may be limited. Hope this helps! ------------------------------ Date: Thu, 12 Sep 2002 13:03:07 PDT From: Gordon Hlavenka Subject: Re: How Can Someone Receive a Call From 555-XXXX? Mark Brader wrote: > Only 555-01XX, a range of 100 numbers, is now reserved for > fictitious use. This is why you now see the same fictitious phone > number coming up in different movies; the scriptwriters have too few > to choose from! In Arnold Schwartzenegger's "Last Action Hero" the young protagonist is trying to prove to Arnold that he (Arnold) is a character and they're in a movie. (Bizarre plot, but I digress...) One method he tries is to ask several people their phone numbers; they all reply, "555-[something]". The kid then asks Arnold, "How many people live in this city?" and Arnold says several million. When the kid asks how it's possible to have so few numbers cover a whole city, Arnold says, "Haven't you ever heard of area codes?" That joke was funny, before Chicago had five area codes ... Gordon S. Hlavenka O- nospam@crashelex.com Burma! ------------------------------ From: Fritz Whittington Reply-To: f.whittington@att.net Organization: Only on odd Tuesdays Subject: Re: How Can Someone Receive a Call From 555-XXXX? Date: Thu, 12 Sep 2002 20:17:22 GMT Richard Haendel wrote: > Recently, I got a call from some telemarketer for which the number > displayed as "614-555-5555" on my caller id. Of course, this is in violation of FCC rules. But, if you don't report it, they will continue to do it. See: for how-to. Fritz Whittington TI Alum - http://www.tialumni.org ------------------------------ From: The Masked Marvel Subject: Re: How Can Someone Receive a Call From 555-XXXX? Organization: AT&T Broadband Date: Thu, 12 Sep 2002 22:39:16 GMT There're probably across the street from the ones at 000-000-0000. I get calls from them occasionally, but they always seem too shy to leave a message. Richard Haendel wrote in message news:telecom22.33.5@telecom-digest.org: > Recently, I got a call from some telemarketer for which the number > displayed as "614-555-5555" on my caller id. > How is this possible? > Everyone knows that 555 is a fictional number reserved for TV shows, > movies, etc. > So how can anyone have a number that starts with 555? > Are they manipulating the caller-id number? I did not think that was > possible, either. > [TELECOM Digest Editor's Note: 'Everyone knows' also that 555 is a > fictional thing for telemarketers to present for numbers. This is just > another reason that SWB's 'Privacy Manager' service is so bogus. On > the caller-id box which you have to get to buy Privacy Manager, any of > these phrases will qualify as a valid 'name' on the name line of the > ID box: 'Name Withheld', 'Wireless Caller', 'Out of Area', maybe > others. Qualifying 'phone numbers' include '555-555-1212', '555-555-5555' > and '000-000-0000'. Any two of those meets the Privacy Manager > requirements and gets passed through to you, no questions. As far as > SWB is concerned, they gave you a name and number. Someone please > explain to Mr. Haendel how the telemarketers do it. It was explained > here recently but I do not remember all the details. PAT] ------------------------------ From: Jeff Grossman Subject: Re: Yahoo Set to Take Speed Challenge Organization: Stikman.com Date: Fri, 13 Sep 2002 14:45:15 GMT In article , Monty Solomon wrote: > [TELECOM Digest Editor's Note: Well, SBC Global (SWB's high speed > internet service) and Yahoo have both been hawking it for quite a while > now. SBC and Prodigy have a deal also. Prodigy operates the 'web page > features' and the Usenet and other newsgroups for SBC that I get when > I (using DSL) ask for http://sbcglobal.net . You ask for that page and > it comes up saying SBC/Prodigy with all sorts of links to things that > Prodify operates. Now about two weeks ago I got a CD from SBC which > turned out to be used for 'Yahoo/SBC Internet Dialup Service', in > other words for use with a 'regular' (up to 56k) modem. All I wanted > was the front end browser, which sort of resembles MSN's browser which > immediatly did the same thing as MSN's browser by installing itself > in the Windows registry and demanded to be used as the 'default' > browser instead of IE or Netscape or Opera, all of which I have on > my desktop and prefer over MSN or the new Yahoo/SBC Dialup. I would > not have bothered with it at all, except the Yahoo/SBC browser > includes some buttons to get radio stations easily. Part of the deal > also was Yahoo now has an internet money transfer feature similar to > PayPal which was included in the CD I got from SWB/SBCGlobal. So it > would appear Prodigy and Yahoo are in it together with SBCGlobal. It > should be interesting to see how it works out a year from now. PAT] Actually, SBC owns Prodigy. They purchased Prodigy hoping that would help them in the internet business. It did not work. So, they have decided to pretty much close down Prodigy, and move everybody to this new co-branded SBC/Yahoo service. Jeff Grossman (jeff@stikman.com) ------------------------------ From: wesrock@aol.com (Wes Leatherock) Date: 12 Sep 2002 13:12:20 GMT Organization: AOL http://www.aol.com Subject: Re: Yahoo Set to Take Speed Challenge > [TELECOM Digest Editor's Note: Well, SBC Global (SWB's high speed > internet service) and Yahoo have both been hawking it for quite a while > now. SBC and Prodigy have a deal also. I believe Prodigy is now owned 100% by SBC. Wes Leatherock wesrock@aol.com wleathus@yahoo.com ------------------------------ Date: Fri, 13 Sep 2002 08:45:38 -0400 From: Monty Solomon Subject: SBC Yahoo! DSL SBC and Yahoo! Unveil SBC Yahoo! DSL, Internet Service 'Built-for-Broadband' Sep 13, 2002 03:01 AM (BusinessWire) SAN ANTONIO, Texas, and SUNNYVALE, Calif.--(BUSINESS WIRE)--Sept. 13, 2002-- Created through a landmark alliance, SBC Yahoo! DSL is expected to drive broadband adoption with industry leading personalization, rich content, productivity features and a choice of bundled premium services Internet leaders SBC Communications Inc. (NYSE:SBC) and Yahoo! Inc. (Nasdaq:YHOO) today unveiled SBC Yahoo! DSL, an innovative Internet service that is expected to drive broadband adoption by delivering an entirely new kind of online experience. Designed to take full advantage of a broadband connection, and available to more than 26 million customer locations in SBC's 13-state region, SBC Yahoo! DSL delivers an unparalleled online experience, with new levels of personalization and ease-of-use, rich content, superior interactivity, and a bundle of valuable premium services. Paired with new "personalized speeds" and affordable pricing options that give customers one of the best values on the market, SBC Yahoo! DSL offers consumers what they want, when they want it. - http://finance.lycos.com/home/news/story.asp?story=28661747 ------------------------------ TELECOM Digest is an electronic journal devoted mostly but not exclusively to telecommunications topics. It is circulated anywhere there is email, in addition to various telecom forums on a variety of networks such as Compuserve and America On Line, 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: 620-870-9697 Fax 1: 775-255-9970 Fax 2: 775-306-8390 Fax 3: 530-309-7234 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 second 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) Email <==> FTP: telecom-archives@telecom-digest.org Send a simple, one line note to that automated address for a help file on how to use the automatic retrieval system for archives files. You can get desired files in email. ************************************************************************* * 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. Access to Premium (P) links requires upgrade to a paid subscription. One click a day feeds a person a meal. Go to http://www.thehungersite.com Only subscribers or registered users of ICB Toll Free News web site will be able to access all or some of the full text of URLs provided. LEGAL STUFF: TELECOM Digest (sm) is owned by Patrick Townson. Copyright 2000 ICB, Inc. and TELECOM Digest. All rights reserved. Our attorney is Bill Levant, of Blue Bell, PA. --------------------------------------------------------------- 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 twenty 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 V22 #35 ***************************** From editor@telecom-digest.org Fri Sep 13 20:58:26 2002 Received: from localhost (localhost [[UNIX: localhost]]) by massis.lcs.mit.edu (8.11.3nb1/8.11.3) id g8E0wQq00729; Fri, 13 Sep 2002 20:58:26 -0400 (EDT) Date: Fri, 13 Sep 2002 20:58:26 -0400 (EDT) From: editor@telecom-digest.org Message-Id: <200209140058.g8E0wQq00729@massis.lcs.mit.edu> X-Authentication-Warning: massis.lcs.mit.edu: ptownson set sender to editor@telecom-digest.org using -f To: ptownson Approved: patsnewlist Subject: TELECOM Digest V22 #36 TELECOM Digest Fri, 13 Sep 2002 20:59:00 EDT Volume 22 : Issue 36 Inside This Issue: Editor: Patrick A. Townson ATT System 85 Telephone System and Phones Available (Mark) Is This A Sprint Scam and What do I do About It? (Al Dykes) Cordless Phone: No Sound From Earpiece Speaker (Nataraj Dasgupta) Routing "Unknown Number" & LD Calls to Voice Mail/Ans Machine (PapaBear) Re: Straight or Twisted Telephone Cables (kadokev@chicagotribune.com) Telephone Directories on the Web (Robert Hoare) (Jeff S. Pickett) News Headlines of Interest (Monty Solomon) Avaya Cajun 880 (jabriol) Re: Looking For Prepaid Billing Softeware & IP Minutes (Joy Telecom) Re: And Now For Something Completely Different (Barry Margolin) Re: And Now For Something Completely Different (Ed Ellers) Re: FA: Turn Your Answering Machine Into a TeleZapper!! (John Higdon) Re: Dealing With SWB Business Office (Carl Moore) Re: How Can Someone Receive a Call From 555-XXXX? (Richard Haendel) Last Laugh! was Re: Know Your Alpha Bravo Charlies (David Wolff) 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. WE DO NOT PERMIT NAME/EMAIL ADDRESS HARVESTING FROM THIS JOURNAL. 'SALTED' EMAIL ADDRESSES APPEAR HEREIN TO VERIFY THIS. YOU GET SUED IN SMALL CLAIMS COURT IF YOU GET CAUGHT SPAMMING OR SENDING VIRUSES. DON'T DO IT. See the bottom of this issue for subscription and archive details and the name of our lawyer; other stuff of interest. ---------------------------------------------------------------------- From: mark@beethoven.com (Mark) Subject: ATT System 85 Telephone System and Phones Available Date: 12 Sep 2002 05:33:48 -0700 Organization: http://groups.google.com/ The City of Fort Lauderdale will be auctioning its System 85 switch, remote and many telephones. For detailed information go to the City's Web site at www.ci.fort-lauderdale.fl.us and visit the purchasing department's page or contact me directly. ------------------------------ From: adykes@panix.com (Al Dykes) Subject: Is This A Sprint Scam and What do I do About It? Date: 12 Sep 2002 11:42:02 -0400 Organization: PANIX -- Public Access Networks Corp. I just got a smail mailing from Sprint thanking me for selecting Sprint PCS service with all the account number, start date, monthly cost and everything. I got a second letter asking me to authorize a credit check. I HAVE NEVER TALKED TO SPRINT AND AM VERY AWARE OF EVERYTHING I SIGN, AND SAY YES (OR NO TO). I never asked for this and I am not happy to see it. I can't figure out what to do about it. (FWIW I'm in New York City, have one old verizon POTS line in the house and am a happy Voicestream wireless customer. ) Any suggestions. Al Dykes adykes@panix.com ------------------------------ From: ndasgupt@bridgeport.edu (Nataraj Dasgupta) Subject: Cordless Phone: No Sound From Earpiece Speaker Date: 12 Sep 2002 09:06:01 -0700 Organization: http://groups.google.com/ Hi all, Writing in as a last resort to find out how I can fix this phone. It's a Panasonic Cordless Speakerphone with both a base and handset dialing keypad. Has been working great until yesterday, when the handset fell and hit hard on the ground. When I press the 'TALK' button on the handset, all the LEDs on the phone light up as if it's working, I can even dial a number on the handset and turn on the speakerphone and it'll be working fine -- all the features on the handset works absolutely ok except the sound from the earpiece. There is NO dialtone on the earpiece. The mouthpiece works great too -- I put the handset on intercom, and you can hear anything you say over the mouthpiece over the base speaker. I opened the handset unit, and there are absolutely no broken parts, the LEDs light up fine, even the handset on-screen display works great, you can program and all -- just as if nothing happened, but there wouldn't be 'any' noise from the earpiece unit. Seems unfair to junk this phone just because the earpiece speaker part isn't working -- and every last programmable options, dialing, etc works fine, plus cost about a couple of hundred bucks. Any suggestions will be most helpful, Thanks in advance, Nataraj Dasgupta. ------------------------------ From: PapaBear Subject: Routing "Unknown Number" & LD to Voice Mail/Answering Machine? Organization: WEBUSENET.com Date: Thu, 12 Sep 2002 17:28:44 -0400 I would like to have an answering machine answer all "Unknown Number", "Private Number" and long distance calls. Is there any PC software that would do this? Thanks. ------------------------------ From: kadokev@chicagotribune.com Subject: Re: Straight or Twisted Telephone Cables Date: Thu, 12 Sep 2002 23:10:55 UTC In article , Tom Schmidt wrote: > xeondavis wrote in message > news:telecom22.31.1@telecom-digest.org: >> I have a basic question. I was just setting up the telephone system >> for my friend's office, and I discovered that almost all RJ11 >> telephone cables were wired twisted, not straight-thru. I know for >> CAT5 (RJ45), you can have a straight-thru or cross-over cable. But for >> telephone cables, why didn't they use a straight-thru cable? Any pros >> or cons? > Straight-thru vs crossover refers to something else. TIA 568 Category > rated cable is optimized for one-to-one wiring. That means the same > wire uses the same connector pin all the way through the network. Actually, telephone RJ11 cables are not "crossover" and are not twisted pair. They are usually flat straight (parallel, not twisted pair) cables, with the end connections wired as "rollover": 1 ==================== 4 2 ==================== 3 3 ==================== 2 4 ==================== 1 There is no CAT5 equivalent to a rollover cable, as "rolling" the cable violates the TIA 568 spec. Cisco does ship a pale blue flat "rollover" cable with RJ45 ends for use with the serial console connection on their equipment, but this cable is not CAT5, and only carries RS-232 signals. Kevin Kadow ------------------------------ From: Jeff S. Pickett Subject: Telephone Directories on the Web (Robert Hoare) Date: Thu, 12 Sep 2002 23:00:42 -0700 The link for: "Telephone Directories on the Web (Robert Hoare) in the "Other Links" section on your website has changed from www.contractjobs.com to http://www.teldir.com/ Jeff S. Pickett [TELECOM Digest Editor's Note: I will change this entry sometime soon and readers may also wish to make note of the new address/location. PAT] ------------------------------ Date: Thu, 12 Sep 2002 17:08:56 -0400 From: Monty Solomon Subject: News Headlines of Interest 9/13/02 Posted on Wed, Sep. 11, 2002 Details of new Comcast deal demanded By Akweli Parker Inquirer Staff Writer Consumer advocates and at least one large Internet provider, fearing Comcast Corp.'s growing influence over the Internet, are demanding that the Philadelphia-based company divulge details of a complex agreement it reached last month with AT&T Corp. and AOL Time Warner Inc. The Federal Communications Commission has made public reams of documents related to Comcast's pending $53.1 billion purchase of AT&T's cable division, AT&T Broadband. But Comcast so far has kept secret parts of last month's related three-way deal with AT&T and AOL Time Warner. The consumer advocates are up in arms because they say the agreement could shut competitors out of the high-speed Internet market, reducing consumers' choices, and limiting Internet content. And they say it shows the kind of anticompetitive muscle Comcast could flex once it buys AT&T Broadband and becomes the undisputed king of cable, with 22 million subscribers nationwide. http://www.philly.com/mld/inquirer/business/4046780.htm Where art thou Stuckists? Intel reveals share denial PC scheme By Andrew Orlowski in San Francisco Posted: 11/09/2002 at 09:02 GMT It was a schizophrenic Intel that faced the world at its Developer Conference in San Jose yesterday. In the morning keynote it touted its new multimedia "adaptor" platform, with glossy lifestyle videos explaining how our "digital media experience" would become "more convenient". In the afternoon it explained why it was embedding digital certificates into the hardware - and a spokesman from VeriSign Inc., which is partnering with Intel in this great adventure, could hardly believe his luck. On Thursday, when most of the press will have departed, it will host a session discussing a variety of share-denial technologies being funded by, or developed in, Intel's labs. These include our old favorite CPRM - incorporated into DVD-Audio players from Panasonic (DMR-E20) and Pioneer (DVR-3000) - along with DTCP (Digital Transmission Content Protection, which encrypts air to ground, or cable transmissions over FireWire) and HDCP (High Bandwith Digital Content Protection), which encrypts the display transmissions from your computer to your monitor. http://www.theregister.co.uk/content/4/27065.html ------------------------------ From: jabriol@navegalia.com (jabriol) Subject: Avaya Cajun 880 Date: 13 Sep 2002 09:52:02 -0700 Organization: http://groups.google.com/ All, I've been working with the following equipment, The Avaya P/880 multiservice switch. And what I have been trying to do is have the supervisor board test the ports of my module boards. Any ideas or suggestions? I know I can do this with software. But I also know that software is not accurate with a hardware failure. Therefore What I normally do, is set up my PC NIC card and ping each port to locate any problems . I have no problem when I check for problems with stack switches like the cajun P3XXX series. ------------------------------ From: Joy Telecom Subject: Re: Looking For Prepaid Billing Software & IP Minutes Date: Fri, 13 Sep 2002 14:06:58 -0300 Organization: Bell Sympatico Let me know if you can provide or help. Best regards, Mahbub Hussain Joy Telecom Canada Ltd. 881 Jane Street #204 A (Jane Park Plaza) Toronto,Ontario M6N 4Y8/Canada Tel:416-762-0094 Fax:416-762-9586 E-mail: mahbub@on.aibn.com or joytelecom@msn.com ------------------------------ From: Barry Margolin Subject: Re: And Now For Something Completely Different Organization: Genuity, Woburn, MA Date: Fri, 13 Sep 2002 19:33:13 GMT In article , Joey Lindstrom wrote: > I've seen several worthwhile things advertised in spam. Lately it's > Norton Systemworks - ok, some of you might not like it but a lot of > people do, and it's hard to argue that it's not a "legitimate" product > (as opposed to the make money fast, viagra, and Nigerian scam emails > that litter our inboxes). But regardless of how worthwhile the > product, be it Norton Systemworks or educational courses, the fact > remains: it's spam. We didn't ask for it, it's commercial, and it's > email. This is strictly true. However, if UCE were of the quality and quantity of advertising that's sent by bulk snail mail e.g. catalogs), I suspect that it wouldn't be considered a serious problem. People are most bothered by the facts that they get so much of it (so it's hard to ignore) and it's almost all advertising stuff that's either illegal, immoral, or just utter crap. If I got 1 or 2 spams a day and they were mostly for worthwhile things, I'd consider it analogous to TV commercials -- it would be nice if they didn't interrupt the real programs, but they're not so bad that they need to be outlawed. Barry Margolin, barmar@genuity.net Genuity, Woburn, MA *** DON'T SEND TECHNICAL QUESTIONS DIRECTLY TO ME, post them to newsgroups. Please DON'T copy followups to me -- I'll assume it wasn't posted to the group. ------------------------------ From: Ed Ellers Subject: Re: And Now For Something Completely Different Date: Fri, 13 Sep 2002 17:10:37 -0400 Joey Lindstrom wrote: > BTW, for what it's worth, I've sent several copies of these Norton > Systemworks spams to the good folks at Symantec, informing them of what's > going on and suggesting they crack down on the sellers. I haven't had so > much as an acknowledgement, never mind a thank-you, and the spams keep > coming. Given Symantec's silence, I am left with no choice but to assume > Symantec is either in league with the spammers or has at least given them > their tacit approval. Or, alternatively, the spammers have bought SystemWorks from distributors (as retail stores do), leaving Symantec no way to control how they advertise the product. (Of course, some of the spammers could be selling pirate copies, too.) [TELECOM Digest Editor's Note: Let's address Joey's comment 'Given Symantec's silence, I am left with no choice ....' the dear folks at Proctor and Gamble are not and never have been involved in devil worship, despite the sun and moon symbols on their packages. Despite that, P&G thinks enough of popular opinion that they spend almost a million dollars each year sending out hundreds of thousands of denial letters (paying for postage and the staff to address the letters) to the folks (mostly very ignorant unsophisticated Christians) who write them all the time to complain about their 'devil worship'. Symantec/ Norton is quite well esteemed; you would *think* they might answer a letter from Joey explaining the truth on this matter (no control over pirates and spammers, etc). The same people, no doubt who flood P&G with complaints about their 'devil worship' are probably the same poor misguided fools who also keep the FCC busy all the time answering the false claims that the late Madalyn Murray O'hare is petitioning the FCC to revoke all religious broadcasters' licenses. The poor things don't even know she has been dead for several years and never tried to do that anyway, so they keep writing and the FCC keeps answering; many thousands of letters every year. You'd think Symantec/Norton might do the same. Or at least put a few general announcements about the topic in well-placed newsgroups. Maybe Joey is right; his choices are getting few and far between. I know I feel about the same way with regards agents/resellers of DISH network who constantly pound on my email box with fantastic offers for 'new' subscribers without bothering to check any sort of master list to sort out existing subscribers. PAT] ------------------------------ From: John Higdon Subject: Re: FA: Turn Your Answering Machine Into a TeleZapper!! Organization: Green Hills and Cows Date: Fri, 13 Sep 2002 12:47:46 -0700 In article , Karla wrote: > You can also find these tones all over the net, as well as their > specifications. Just search for < sit tones >. Good sound quality > helps, but most likely it will be limited by a typical answering > machine's (lack of) fidelity anyway. Unfortunately, it seems that > telemarketers are beginning to disregard these tones, so their > lifetime of usefulness may be limited. Hope this helps! The predictive dialers that I have written lately ignore SIT after supervision. If the call supervises, it completely successfully. After supervision, the only thing the dialer cares about is voice pattern processing ("hello?") or DTMF detection. So if you can figure out a way to play SIT over your phone for an incoming call without actually answering the call, you MIGHT be able to fool one of my systems. In any event, audio quality is irrelevant on SIT. What matters is the cadence of the tones, not the precise frequency or the quality. John Higdon | Email Address Valid | SF: +1 415 428-COWS +1 408 264 4115 | Anytown, USA | FAX: +1 408 264 4407 ------------------------------ Date: Fri, 13 Sep 2002 16:01:10 EDT From: Carl Moore Subject: Re: Dealing With SWB Business Office TELECOM Digest Editor noted: > My mother said it first: "I sure liked it a lot when the service rep > (all one of them - PAT) was there in the telephone exchange building > on Maple and 6th Street downtown. You could get in and out of there > in a hurry, and you always got things done correctly the first > time." I see further down that that is Junction City, Kansas -- right? (I was going to ask where the address was.) In sending this last message to you, I noticed a letter missing from your email address in the message copy appearing in the TELECOM Digest (this is in issue 30). I am forwarding an excerpt of that message with the headers intact; the missing letter is the "u" at the end of ".edu". Is that done deliberately to prevent people from "harvesting" the address and sending "spam" to it? [TELECOM Digest Editor's Note: No to both your inquiries. I lived in Junction City for about a year while I had employment designing some web pages for the Fort Riley US Army base there. The telephone exchange there was United Telephone (in the last few years, Sprint) and by coincidence their public office was at Sixth Street (an east/ west main street) and Washington Street (north/south) in the downtown business area. I was living in civilian quarters on the base when my brain exploded November 29, 1999. In this latest context I am talking about Independence, Kansas (Southwestern Bell territory) where the telephone exchange is again located on Sixth Street (in this case a north/south street) downtown and Maple Street (east/west). Regards the use of '.ed' instead of '.edu' in that message you saw, I'd like to take the credit for it and say that's my latest spam fighting technique (leave an obvious letter out of an email address). But in fact, I screwed up in my typing and did not catch it in time to correct it. Sorry about that. PAT] ------------------------------ From: Richard Haendel Subject: Re: How Can Someone Receive a Call From 555-XXXX? Date: Fri, 13 Sep 2002 20:43:56 GMT Organization: AT&T Worldnet Now that I know what's happening and if it happens again, I will certainly report it. Thanks to all, Richard Fritz Whittington wrote in message news:telecom22.35.10@telecom-digest.org: > Richard Haendel wrote: >> Recently, I got a call from some telemarketer for which the number >> displayed as "614-555-5555" on my caller id. > Of course, this is in violation of FCC rules. But, if you don't > report it, they will continue to do it. See: > for how-to. > Fritz Whittington > TI Alum - http://www.tialumni.org ------------------------------ From: dwolffxx@panix.com (David Wolff) Subject: Last Laugh! was Re: Know Your Alpha Bravo Charlies Date: Fri, 13 Sep 2002 18:40:51 UTC Organization: Public Access Networks Corp. In article , George Mitchell wrote: > Joey Lindstrom wrote: >> Like many things in the telecommunications field, this practice, too, >> is standardized, as follows: >> Alpha Bravo Charlie Delta Echo Foxtrot Golf Hotel India Juliet Kilo >> (KEE-loh) Lima (LEE-muh) Mike November Oscar Papa Quebec Romeo Sierra >> Tango Uniform Victor Whistkey X-Ray Yankee Zulu. >> Also, when saying numbers, "five" and "nine" can sound the same, so >> "nine" should be stretched to two syllables, to sound like "niner". > In the days of yore when John Campbell was editing Analog, he proposed > a phonetic alphabet for obfuscation. For example, using "phthisic" > (pronounced "tisik") for the letter "p". I haven't been able to find > the rest of his alphabet online. Does anyone else remember this? I don't know if this is it ... The Fanatic Alphabet Aisle Bdelium Czar Djakarta Eulogy Fanatic Gnat Hour Iwo Jima Juanita Knob Llama Mnemonic Ngwee Oedipus Pneumonia Qatar Rwanda Szold Tzar Urn Veldt Wright (or Wrong) Xylophone Yttrium Zweiback David Wolff (remove "xx" to reply) Disclaimer: Hey! It's my opinion! Yesclaimer: Esperanto: four times easier to learn. Call (800) ESPERANTO or email info@esperanto-usa.org for free info and free lesson. ------------------------------ TELECOM Digest is an electronic journal devoted mostly but not exclusively to telecommunications topics. It is circulated anywhere there is email, in addition to various telecom forums on a variety of networks such as Compuserve and America On Line, 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: 620-870-9697 Fax 1: 775-255-9970 Fax 2: 775-306-8390 Fax 3: 530-309-7234 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 second 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) Email <==> FTP: telecom-archives@telecom-digest.org Send a simple, one line note to that automated address for a help file on how to use the automatic retrieval system for archives files. You can get desired files in email. ************************************************************************* * 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. Access to Premium (P) links requires upgrade to a paid subscription. One click a day feeds a person a meal. Go to http://www.thehungersite.com Only subscribers or registered users of ICB Toll Free News web site will be able to access all or some of the full text of URLs provided. LEGAL STUFF: TELECOM Digest (sm) is owned by Patrick Townson. Copyright 2002 ICB, Inc. and TELECOM Digest. All rights reserved. Our attorney is Bill Levant, of Blue Bell, PA. --------------------------------------------------------------- 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 twenty 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 V22 #36 ***************************** From editor@telecom-digest.org Sun Sep 15 17:54:08 2002 Received: from localhost (localhost [[UNIX: localhost]]) by massis.lcs.mit.edu (8.11.3nb1/8.11.3) id g8FLs8x13174; Sun, 15 Sep 2002 17:54:08 -0400 (EDT) Date: Sun, 15 Sep 2002 17:54:08 -0400 (EDT) From: editor@telecom-digest.org Message-Id: <200209152154.g8FLs8x13174@massis.lcs.mit.edu> X-Authentication-Warning: massis.lcs.mit.edu: ptownson set sender to editor@telecom-digest.org using -f To: ptownson Approved: patsnewlist Subject: TELECOM Digest V22 #37 TELECOM Digest Sun, 15 Sep 2002 17:54:00 EDT Volume 22 : Issue 37 Inside This Issue: Editor: Patrick A. Townson One Area Code to Unify Divided Town (The Old Bear) Re: One Area Code to Unify Divided Town (Roger Conklin) Re: One Area Code to Unify Divided Town (Kirtley Stanfield) Re: One Area Code to Unify Divided Town (David Massey) Re: One Area Code to Unify Divided Town (Sam Etler) Re: Where Have All the Phone Booths Gone? (Roy Smith) New Routine for Digest Starting Now (TELECOM Digest Editor) Re: Cordless Phone: No Sound From Earpiece Speaker (Alan Schnittman) Re: ATT System 85 Telephone System and Phones Available (Bob) Last Laugh From SpamAssassin! Telus Sucks Dot Info (Joey Lindstrom) 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. WE DO NOT PERMIT NAME/EMAIL ADDRESS HARVESTING FROM THIS JOURNAL. 'SALTED' EMAIL ADDRESSES APPEAR HEREIN TO VERIFY THIS. YOU GET SUED IN SMALL CLAIMS COURT IF YOU GET CAUGHT SPAMMING OR SENDING VIRUSES. DON'T DO IT. See the bottom of this issue for subscription and archive details and the name of our lawyer; other stuff of interest. ---------------------------------------------------------------------- Date: Sat, 14 Sep 2002 23:33:15 -0400 From: The Old Bear Subject: One Area Code to Unify Divided Town Saturday, September 14, 2002 One area code to unify divided town: Erving, Mass. residents' "nightmare" to end By Associated Press ERVING - Residents in this small north-central Massachusetts town will finally be united under a single area code after years of living with a split identity. Following an appeal by state utility regulators, the Federal Communications Commission reversed a two-year-old ruling and agreed to allow the entire community to be placed in the 413 area code, which serves the rest of Franklin County. Erving is currently the only town in Massachusetts to be divided among two area codes. The Town Hall is in the 978 area code and the school, post office, and highway garage are in the 413 area code. The split has caused inconvenience for residents and businesses, and even created safety concerns. "We're elated," said Jacquelyn Boyden, who headed the community's five-year fight for digital unity. "We're a town of 1,400 people. It is ridiculous that we have two area codes." In 1998, her committee of townspeople persuaded the US Postal Service to put the entire town into a single ZIP code. The dual identity has led to mix-ups such as only half the town being listed in the telephone book. Attempts to get numbers by dialing information were an adventure. "They'd insist this end of town and the people in it didn't exist," said Boyden, who lives in the 413 end. "It was a nightmare for businesses." Plus, she said, the half of the town that lived in the 978 area code paid more for basic telephone services than their neighbors in the 413 area code. The telephone companies have waived in-town long- distance charges. Before the automobile and the computer, the area code didn't matter in this community, where all 800 homes and business are strung along a 9-mile stretch of highway running through a deep mountain gorge. The two main settlements grew up around the Erving Paper Co. at its east end and the now-closed Millers Falls Tool Co. at the west end. But as the world became increasingly computerized and digitized, Erving's split personality led to misdirected taxes and federal and state aid payments, misdirected deliveries, and -- worst of all -- misdirected 911 emergency calls. A series of car crashes in which ambulances were dispatched to the wrong end of town prompted residents to vote unanimously at a 1997 Town Meeting to unify their telephone service. Michael Pequignot, a spokesman for Verizon, said it plans to establish two new exchanges for the town and to issue the new telephone numbers within six months. "We are sensitive to the difficulties involved in everyone in town getting a new telephone number," Boyden said. "But the trade-off is we will have our own exchange. And the town will be truly united for the first time since its founding in 1838." ------------------------------ Subject: Re: One Area Code to Unify Divided Town From: Roger.Conklin@corning.com Date: Sun, 15 Sep 2002 14:35:21 -0400 What has existed in Erving for all these years is not that much different than what we now have in Miami (and a lot of other communities). My phone number is in area code 305 but the neighbor two doors down has the area code of 786, the latter being the "overlay" area code that was opened up a couple of years ago. We dial 10 digits to call both within our own area or the neighbor next door in a different area. Not only that, the introductory pages of our 2001-2002 Miami telephone directory list the names of 49 telephone companies from which we can chose to our local service provider. Bell South is one of them. Listed alphabetically the list starts with Access Integrated Networks, Inc. and ends with Z-Tel Communications, Inc. (There are also 368 different listings for cellular phones in the yellow pages) It is almost time for the 2002-2003 directory which most likely will contain an even longer list of both local fixed telephone companies and cellular operators. All of this competition has made it possible for Bell South to lay off 11.9% of its work force over this past year, (according to its 2nd quarter financial report). It has also allowed it to increase the waiting time to call and talk to a customer service or repair service representative, since those who remain are constantly talking to other customers. Computers have made everything so efficient that we need to have something to do to take up our time, so listening to "please stay on the line, your call is important to us" recorded announcements is, I guess, as good as anything. You can also watch a television program or two while you are waiting., so how is that for improving efficiency? Now that we have competition in telephone service I think congress should address the problem of lack of competition in toll roads. There is only one Florida Turnpike between Miami and Fort Lauderdale. It is a state monopoly. Perhaps we should start a campaign for competition in toll roads. Just think how much cheaper it would be if we could chose between 49 separate toll road providers between Miami and Ft. Lauderdale? Don't worry that it would cost too much money, I'm sure the banks will be willing to provide financing for anything as lucrative as adding additional toll roads. How about a "Toll Road Act of 2002" that includes a requirement that the Florida Turnpike Authority lease separate toll booths to competing companies? This would solve things very easily, in case potential competitors encountered any problems in rasing capital to build their own toll roads. Then the Turnpike authority could lease the toll road to these competing companies at below cost, so they could charge tolls lower than what the Turnpike charges. We would then be able to reap all the benefits of toll road competition. It would be almost as lucrative as printing money. This seems to be the formula selected for telecommunications so the simple application of logic makes it obvious that it should be expand it to toll roads. If you agree, lets hear a hearty chorus of "AMENs." It all goes to show you how much smarter we are today and how much better things have become. It was 76 years ago, in 1921, when the unenlightened legislators in Washington passed the Graham Act which did away with competition in local telephone service and created the now obsolete concept that investing trillions of dollars so that there could be duplicated facilities was crazy, and that one telephone company in any specific geographical area was quite enough. Roger Conklin ------------------------------ Date: Sun, 15 Sep 2002 11:53:59 -0400 From: Kirtley Stanfield Subject: Re: One Area Code to Unify Divided Town I suspect the town was originally split between the 413 and 617 areas. Here is how this situation most likely came about. First for those who do not live in New England, one must remember that all of Massachusetts (and the other states in New England) has been completely divided into incorporated towns since the 1790's. Unlike much of the rest of country, you can't be just 'In the County'. A few, but very few adjustments have been made to town lines since. County government was recently dissolved in Massachusetts (Connecticut did so in 1959). So, you have official town (governmental) lines pretty much as they were in 1790 something, but all of the 1800s and 1900s for population to shift and form new economic centers, many of which were determined by the availability of water power. As noted in the original posting the town of Erving seems to have developed two centers, one at the east (978 nee 508 nee 978) end and one at the west (413) end. When phones came along each of these was probably served from exchanges in a different adjoining town. Unfortunately as this was along the 413/617 border, the two adjoining towns were in different areas. One other thing - the phone company probably did not just give them free intra town calling. Twenty something years ago this was such a problem that the Commonwealth in its wisdom, mandated what they called 'Massachusetts Municipal calling'. Basically this said no tolls for calling within a town, even if the exchanges involved would normally be toll calls. I suspect for the most part this was done in the billing system, which must have had to have been coded fro the actual town a phone was in. Now days with digital switches, it is easy to create new exchange codes without rewiring, but 20+ years ago when it was all step it was a different matter. One interesting thing was there was an exception if the call involved two different local companies - which left Hancock, Mass (served by one independent and two Bell exchanges) still in a mess. That town (which is 2 miles wide and 20 miles long) has got to be the ultimate example of the above. You have to leave the town and drive either through two other towns in Massachusetts, or through New York State to get from the south end to the center portion. After the state mandated free calling, you would not pay a toll to call 20 miles from the south end to the north end, but would still pay to call from either end to the middle (which was actually served by an Independent exchange in New York). By the way the next time you are in a public rest room look for an Erving Paper hand towels dispenser, they and the towels are from Erving, Massachusetts. Sam Etler wrote: >> "We are sensitive to the difficulties involved in everyone in town >> getting a new telephone number," Boyden said. "But the trade-off is >> we will have our own exchange. And the town will be truly united for >> the first time since its founding in 1838." > This is a rather interesting quote. For one, the 978 NPA didn't start > until 9/1/1997, though it split off of 508. So perhaps the town was > split between 413 and 508 for some time. > In any case, area codes *and* ZIP codes didn't start until the 1960s (ZIP > codes started on 7/1/1963 [1]). So my question is, what kept the town > from being united in the 120 or so years before the introduction of the > area code and the ZIP code? > [1] http://www.usps.com/history/history/his2_75.htm#ZIP > > sam ------------------------------ From: David Massey Subject: Re: One Area Code to Unify Divided Town Date: Sat, 14 Sep 2002 12:36:58 -0400 Organization: The Bell System Lives! When I read this it made that Simpsons cartoon about the split area code come to mind! We here in Kennesaw, Georgia, USA (a city near Atlanta) have two postal zip codes and I think the area codes we can call toll-free are 404, 770, 678, 470 and 906 of which the first four overlay the metro Atlanta area. Such is life near a big city! At least I can brag that we have the LARGEST local calling area in the USA and possibly the world. David ------------------------------ Date: Sun, 15 Sep 2002 03:25:24 CDT From: Sam Etler Subject: Re: One Area Code to Unify Divided Town > "We are sensitive to the difficulties involved in everyone in town > getting a new telephone number," Boyden said. "But the trade-off is > we will have our own exchange. And the town will be truly united for > the first time since its founding in 1838." This is a rather interesting quote. For one, the 978 NPA didn't start until 9/1/1997, though it split off of 508. So perhaps the town was split between 413 and 508 for some time. In any case, area codes *and* ZIP codes didn't start until the 1960s (ZIP codes started on 7/1/1963 [1]). So my question is, what kept the town from being united in the 120 or so years before the introduction of the area code and the ZIP code? [1] http://www.usps.com/history/history/his2_75.htm#ZIP sam ------------------------------ From: Roy Smith Subject: Re: Where Have All the Phone Booths Gone? Date: Sat, 14 Sep 2002 22:44:46 -0400 Organization: PANIX Public Access Internet and UNIX, NYC A little over two years ago, in comp.dcom.telecom posting I wrote: > The more I think about it, I can't remember the last time I saw an > honest to goodness phone booth, with a seat, a door, a light that > comes on when you close the door (and a fan even). A phone book, > of course, would be too much to ask for, but I'd settle for a door > that you could close. Do they still exist anywhere? Well, this may be a bit silly, but I'm back to report that they do still exist. I got off the subway at Grand Central Station the other day and went out an exit I'd never used before, which put me in the basement of the Chrysler Building. And lo and behold, but what did I see? Not one phone booth, but a whole bank of them! Real phone booths. With doors that close, and little seats. Yahoo! My faith in the universe is restored :-) ------------------------------ Date: Sat, 14 Sep 2002 20:28:46 EDT From: TELECOM Digest Editor Subject: New Routine for Digest Starting Now In the past few days, the admins at LCS-MIT have helped me a lof getting my account here back under control without all the spam and viruses. In addition to Procmail, I now have SpamAssassin installed, and it sure has been busy the first day, as I expected. It works using a point scoring system which we will discover as we go along. I just could not handle any longer wiping it all out each day by hand. At the present time it is keeping its output in a file called /spam were I can browse it looking for real stuff that got thrown in there. Once I know how well I can trust spam assassin to do its job I may decide to send the incoming mail it point scores as spam direct to the bit bucket. For now however, I will be looking at both NBOX for real stuff and /spam for the junk. It already made one mistake, accusing Joey Lindstrom of sending spam. I left his message intact as the final article in this issue, a sort of Last Laugh. It is intact, with SpamAsassin's commentary so Joey and others can see how it thinks/operates. Patrick Townson ------------------------------ From: Alan Schnittman Subject: Re: Cordless Phone: No Sound From Earpiece Speaker Date: Sun, 15 Sep 2002 06:11:26 -0500 Organization: MindSpring Enterprises ndasgupt@bridgeport.edu (Nataraj Dasgupta) wrote: > Writing in as a last resort to find out how I can fix this > phone. The wiring in these phones is often fairly fragile. It may seem that the wires are securely soldered to the earpiece, but I suspect that they are not. Dropping the phone probably caused one or both of the wires to break. Check these connections, or, for expedience, detach the wires and then reattach them. If you're still having problems with the phone, feel free contact me directly by email. Also, you might try posting for assistance in . These phone can recover from major abuse; I am sure your's can be fixed. Good luck, ==================================================== Alan Schnittman | Brainchild Evolution, Inc | schnitt@mindspring.com prototype design & development | computer interface embedded control | analog & digital circuits | software development ------------------------------ From: Bob Subject: Re: ATT System 85 Telephone System and Phones Available Organization: WEBUSENET.com Date: Sun, 15 Sep 2002 11:10:42 -0400 That's a good one. You go to their page at http://www.ci.fort-lauderdale.fl.us/purchasing/solicitations.htm and click on sale of the System 85. You get a page soliciting trash collectors. At last, truth in government. Mark wrote in message news:telecom22.36.1@telecom-digest.org: > The City of Fort Lauderdale will be auctioning its System 85 switch, > remote and many telephones. For detailed information go to the City's > Web site at www.ci.fort-lauderdale.fl.us and visit the purchasing > department's page or contact me directly. ------------------------------ From: Joey Lindstrom Date: Sun, 15 Sep 2002 05:03:25 -0600 Reply-To: Joey Lindstrom Subject: (created by PAT) Last Laugh! Is This Spam? According to SpamAssassin, it sure is! Here is the way it was handled by my filters and MBOX today: Subject: *****SPAM***** Telus Sucks Dot Info SPAM: -------------------- Start SpamAssassin results ---------------------- SPAM: This mail is probably spam. The original message has been altered SPAM: so you can recognise or block similar unwanted mail in future. SPAM: See http://spamassassin.org/tag/ for more details. SPAM: SPAM: Content analysis details: (5.40 hits, 5 required) SPAM: TO_ADDRESS_EQ_REAL (2.1 points) To: repeats address as real name SPAM: DOMAIN_BODY (0.6 points) BODY: Domain registration spam body SPAM: SPAM_PHRASE_01_02 (-0.1 points) BODY: Spam phrases score is 01 to 02 (low) SPAM: [score: 1] SPAM: PORN_4 (2.8 points) URI: URL uses words and phrases which indicate porn (4) SPAM: SPAM: -------------------- End of SpamAssassin results --------------------- Well, here's a .info domain that isn't run by spammers. Granted, it's probably not the most USEFUL website in the world, but dang, it sure is fun putting it together. And I hope for any of you who despise Telus (or any other ILEC), maybe you'll get a few laughs out of it. Or not. :-) It's still very incomplete but at least there's enough there to give an idea of what it'll look like when it's finished. One thing I'm soliciting, both here and on the website, is "Your Stories" - anything you might have to say that is unfavourable to Telus. :-) So come on by: http://www.telussucks.info PS - this isn't spam. It's unsolicited and it's email, but it ain't commercial. Take that, John Higdon. :-) / From the desk of Joey Lindstrom / / I like to skate on the other side of the ice. / --Steven Wright [TELECOM Digest Editor's Note: I love it, don't you? This message was untouched, unedited, I wanted you to see how SpamAssassin thinks about these things. By the way, SpamAssassin adds the phrase with 'spam' and the stars on the subject line. PAT] ------------------------------ TELECOM Digest is an electronic journal devoted mostly but not exclusively to telecommunications topics. It is circulated anywhere there is email, in addition to various telecom forums on a variety of networks such as Compuserve and America On Line, 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: 620-870-9697 Fax 1: 775-255-9970 Fax 2: 775-306-8390 Fax 3: 530-309-7234 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 second 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) Email <==> FTP: telecom-archives@telecom-digest.org Send a simple, one line note to that automated address for a help file on how to use the automatic retrieval system for archives files. You can get desired files in email. ************************************************************************* * 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. Access to Premium (P) links requires upgrade to a paid subscription. One click a day feeds a person a meal. Go to http://www.thehungersite.com Only subscribers or registered users of ICB Toll Free News web site will be able to access all or some of the full text of URLs provided. LEGAL STUFF: TELECOM Digest (sm) is owned by Patrick Townson. Copyright 2000 ICB, Inc. and TELECOM Digest. All rights reserved. Our attorney is Bill Levant, of Blue Bell, PA. --------------------------------------------------------------- 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 twenty 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 V22 #37 ***************************** From editor@telecom-digest.org Sun Sep 15 23:04:51 2002 Received: from localhost (localhost [[UNIX: localhost]]) by massis.lcs.mit.edu (8.11.3nb1/8.11.3) id g8G34p414460; Sun, 15 Sep 2002 23:04:51 -0400 (EDT) Date: Sun, 15 Sep 2002 23:04:51 -0400 (EDT) From: editor@telecom-digest.org Message-Id: <200209160304.g8G34p414460@massis.lcs.mit.edu> X-Authentication-Warning: massis.lcs.mit.edu: ptownson set sender to editor@telecom-digest.org using -f To: ptownson Approved: patsnewlist Subject: TELECOM Digest V22 #38 TELECOM Digest Sun, 15 Sep 2002 23:05:00 EDT Volume 22 : Issue 38 Inside This Issue: Editor: Patrick A. Townson What is Needed Instead of ICANN? (jrh@ais.org) Re: Is This A Sprint Scam and What do I do About It? (John R. Levine) Re: Know Your Alpha Bravo Charlies (REC Networks) Question on RJ-11 Phone Connectors (jk) Telco Newsgroups & Yahoo Egroups (John Savage) Help With Siemens Multi-Line Phone and Fax Setup (Cliff) VPN Access For All Staff - Authenticated (Rob Clark) Re: Finding CO? (Bob) Re: And Now For Something Completely Different (Walter Dnes) Re: One Area Code to Unify Divided Town (Wes Leatherock) Telecom Privacy (Jason McGraw) News Headlines of Interest 9/15/02 (Monty Solomon) Re: Where Have All the Phone Booths Gone? (John Higdon) Re: Last Laugh! was Re: Know Your Alpha Bravo Charlies (Ron Bean) Re: Last Laugh! was Re: Know Your Alpha Bravo Charlies (Daniel McDonald) Re: Last Laugh! Is This Spam? (John Higdon) 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. WE DO NOT PERMIT NAME/EMAIL ADDRESS HARVESTING FROM THIS JOURNAL. 'SALTED' EMAIL ADDRESSES APPEAR HEREIN TO VERIFY THIS. YOU GET SUED IN SMALL CLAIMS COURT IF YOU GET CAUGHT SPAMMING OR SENDING VIRUSES. DON'T DO IT. See the bottom of this issue for subscription and archive details and the name of our lawyer; other stuff of interest. ---------------------------------------------------------------------- From: jrh@ais.org Subject: What is Needed Instead of ICANN? Date: Sat, 14 Sep 2002 00:36:44 GMT September Deadline: Can the ICANN Model Be Revised? On September 30, 2002, the Memorandum of Understanding (MOU) between the US Department of Commerce (DOC) and ICANN, the corporation created to private the infrastructure of the Internet, will expire. As the deadline is soon approaching, a burning question remains: Can a private entity and a public treasure be mixed? (The public treasure is the Internet.) http://www.circleid.com/articles/2532.asp The article in the above URL begins to raise the question what is needed instead of ICANN. Ronda ronda@ais.org [TELECOM Digest Editor's Note: I **strongly urge** everyone interested in the welfare and future of the net to check out this article, and give it strong consideration. PAT] ------------------------------ Date: 13 Sep 2002 21:15:01 -0400 From: johnl@iecc.com (John R. Levine) Subject: Re: Is This A Sprint Scam and What do I do About It? Organization: I.E.C.C., Trumansburg NY USA > I just got a smail mailing from Sprint thanking me for selecting > Sprint PCS service with all the account number, start date, monthly > cost and everything. I got a second letter asking me to authorize a > credit check. > I HAVE NEVER TALKED TO SPRINT AND AM VERY AWARE > OF EVERYTHING I SIGN, AND SAY YES (OR NO TO). > I never asked for this and I am not happy to see it. I can't figure > out what to do about it. It's probably identity theft. I'd call Sprint immediately, ask for the security department, and explain that someone's impersonating you. You might also call the NYC office of the NY Attorney General, who has also taken an interest in identity theft cases. John R. Levine, IECC, POB 727, Trumansburg NY 14886 +1 607 387 6869 johnl@iecc.com Village Trustee and Sewer Commissioner http://iecc.com/johnl Member, Provisional board, Coalition Against Unsolicited Commercial E-mail ------------------------------ From: REC Networks Subject: Re: Know Your Alpha Bravo Charlies Date: Fri, 13 Sep 2002 23:02:53 -0700 >> "nine" should be stretched to two syllables, to sound like "niner". Enough of the niner stuff ... you are starting to sound like Al Bernay. http://www.iseebaldpeople.com/ ------------------------------ From: rbsfct@yahoo.com (jk) Subject: Question on RJ-11 Phone Connectors Date: 14 Sep 2002 02:10:50 -0700 Organization: http://groups.google.com/ Hello all, I just have a brief question that I'm sure the Telecom experts in this group will have no trouble with, so here goes ... The RJ-11 connectors and jacks which we use here in Canada and the U.S., are they universally used around the world, or do different countries use different types of connectors? Specifically I'm interested in knowing whether or not the standard 4-wire RJ-11 design is used in Romania, or do they have their own standards there? I need to send someone in Romania an internal 56Kbps modem, but before I do so, I need to know if they'll be able to use it at all with their phone lines, or will they have to go and purchase a modem designed for use in that country? Replies directed to my e-mail would be greatly appreciated. ------------------------------ From: John Savage Subject: Telco Newsgroups & Yahoo Egroups Date: Sat, 14 Sep 2002 05:57:05 -0400 Good Morning: I wanted to contact you personally rather than posting it on the group in fear I would get bombarded with identical responses. My question is this. "What additional groups are there on the internet that carries the information that your group does that I can subscribe to?" I'm talking both "Newsgroups" and "Yahoo Egroups." The other reason why I'm coming to you with this question is because I made an attempt to subscribe to a couple Telco newsgroups through my email provider and ended up getting flooded with porn. Any help would very much be appreciated, and I thank you for taking time out of your busy schedule to assist me with this issue. Sincerely, John Savage [TELECOM Digest Editor's Note: As Mr. Savage requested, his address has been deleted to prevent unwanted email. Maybe you readers can suggest (for publication here as he requested) *other* e-zines, newsgroups and e-journals for Mr. Savage to subscribe to which are legitimate news items, etc. I'd like to suggest, Mr. Savage, that reading TELECOM Digest gets you all the news that fits, as my competitor, the New York Times likes to claim. So please, guys, make a list of same and I will print them here. I want him to get an unbiased and comprehensive directory of same. PAT] ------------------------------ From: Cliff Subject: Help With Siemens Multi-Line Phone and Fax Setup Date: Sun, 15 Sep 2002 02:08:21 GMT Organization: Road Runner - NYC I just obtained a Siemens Gigaset 8825 multi-line phone. I also have an HP PSC950 multifunction printer/scanner/fax device. I've disabled incoming calls on the Gigaset 8825 for my fax line (so the phone doesn't ring when something dials in on the fax line) and the fax successfully picks up ... HOWEVER, on the Siemens telephone I'm still able to pick up the Fax line. It doesn't automatically go to the second line, ie, it doesn't detect that the Fax line is in use. Any ideas? Is there a device I can install that will prevent me from accidentally picking up the fax line while the fax is in use? Thanks, Cliff ------------------------------ From: Rob Clark Subject: VPN Access For All Staff - Authenticated Date: Sun, 15 Sep 2002 15:12:37 +0800 All, I am very familiar with the 'OLD' way of providing remote access for employees: - Modem bank - Users at home/hotel with modem - Dial in, and then authenticate; each with separate user/pass But ... with more users having ADSL at home, and direct Ethernet in Hotels ... what is the best way to provide controlled access? I assume VPN tunnels; Remote users have Win2000 -- which supports IpSec and can initiate a VPN connection; but ... I am not sure which VPN servers support separate authentication for many (500+) potential users, and are there associated administration tools that help manage the usernames/passwords. Any advice appreciated. Rob Clark ------------------------------ From: Bob Subject: Re: Finding CO? Organization: WEBUSENET.com Date: Sun, 15 Sep 2002 10:27:50 -0400 Here, Try this ... http://www.dslreports.com/coinfo Neal McLain wrote in message news:telecom22.28.2@telecom-digest.org: > John R. Levine posted: >>>> Is there a way to find out exactly where a CO is located >>>> in any given city? >>> Go to: >>> http://www.mapquest.com/maps/areacode.adp >> Its database is pretty good but not perfect. I looked up >> some prefixes where I happen to know where the CO is >> located. In most cases it was off by a block or so, in a >> few cases off by a couple of miles, in one case it got it >> exactly. ------------------------------ From: Walter Dnes Subject: Re: And Now For Something Completely Different Date: 15 Sep 2002 23:11:45 GMT Reply-To: waltdnes@waltdnes.org On Fri, 13 Sep 2002 19:33:13 GMT, Barry Margolin, wrote: > This is strictly true. However, if UCE were of the quality and > quantity of advertising that's sent by bulk snail mail e.g. catalogs), > I suspect that it wouldn't be considered a serious problem. People > are most bothered by the facts that they get so much of it (so it's > hard to ignore) and it's almost all advertising stuff that's either > illegal, immoral, or just utter crap. If I got 1 or 2 spams a day and > they were mostly for worthwhile things, I'd consider it analogous to > TV commercials -- it would be nice if they didn't interrupt the real > programs, but they're not so bad that they need to be outlawed. Some problems with that ... 1) It's *NOT* like TV. TV ads by Hyundai allow you to watch a TV show "for free". Spams from Korea (even from Hyundai) cost your ISP money in terms of bandwidth, and larger disks so that the spam doesn't fill up the mailspools. AOL estimates that 20% of their monthly fee is due to spam alone. 2) If one "legitimate" company can spam, so can all of them. Well, let's allow for just 1% of them to spam you once per year. Doesn't sound too bad, does it ? There are 25 million businesses in the USA. Probably as many in Europe. And also in Asia/Pacific (Australia/New Zealand/Japan/Taiwan/Korea/Singapore/etc and pray that mainland China never goes Capitalist). That's 75 million in total. If one out of a hundred of them spams you in a year, that's 750,000 spams/year = 62,500 spams/month. "Just hit delete" 62,500 times a month. No bleeping way. "If I got 1 or 2 spams a day" I'd probably phone my ISP and ask them what's wrong with their mailserver. It's getting that bad. 3) More and more of the Korean spams are "full colour glossy" jpegs or, even worse, the crud that I affectionately call "F##kwave/Slash". So let's say things deteriorate to the point where your average spam is 100 kbytes (I've already seen 250-kbyte spams). That's 6.25 gigabytes per month *OF NOTHING BUT SPAM*. Did I mention that here in Canada, broadband ISPs are starting to charge for monthly bandwidth usage above a base amount. In the case of Sympatico, it's 0.795 CDN$ for each 100 megs ($7.95 CDN$ per gigabyte) beyond 5 gigabytes. So in this scenario people would be paying close to $10 per month bandwidth surcharge in addition to their regular monthly bill *JUST FOR INCOMING SPAM ALONE*!!! And if they want to download a linux distro or watch streaming media, that's extra. I've moved on to a different ISP, but the principle still applies. Walter Dnes I'm not repeating myself; I'm an X Window user, I'm an ex-Windows user Palladium ain't done till linux won't run ------------------------------ From: wesrock@aol.com (Wes Leatherock) Date: 16 Sep 2002 00:10:55 GMT Organization: AOL http://www.aol.com Subject: Re: One Area Code to Unify Divided Town On Sat, 14 Sep 2002 12:36:58 -0400 David Massey atca_tci@bellsouth.net wrote: > At least I can brag that we have the LARGEST local calling area in > the USA and possibly the world. Largest in number of telephone lines, exchange access arrangements, or whatever the current buzzword is, but not in area. That distriction belongs to the metro Oklahoma City calling area, which is slightly larger than Atlanta's in square miles but slightly smaller in number of telephones. On Sun, 15 Sep 2002 11:53:59 -0400 Kirtley Stanfield kirt@erols.com wrote: > ... I suspect for the most part this was done in the > billing system, which must have had to have been coded fro the actual > town a phone was in. This is something all telephone companies have had in their records probably for 100 year or more. Every bit of plant has to be identified as to what jurisdications (school districts, municipalities, counties, water districts, fire protection districts, municipal improvement districts, and all kinds of other taxing agencies) it is in for property tax purposes, and also for allocation of gross receipts taxes (inspections fees, whatever it's called in the jurisdiction). Now with 911 it has to be further identified (normally in a separate data base) as to what PSAP goes with each individual telephone number, which depends on the jurisdiction in which it's located. Wes Leatherock wesrock@aol.com wleathus@yahoo.com ------------------------------ From: Jason McGraw Subject: Telecom Privacy Date: Sun, 15 Sep 2002 20:00:13 -0500 I'm attempting to research the topic of telecommunications privacy for a telecom course. Could anyone point me to some good resources regarding this topic? Thanks, Jason ------------------------------ Date: Sun, 15 Sep 2002 02:07:26 -0400 From: Monty Solomon Subject: News Headlines of Interest 9/15/02 IM giants told to work it out By Stefanie Olsen Staff Writer, CNET News.com September 13, 2002, 4:00 AM PT As Wall Street begins to embrace instant messaging, some financial giants are putting a squeeze on the technology's famously fractious service providers. Two weeks ago, six top financial institutions met privately with AOL Time Warner, Microsoft, IBM and other leading corporate instant messaging providers and urged them to build communications networks that interoperate. For the Wall Street firms, a lack of IM interoperability has been a source of increasing frustration and a possible pinch on profits. http://news.com.com/2100-1023-957787.html France Telecom Rescue Promised Friday, September 13, 2002 3:48 p.m. EDT By JOHN LEICESTER Associated Press Writer PARIS (AP) - Calling beleaguered France Telecom a symbol of French success, the government promised Friday a "very substantial" cash injection as part of a rescue plan to pull the telecommunications giant out of a black hole of debt. The pledge from the government, France Telecom's majority shareholder, not to let the firm collapse followed the resignation Thursday of company chairman Michel Bon after seven years at the helm. Compounding its woes, France Telecom on Friday announced nearly $12 billion in losses for the first half of the year and the end of a costly foray into Germany's mobile phone sector. The decision threatened 5,000 jobs at indebted German affiliate Mobilcom and provoked expressions of dismay from the German government. http://news.lycos.com/news/story.asp?section=Business&storyId=518055 Microsoft Word flaw allows digitally signed forgeries By DAN RICHMAN SEATTLE POST-INTELLIGENCER REPORTER Sep. 13 - Microsoft Corp.'s flagship word-processing software has a security flaw that could allow creating perfect forgeries of digitally signed documents, the company confirmed yesterday. The flaw in Microsoft Word opens the door to fraud, because digital signatures are intended to assure the authenticity and integrity of a file. The vulnerability, revealed on the Internet over two weeks ago but unpublicized until yesterday, could also allow the theft of computer files by "bugging" a document with a hidden code, the company confirmed. "The issue appears to affect all versions of Microsoft Word," said Microsoft security-program manager Lynn Terwoerds in a statement. "The Microsoft Security Response Center is thoroughly investigating this issue." Meanwhile, no fix is available. To minimize risk, Word users should not exchange files with "strange or untrusted third parties," Terwoerds advised. http://www.msnbc.com/local/pisea/86882.asp Telecoms operator MobilCom Set to Fail by Inka Blumensaat and James Mackenzie Friday, September 13, 2002 4:38 p.m. EDT BUEDELSDORF/FRANKFURT (Reuters) - German telecoms operator MobilCom AG (MOBG.DE) was set on Friday to join a string of recent corporate failures, threatening thousands of jobs after it was ditched by indebted partner France Telecom. Chancellor Gerhard Schroeder, facing an election in just over a week, made an immediate offer to help save the firm, echoing his dramatic but ultimately unsuccessful 1999 bailout of construction giant Philipp Holzmann (HOZG.DE). MobilCom said it would file for insolvency by next week after France Telecom, crippled by huge debts built up in the sector's frenzied expansion into new generation mobile phone technology, cut vital funding at a board meeting on Thursday. http://news.lycos.com/news/story.asp?section=Business&storyId=518672 Religious and Public Stations Battle for Share of Radio Dial By BLAINE HARDEN LAKE CHARLES, La., Sept. 13 - The Rev. Don Wildmon, founding chairman of a mushrooming network of Christian radio stations, does not like National Public Radio. "He detests the news that the public gets through NPR and believes it is slanted from a distinctly liberal and secular perspective," said Patrick Vaughn, general counsel for Mr. Wildmon's American Family Radio. Here in Lake Charles, American Family Radio has silenced what its boss detests. It knocked two NPR affiliate stations off the local airwaves last year, transforming this southwest Louisiana community of 95,000 people into the most populous place in the country where "All Things Considered" cannot be heard. http://www.nytimes.com/2002/09/15/national/15RADI.html [TELECOM Digest Editor's Note: *Exactly how* did he 'knock the NPR stations off the air'? I personally think the American Family Assoc- iation is a dreadful bunch of people, but they cannot work magic. If NPR was strictly following the FCC regs, they had a right to be on the air at their spots. Exactly how did they lose out? Excuse this unusual interuption in Monty's column here. PAT] Digital media world aims to survive by doing less - Sep 14, 2002 11:17 AM (Reuters) By Lucas van Grinsven, European Technology correspondent AMSTERDAM, Sept 14 (Reuters) - Media technicians from around the world flocked together here over the weekend to find an industry struggling with a cash crunch and looking for ways to survive the switch to piracy-sensitive digital formats. The annual International Broadcasting Convention (IBC) brought few breakthroughs or major partnerships, because this year key players are trying to do less rather than more. U.S.-based Microsoft (NASDAQ:MSFT), which last year boasted its first customer for its interactive TV middleware software in Portugal's TVCabo, went on the record saying that it was no longer trying to sell products with all the bells and whistles, because clients could no longer afford expensive set top boxes. - http://finance.lycos.com/home/news/story.asp?story=28674060 OPINION Wireless infrastructure now a public safety issue By Annabel Dodd, 9/15/2002 Wireless services played a poignant role in the events of Sept. 11, 2001, leading up to the jet crashes into the World Trade Center, the Pentagon, and in Shanksville, Pa. They gave the world a bird's-eye view of events on these airplanes, and they enabled people in the twin towers and aboard the doomed planes to say good-bye to loved ones. Unfortunately, in the immediate aftermath of the tragedy, mobile networks became so congested that people were frustrated they could not use their cellphones to reach emergency services or connect with loved ones. Emergency workers, including fire and police officers, were hampered by the same network congestion. In their January 2002 report, the Department of Justice and the Department of the Treasury's Public Safety Wireless Network program quoted Rick Keevil, first sergeant, Virginia state police: ''Cellular communications failed for the Virginia state police.'' http://www.boston.com/dailyglobe2/258/business/Wireless_infrastructure_now_a_public_safety_issue+.shtml ------------------------------ From: John Higdon Subject: Re: Where Have All the Phone Booths Gone? Organization: Green Hills and Cows Date: Sun, 15 Sep 2002 15:17:18 -0700 In article , Roy Smith wrote: > Well, this may be a bit silly, but I'm back to report that they do still > exist. I got off the subway at Grand Central Station the other day and > went out an exit I'd never used before, which put me in the basement of > the Chrysler Building. And lo and behold, but what did I see? Not one > phone booth, but a whole bank of them! Real phone booths. With doors > that close, and little seats. Yahoo! My faith in the universe is > restored :-) Now that you have let the cat out of the bag, they will be gone next week. :-) I know of a phone in the San Francisco area that still sports a twenty-cent initial deposit (local call). I'm not saying where. John Higdon | Email Address Valid | SF: +1 415 428-COWS +1 408 264 4115 | Anytown, USA | FAX: +1 408 264 4407 ------------------------------ Date: Sat, 14 Sep 2002 21:07:03 -0500 From: Ron Bean Subject: Re: Last Laugh! was Re: Know Your Alpha Bravo Charlies George Mitchell writes: > In the days of yore when John Campbell was editing Analog, he proposed > a phonetic alphabet for obfuscation. For example, using "phthisic" > (pronounced "tisik") for the letter "p". I haven't been able to find > the rest of his alphabet online. Does anyone else remember this? Some years ago I was looking through some old pre-WWII issues of QST (ham radio magazine) in a library, and I came across a letter to the editor from someone whose native language was not English, asking American hams to please stop using phonetics like "Knapsack" and "Xylophone", because it was too confusing. ------------------------------ Subject: Re: Last Laugh! was Re: Know Your Alpha Bravo Charlies Organization: io.com From: djmcdona@io.com (Daniel J McDonald) Date: Sun, 15 Sep 2002 01:58:17 GMT In article , David Wolff wrote: >In article , George Mitchell wrote: >> Joey Lindstrom wrote: >>> Like many things in the telecommunications field, this practice, too, >>> is standardized, as follows: >>> Alpha Bravo Charlie Delta Echo Foxtrot Golf Hotel India Juliet Kilo >>> (KEE-loh) Lima (LEE-muh) Mike November Oscar Papa Quebec Romeo Sierra >>> Tango Uniform Victor Whistkey X-Ray Yankee Zulu. >>> Also, when saying numbers, "five" and "nine" can sound the same, so >>> "nine" should be stretched to two syllables, to sound like "niner". >> In the days of yore when John Campbell was editing Analog, he proposed >> a phonetic alphabet for obfuscation. For example, using "phthisic" >> (pronounced "tisik") for the letter "p". I haven't been able to find >> the rest of his alphabet online. Does anyone else remember this? > I don't know if this is it ... I recall seeing one in a Usenet post a decade or so ago. The only two letters I remember are: D as in double-u E as in eye I do remember bursting out laughing for hours over that post ... Daniel J McDonald CCIE # 2495, CNX Visit my website: http://www.austinnetworkdesign.com ------------------------------ From: John Higdon Subject: Re: (created by PAT) Last Laugh! Is This Spam? Organization: Green Hills and Cows Date: Sun, 15 Sep 2002 16:13:06 -0700 In article TELECOM Digest Editor noted in response to SpamAssassin's faithful report: > I love it, don't you? This message was untouched, unedited, I wanted > you to see how SpamAssassin thinks about these things. By the way, > SpamAssassin adds the phrase with 'spam' and the stars on the > subject line. PAT Given that silly skirmish we had a couple of weeks ago, I just about laughed my ass off. Someone actually came in to see if I was OK! BTW, even as we speak, someone using a .info domain as an envelope sender address is doing a dictionary attack on my servers. Nice. John Higdon | Email Address Valid | SF: +1 415 428-COWS +1 408 264 4115 | Anytown, USA | FAX: +1 408 264 4407 ------------------------------ TELECOM Digest is an electronic journal devoted mostly but not exclusively to telecommunications topics. It is circulated anywhere there is email, in addition to various telecom forums on a variety of networks such as Compuserve and America On Line, 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: 620-870-9697 Fax 1: 775-255-9970 Fax 2: 775-306-8390 Fax 3: 530-309-7234 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 second 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) Email <==> FTP: telecom-archives@telecom-digest.org Send a simple, one line note to that automated address for a help file on how to use the automatic retrieval system for archives files. You can get desired files in email. ************************************************************************* * 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. Access to Premium (P) links requires upgrade to a paid subscription. One click a day feeds a person a meal. Go to http://www.thehungersite.com Only subscribers or registered users of ICB Toll Free News web site will be able to access all or some of the full text of URLs provided. LEGAL STUFF: TELECOM Digest (sm) is owned by Patrick Townson. Copyright 2000 ICB, Inc. and TELECOM Digest. All rights reserved. Our attorney is Bill Levant, of Blue Bell, PA. --------------------------------------------------------------- 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 twenty 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 V22 #38 ***************************** From editor@telecom-digest.org Mon Sep 16 20:52:09 2002 Received: from localhost (localhost [[UNIX: localhost]]) by massis.lcs.mit.edu (8.11.3nb1/8.11.3) id g8H0q9H19848; Mon, 16 Sep 2002 20:52:09 -0400 (EDT) Date: Mon, 16 Sep 2002 20:52:09 -0400 (EDT) From: editor@telecom-digest.org Message-Id: <200209170052.g8H0q9H19848@massis.lcs.mit.edu> X-Authentication-Warning: massis.lcs.mit.edu: ptownson set sender to editor@telecom-digest.org using -f To: ptownson Approved: patsnewlist Subject: TELECOM Digest V22 #39 TELECOM Digest Mon, 16 Sep 2002 20:32:00 EDT Volume 22 : Issue 39 Inside This Issue: Editor: Patrick A. Townson Telecom Update (Canada) #349, September 16, 2002 (Angus TeleManagement) Re: Question on RJ-11 Phone Connectors (obsidian) Re: Question on RJ-11 Phone Connectors (John R. Levine) Re: Question on RJ-11 Phone Connectors (Reed) Re: Question on RJ-11 Phone Connectors (Phil McKerracher) Re: Question on RJ-11 Phone Connectors (Owain) Re: Question on RJ-11 Phone Connectors (Rich Greenberg) Re: Question on RJ-11 Phone Connectors (Joseph Singer) Re: Question on RJ-11 Phone Connectors (jt) 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. WE DO NOT PERMIT NAME/EMAIL ADDRESS HARVESTING FROM THIS JOURNAL. 'SALTED' EMAIL ADDRESSES APPEAR HEREIN TO VERIFY THIS. YOU GET SUED IN SMALL CLAIMS COURT IF YOU GET CAUGHT SPAMMING OR SENDING VIRUSES. DON'T DO IT. See the bottom of this issue for subscription and archive details and the name of our lawyer; other stuff of interest. ---------------------------------------------------------------------- Date: Mon, 16 Sep 2002 10:26:17 -0400 From: Angus TeleManagement Subject: Telecom Update (Canada) #349, September 16, 2002 ************************************************************ TELECOM UPDATE ************************************************************ published weekly by Angus TeleManagement Group http://www.angustel.ca Number 349: September 16, 2002 Publication of Telecom Update is made possible by generous financial support from: ** BELL CANADA: http://www.bell.ca ** CISCO SYSTEMS CANADA: http://www.cisco.com/ca/letstalk ** CYGCOM INTEGRATED TECHNOLOGIES: http://www.cygcom.com ** ERICSSON CANADA: http://www.ericsson.ca ** JUNIPER NETWORKS: http://www.juniper.net ** PRIMUS CANADA: http://www.primustel.ca ** Q9 NETWORKS: http://www.Q9.com ** TELUS: http://www.telus.com ************************************************************ IN THIS ISSUE: ** BCE Sells Directory Business ** AT&T Skips Bond Payments ** GT Bankruptcy Protection Extended ** CRTC Sets Rules for Expanded Local Calling ** Bell Buys Out Lycos ** Rogers Intros GPRS Upgrade for Treo ** Roth Sells Nortel Stake ** Telus Prepares Equity Offering ** Rogers Opens Moncton Call Centre ** Alcatel to Sell Canadian Wireless LAN ** Telus Extends Cope's Contract ** SaskTel Launches TV Service ** Lucent Expects 20% Revenue Decline ** Gender Gap Narrows in Communications ** Internet Registry Officers Named ** IP-PBX Reliability Poses New Challenge ============================================================ BCE SELLS DIRECTORY BUSINESS: The Ontario Teachers Pension Plan Board and Kohlberg Kravis Roberts & Co. of New York have agreed to buy BCE's directory publishing business for $3 billion cash. The purchasers will acquire 209 White and Yellow Pages books, and BCE's Web-based directories, with combined revenue of $590 million a year. The proceeds of the sale will help to finance BCE's buyback of SBC's 20% stake in Bell Canada. AT&T SKIPS BOND PAYMENTS: In what appears to be a manoeuver to aid negotiations with creditors, AT&T Canada has elected not make bond interest payments of US$47.8 million due September 15, and C$5.4 million due September 23. The company has a 30-day grace period before creditors can take action to force payment. GT BANKRUPTCY PROTECTION EXTENDED: Group Telecom's protection under the Companies Creditors Arrangement Act has been extended to September 19, and a related U.S. injunction has been extended to September 25. The company expects to seek a further extension. ** GT says it has sufficient cash to carry on operations, serve customers, and pay its employees during the protection period. CRTC SETS RULES FOR EXPANDED LOCAL CALLING: In Telecom Decision 2002-56, the CRTC sets out new rules for expanding local calling areas. Local or regional governments may request the expansion. Long distance providers will be compensated for lost toll revenues for three years, through a surcharge on customers' bills. If the expected residential surcharge is more than $1, a plebiscite must be held. http://www.crtc.gc.ca/archive/ENG/Decisions/2002/dt2002-56.htm BELL BUYS OUT LYCOS: Bell Globemedia has purchased the 29% share in Sympatico Lycos owned by Lycos Inc, and now owns 100% of the company. The joint venture was created in January 2000, when Bell agreed to pay $60 million to license software and Web content from Lycos. ROGERS INTROS GPRS UPGRADE FOR TREO: A free software upgrade now allows Handspring Treo 180 users to access the Internet through Rogers' GPRS network, and to use Treo Mail, a service that connects the handheld units to POP3 and Microsoft Exchange-based corporate e-mail. www.rogers.com/treo ROTH SELLS NORTEL STAKE: Former Nortel CEO John Roth has sold his remaining 750,000 Nortel shares for $1.16 million. TELUS PREPARES EQUITY OFFERING: Telus plans to raise $337 million by issuing 34 million non-voting shares. The money will be used to pay down debt. ROGERS OPENS MONCTON CALL CENTRE: Rogers Communications has opened a Moncton call centre to serve its wireless and cable customers across Canada. The centre employs 200 service representatives now; Rogers says that will expand to 700 over five years. ALCATEL TO SELL CANADIAN WIRELESS LAN: Alcatel says it will offer Wi-Fi products from Laval-based Colubris Networks to customers worldwide. The companies are "currently partnering in several opportunities in Europe and Asia." TELUS EXTENDS COPE'S CONTRACT: Telus has renewed the employment agreement of George Cope, President and CEO of Telus Mobility, for an additional two years. Cope headed Clearnet until it was bought by Telus in 2000. SASKTEL LAUNCHES TV SERVICE: On September 12, SaskTel began offering Max Interactive Services, a suite of DSL-based TV and Internet services, to customers in Regina. The Basic package provides high-speed Internet, 20 TV channels, 30 music channels, and Saskatchewan radio stations for $59.95/month. ** SaskTel says Max will be deployed this fall in Saskatoon and seven other communities. LUCENT EXPECTS 20% REVENUE DECLINE: Lucent Technologies says it expects revenue of US$2.2-$2.35 for the quarter ending September 30, down 20%-25% from the previous quarter and down 55%-58% from the same period last year. GENDER GAP NARROWS IN COMMUNICATIONS: A four-year study commissioned by Canadian Women in Communications says that women now hold 43% of middle management positions in the communications sector, almost equal to their proportion (46%) of total employment. A large disparity still exists in senior management, where women hold only 19% of positions and are paid significantly less than men. http://www.cwc-afc.com/show-content.cfm?section=new-pre INTERNET REGISTRY OFFICERS NAMED: The Canadian Internet Registration Authority (CIRA) has named new officers for 2002-2003: Chair: Maureen Cubberley, Senior Partner, ASM Advanced Strategic Management Consultants Vice-Chair: Ron Kawchuk, President, RKA Inc. Treasurer: John Demco, Manager of Computing Facilities, UBC Department of Computer Science. Secretary: Paul Andersen, Vice-President of Technology, E-Gate Communications Inc. IP-PBX RELIABILITY POSES NEW CHALLENGE: In the September issue of Telemanagement, John Riddell examines the techniques needed to keep IP-based PBXs running all the time. Also in Telemanagement #198: ** "Wireless Survivor Targets Urban Business Market" ** "10 Steps to a Customer Contact Technology Strategy" ** "Deconstructing the PBX: Cisco's IP Telephony System" Until October 30, new subscribers to Telemanagement will save $50 on the price of a one-year subscription, with a money-back guarantee. Go to http://www.angustel.ca/teleman/Telemanagement_Special_Offer.pdf. ============================================================ HOW TO SUBMIT ITEMS FOR TELECOM UPDATE E-MAIL: editors@angustel.ca FAX: 905-686-2655 MAIL: TELECOM UPDATE Angus TeleManagement Group 8 Old Kingston Road Ajax, Ontario Canada L1T 2Z7 =========================================================== HOW TO SUBSCRIBE (OR UNSUBSCRIBE) TELECOM UPDATE is provided in electronic form only. There are two formats available: 1. The fully-formatted edition is posted on the World Wide Web on the first business day of the week at http://www.angustel.ca 2. The e-mail edition is distributed free of charge. To subscribe, send an e-mail message to: TelecomUpdate@add.postmastergeneral.com To stop receiving the e-mail edition, send an e-mail message to: TelecomUpdate@remove.postmastergeneral.com Sending e-mail to these addresses will automatically add or remove the sender's e-mail address from the list. Leave subject line and message area blank. We do not give Telecom Update subscribers' e-mail addresses to any third party. For more information, see http://www.angustel.ca/update/privacy.html. =========================================================== COPYRIGHT AND CONDITIONS OF USE: All contents copyright 2002 Angus TeleManagement Group Inc. All rights reserved. For further information, including permission to reprint or reproduce, please e-mail rosita@angustel.ca or phone 905-686-5050 ext 500. The information and data included has been obtained from sources which we believe to be reliable, but Angus TeleManagement makes no warranties or representations whatsoever regarding accuracy, completeness, or adequacy. Opinions expressed are based on interpretation of available information, and are subject to change. If expert advice on the subject matter is required, the services of a competent professional should be obtained. ------------------------------ From: obsidian Subject: Re: Question on RJ-11 Phone Connectors Date: Mon, 16 Sep 2002 08:42:22 +0200 Organization: -= Skynet Usenet Service =- The RJ-11 connector is so pervasive that in each country adaptors are always locally available. You could, of course, also ship an RJ-11 socket. jk wrote in message news:telecom22.38.4@telecom-digest.org: > I just have a brief question that I'm sure the Telecom experts in > this group will have no trouble with, so here goes ... > The RJ-11 connectors and jacks which we use here in Canada and the > U.S., are they universally used around the world, or do different > countries use different types of connectors? Specifically I'm > interested in knowing whether or not the standard 4-wire RJ-11 design > is used in Romania, or do they have their own standards there? > I need to send someone in Romania an internal 56Kbps modem, but before > I do so, I need to know if they'll be able to use it at all with > their phone lines, or will they have to go and purchase a modem > designed for use in that country? Replies directed to my e-mail > would be greatly appreciated. ------------------------------ Date: 16 Sep 2002 02:45:08 -0400 From: johnl@iecc.com (John R. Levine) Subject: Re: Question on RJ-11 Phone Connectors Organization: I.E.C.C., Trumansburg NY USA > The RJ-11 connectors and jacks which we use here in Canada and the > U.S., are they universally used around the world, or do different > countries use different types of connectors? Specifically I'm > interested in knowing whether or not the standard 4-wire RJ-11 design > is used in Romania, or do they have their own standards there? Connectors vary like crazy. Visit http://www.teleadaptusa.com for a wide variety of adapters. Actually, I wouldn't worry about it. All modems are made with RJ-11 plugs and people all use RJ11-to-local adapters. Whatever plug they use in Romania (Teleadapt says they use an RJ11, but I don't believe it), the adapter will be available locally. John R. Levine, IECC, POB 727, Trumansburg NY 14886 +1 607 387 6869 johnl@iecc.com Village Trustee and Sewer Commissioner http://iecc.com/johnl Member, Provisional board, Coalition Against Unsolicited Commercial E-mail ------------------------------ From: Reed Subject: Re: Question on RJ-11 Phone Connectors Date: Sun, 15 Sep 2002 23:19:47 -0600 Organization: None Whatsoever According to http://kropla.com/phones2.htm Romania uses the RJ-11. reed ------------------------------ From: Phil McKerracher Subject: Re: Question on RJ-11 Phone Connectors Date: Mon, 16 Sep 2002 11:07:48 GMT Organization: blueyonder (post doesn't reflect views of blueyonder) I don't know about Romania in particular, but in general every country uses a different phone plug and adapter kits such as this http://www.synchrotech.com/product-misc/phone-adapter-kit_01.html are sold that do the conversion. Wonderful, isn't it? Another problem is that transmit and receive levels are different in the US from most other countries by around 10dB - you shout louder and are a bit deaf. :-) Not to mention the legal problems - it's still illegal to connect unapproved modems in many countries, although I've never heard of anyone being prosecuted. Having said all that, there is a fair chance you will be able to plug it in and it will work. If not, a pair of crocodile clips and some trial-and-error configuration might well succeed. Phil McKerracher www.mckerracher.org ------------------------------ From: spuorgelgoog@gowanhill.com (Owain) Subject: Re: Question on RJ-11 Phone Connectors Date: 16 Sep 2002 14:09:53 -0700 Organization: http://groups.google.com/ rbsfct@yahoo.com (jk) wrote > The RJ-11 connectors and jacks which we use here in Canada and the > U.S., are they universally used around the world, or do different > countries use different types of connectors? Many countries have different connectors. In the UK, RJ11 'style' plugs are used on phones and modems (not wall sockets), but wired differently. > Specifically I'm interested in knowing whether or not the standard > 4-wire RJ-11 design is used in Romania, or do they have their own > standards there? http://kropla.com/phones.htm and http://kropla.com/phones2.htm indicates that Romania uses RJ11. I doubt that Romania has the most stringent telecoms regulation in the world, but note most countries have their own telecom equipment approval procedures with varying penalties for connection of unapproved equipment. US modems may also not recognise other countries dial/engaged tones and US software may not handle local number formats correctly. > Replies directed to my e-mail would be greatly appreciated. It's here so that everyone can read it. Owain ------------------------------ From: richgr@panix.com (Rich Greenberg) Subject: Re: Question on RJ-11 Phone Connectors Date: 16 Sep 2002 08:11:08 -0400 Organization: Organized? Me? In article , jk wrote: > I just have a brief question that I'm sure the Telecom experts in this > group will have no trouble with, so here goes ... > The RJ-11 connectors and jacks which we use here in Canada and the > U.S., are they universally used around the world, or do different > countries use different types of connectors? Specifically I'm > interested in knowing whether or not the standard 4-wire RJ-11 design > is used in Romania, or do they have their own standards there? > I need to send someone in Romania an internal 56Kbps modem, but before > I do so, I need to know if they'll be able to use it at all with their > phone lines, or will they have to go and purchase a modem designed for > use in that country? I can't speak for the jacks being standard but if not, I am sure adapters will be available locally. What you should be more concerned with is that the dial tone and ring will be different, and a US modem is not likely to recognize them. > Replies directed to my e-mail would be greatly appreciated. Post it here, read it here. Rich Greenberg Work: Rich.Greenberg atsign worldspan.com +1 770-563-6656 N6LRT Marietta, GA, USA Play: richgr atsign panix.com +1 770-321-6507 Eastern time zone. I speak for myself & my dogs only. VM'er since CP-67 Canines:Val(Chinook,CGC,TT), Red & Shasta(Husky,(RIP)) Owner:Chinook-L Atlanta Siberian Husky Rescue. www.panix.com/~richgr/ Asst Owner:Sibernet-L ------------------------------ From: Joseph Singer Subject: Re: Question on RJ-11 Phone Connectors Date: Mon, 16 Sep 2002 08:28:14 -0700 Organization: Drizzle Reply-To: joeofseattle@yahoo.com On 14 Sep 2002 02:10:50 -0700, rbsfct@yahoo.com (jk) wrote: > The RJ-11 connectors and jacks which we use here in Canada and the > U.S., are they universally used around the world, or do different > countries use different types of connectors? Specifically I'm > interested in knowing whether or not the standard 4-wire RJ-11 design > is used in Romania, or do they have their own standards there? The "RJ-11" standard that is used in North America generally is "partially" used elsewhere in the world. Generally handset connectors are the same as are used in North America. Base cord connectors however are generally not the standard used in North America. Many countries are using their version of a modular connection. As an example in the UK they use a "pinch" plug similar, but not the same as is used in North America. Same for Israel. Many countries have had different plug arrangements for making phones portable. Most places up til the last twenty years or so generally had phones hard wired into some sort of connecting block. Like power/mains connections there seems to be a different sort of plug arrangement in most countries. Generally I've found that you can go into a hardware store in major cities/towns and find an adapter plug that will convert from North American standard to the standard of that particular country. Also to be technical there is no "RJ-11" plug, but rather RJ-11 standard. The only difference between RJ-11 and RJ-14 for instance is how the jack is wired RJ-11/RJ-11W (wall) for standard single line and RJ-14/RJ-14W (wall) for two line service. Personal replies most likely will not be read. Please reply in the newsgroup ------------------------------ From: jt Subject: Re: Question on RJ-11 Phone Connectors Date: Mon, 16 Sep 2002 11:31:22 -0400 Organization: WorldCom Canada Ltd. News Reader Service jk wrote in message news:telecom22.38.4@telecom-digest.org: > I just have a brief question that I'm sure the Telecom experts in this > group will have no trouble with, so here goes ... > The RJ-11 connectors and jacks which we use here in Canada and the > U.S., are they universally used around the world, or do different > countries use different types of connectors? Specifically I'm > interested in knowing whether or not the standard 4-wire RJ-11 design > is used in Romania, or do they have their own standards there? I know in the UK they use the same things -- except that installers will break off the little tab that lets you take the plug out if you wish to undo what they did. Buggers. ------------------------------ TELECOM Digest is an electronic journal devoted mostly but not exclusively to telecommunications topics. It is circulated anywhere there is email, in addition to various telecom forums on a variety of networks such as Compuserve and America On Line, 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: 620-870-9697 Fax 1: 775-255-9970 Fax 2: 775-306-8390 Fax 3: 530-309-7234 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 second 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) Email <==> FTP: telecom-archives@telecom-digest.org Send a simple, one line note to that automated address for a help file on how to use the automatic retrieval system for archives files. You can get desired files in email. ************************************************************************* * 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. Access to Premium (P) links requires upgrade to a paid subscription. One click a day feeds a person a meal. Go to http://www.thehungersite.com Only subscribers or registered users of ICB Toll Free News web site will be able to access all or some of the full text of URLs provided. LEGAL STUFF: TELECOM Digest (sm) is owned by Patrick Townson. Copyright 2000 ICB, Inc. and TELECOM Digest. All rights reserved. Our attorney is Bill Levant, of Blue Bell, PA. --------------------------------------------------------------- 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 twenty 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 V22 #39 ***************************** From editor@telecom-digest.org Mon Sep 16 22:17:26 2002 Received: from localhost (localhost [[UNIX: localhost]]) by massis.lcs.mit.edu (8.11.3nb1/8.11.3) id g8H2HQc20589; Mon, 16 Sep 2002 22:17:26 -0400 (EDT) Date: Mon, 16 Sep 2002 22:17:26 -0400 (EDT) From: editor@telecom-digest.org Message-Id: <200209170217.g8H2HQc20589@massis.lcs.mit.edu> X-Authentication-Warning: massis.lcs.mit.edu: ptownson set sender to editor@telecom-digest.org using -f To: ptownson Approved: patsnewlist Subject: TELECOM Digest V22 #40 TELECOM Digest Mon, 16 Sep 2002 22:16:00 EDT Volume 22 : Issue 40 Inside This Issue: Editor: Patrick A. Townson Speaking of ICANN (Judith Oppenheimer) Re: One Area Code to Unify Divided Town (obsidian) Re: One Area Code to Unify Divided Town (John R. Levine) D-Channels Blocked Using Dialogic D/300SC-E1 & Bayonne1.0 (Sabine Jordan) Re: Help With Siemens Multi-Line Phone and Fax Setup (Rich Greenberg) Re: VPN Access For All Staff - Authenticated (Larry & Wanda Finch) Lucent G3 PBX (Kent Larson) Re: Where Have All the Phone Booths Gone? (Henry) Re: Largest Calling Area (Alan Burkitt-Gray) Re: How Can Someone Receive a Call From 555-XXXX? (News Reader) Telecom Spammer With 800 Number (William Van Hefner) Re: Spamming, etc (David Thompson) Re: And Now For Something Completely Different (John David Galt) Re: New Routine for Digest Starting Now (Gail M. Hall) Spammy Spam Spam (Joey Lindstrom) 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. WE DO NOT PERMIT NAME/EMAIL ADDRESS HARVESTING FROM THIS JOURNAL. 'SALTED' EMAIL ADDRESSES APPEAR HEREIN TO VERIFY THIS. YOU GET SUED IN SMALL CLAIMS COURT IF YOU GET CAUGHT SPAMMING OR SENDING VIRUSES. DON'T DO IT. See the bottom of this issue for subscription and archive details and the name of our lawyer; other stuff of interest. ---------------------------------------------------------------------- From: Judith Oppenheimer Subject: Speaking of ICANN Date: Mon, 16 Sep 2002 16:51:35 -0400 A few URLs of interest, just to keep the record straight. Whither the ccTLDs? http://www.icannwatch.org/article.php?sid=946&mode=&order=0 including http://www.dnso.org/clubpublic/council/Arc11/msg00035.html proposed Names Council resolution declaring that ICANN's failure to properly update ccTLD name servers is endangering Internet stability. and RIRs Really Mad at ICANN http://www.icannwatch.org/article.php?sid=944&mode=&order=0 (the "angry letter" link in the first para has been disabled by ICANN, but its reprinted here anyway.) Judith Oppenheimer http://JudithOppenheimer.com http://ICBTollFreeNews.com http://WhoSells800.com 212 684-7210, 1 800 The Expert Visit 1-800 AFTA, http://www.1800afta.org [TELECOM Digest Editor's Note: Everyone should remember that September 30 is the day the Memorandum of Understanding involving ICANN expires. Sometime, *please* in the next week or two, read the mention that was made here yesterday and also read these references that Judith gives above then reach some decisions of your own, and put them on record. This is a **very important** matter. PAT] ------------------------------ From: obsidian Subject: Re: One Area Code to Unify Divided Town Date: Mon, 16 Sep 2002 08:39:35 +0200 Organization: -= Skynet Usenet Service =- My local calling area covers the entire country of Belgium, some 30 thousand square kilometres [or nearly 12 thousand square miles for the Americans.] How big is your calling area? David Massey wrote in message news:telecom22.37.4@telecom-digest.org: > When I read this it made that Simpsons cartoon about the split area > code come to mind! > We here in Kennesaw, Georgia, USA (a city > near Atlanta) have two postal zip codes and I think the area codes > we can call toll-free are 404, 770, 678, 470 and 906 of which the > first four overlay the metro Atlanta area. Such is life near a big > city! At least I can brag that we have the LARGEST local calling > area in the USA and possibly the world. ------------------------------ Date: 16 Sep 2002 02:48:27 -0400 From: johnl@iecc.com (John R. Levine) Subject: Re: One Area Code to Unify Divided Town Organization: I.E.C.C., Trumansburg NY USA >> At least I can brag that we have the LARGEST local calling area in >> the USA and possibly the world. > Largest in number of telephone lines, exchange access > arrangements, or whatever the current buzzword is, but not in area. > That distriction belongs to the metro Oklahoma City calling area, I imagine the largest in phone lines is probably New York City, where all calls within the city limits are local. To return to Erving, Mass., when they invented area codes in the 1940s, the 413/617 line went through the middle of town. But it sounds like until the invention of 911 and emergency dispatchers a hundred miles away who have no idea how the data on their screens match up with reality, it was only a minor annoyance. The issue of exchange lines not matching town lines occurs throughout New England. I know that Vermont also has a rule that all calls within a town are local, regardless of normal exchange boundaries, and I expect that Maine and New Hampshire do, too. John R. Levine, IECC, POB 727, Trumansburg NY 14886 +1 607 387 6869 johnl@iecc.com Village Trustee and Sewer Commissioner http://iecc.com/johnl Member, Provisional board, Coalition Against Unsolicited Commercial E-mail ------------------------------ From: jordan@rate-one.de (Sabine Jordan) Subject: D-Channels Blocked Using Dialogic D/300SC-E1 & Bayonne1.0 Date: 16 Sep 2002 03:18:24 -0700 Organization: http://groups.google.com/ Hello, We have got an IVR-System with a Dialogic D/300SC-E1 Voiceboard (Firmware ctr4 Euro ISDN) running on a RedHat 7.2-System with bayonne1.0 managing and processing the calls. We are in active testing process right now. The system seemed to work so far, but the problem we just encountered is that all the D-Channels seem to somhow get blocked. We made some calls -- unfortunately I do not knwo how many - which we disconnected after some testing. I do not know now if our system never cleared the D-channels at all or if there was another event which blocked all of our D-channels. Restarting dialogic and bayonne processes seemed be of no effect at all, also. Then I do not know how to find out if the problem occurs because of the dialogic hardware or the bayonne software? Could someone offer me some help please? Best regards, Sabine Jordan ------------------------------ From: richgr@panix.com (Rich Greenberg) Subject: Re: Help With Siemens Multi-Line Phone and Fax Setup Date: 16 Sep 2002 08:14:04 -0400 Organization: Organized? Me? In article , Cliff wrote: > I just obtained a Siemens Gigaset 8825 multi-line phone. I also have > an HP PSC950 multifunction printer/scanner/fax device. > I've disabled incoming calls on the Gigaset 8825 for my fax line (so > the phone doesn't ring when something dials in on the fax line) and > the fax successfully picks up ... HOWEVER, on the Siemens telephone I'm > still able to pick up the Fax line. It doesn't automatically go to the > second line, ie, it doesn't detect that the Fax line is in use. > Any ideas? Is there a device I can install that will prevent me from > accidentally picking up the fax line while the fax is in use? Can you swap the pairs to the Siemens Gigaset so that the non-fax line will be line 1 (which I assume is the default pickup line)? Rich Greenberg Work: Rich.Greenberg atsign worldspan.com +1 770-563-6656 N6LRT Marietta, GA, USA Play: richgr atsign panix.com +1 770-321-6507 Eastern time zone. I speak for myself & my dogs only. VM'er since CP-67 Canines:Val(Chinook,CGC,TT), Red & Shasta(Husky,(RIP)) Owner:Chinook-L Atlanta Siberian Husky Rescue. www.panix.com/~richgr/ Asst Owner:Sibernet-L ------------------------------ From: Larry & Wanda Finch Subject: Re: VPN Access For All Staff - Authenticated Date: Mon, 16 Sep 2002 12:52:30 GMT Rob Clark wrote: > I am very familiar with the 'OLD' way of providing remote access for > employees: > - Modem bank > - Users at home/hotel with modem > - Dial in, and then authenticate; each with separate user/pass > But ... with more users having ADSL at home, and direct Ethernet in > Hotels ... what is the best way to provide controlled access? > I assume VPN tunnels; Remote users have Win2000 -- which supports > IpSec and can initiate a VPN connection; but ... I am not sure which > VPN servers support separate authentication for many (500+) potential > users, and are there associated administration tools that help manage > the usernames/passwords. Any VPN server can meet your need, even Microsoft's PPTP. We recently switched to the Nortel Extranet client from PPTP, and on the whole like it. Unlike PPTP, it supports the use of tokens like RSA's SecurID. All of the packages come with administrative tools. Larry Finch N 40 53' 47" W 74 03' 56" ------------------------------ From: kentlar@yahoo.com (Kent Larson) Subject: Lucent G3 PBX Date: 16 Sep 2002 07:06:39 -0700 Organization: http://groups.google.com/ If I purchase a Lucent G3 PBX from a company that is going out of business do I have to re-license the software? The switch is currently running on release 9 of Lucent/Avaya Definity software. I have been told by Avaya that I cannot use release 9 even though it is currently on the switch. Avaya says I have to upgrade to release 11 and pay dearly for the Definity software in order to use the used PBX hardware. Are they pulling the wool over our eyes? I remember in the past purchasing a used Nortel system and not having to re-license the software. Any help would be greatly appreciated. Thank you! ------------------------------ From: henry99@mac.com (Henry) Subject: Re: Where Have All the Phone Booths Gone? Date: Mon, 16 Sep 2002 09:33:01 +0300 Organization: Elisa Internet customer Roy Smith wrote: >> I can't remember the last time I saw an >> honest to goodness phone booth, with a seat, a door, a light that >> comes on when you close the door (and a fan even). A phone book, >> of course, would be too much to ask for... Here in Finland, almost all (I'd say about 95% + ) phone booths have a phone book -- and the really remarkable thing is that it's not even chained down; it just sits loose on the shelf. Not defaced. Not mutilated beyond use. Just ... there. It is true that it's getting harder and harder to _find_ a public phone (booth or no booth), as the spread of mobiles here has reached saturation level. Moreover, when you do find one, it's likely to be card-operated, not coin -- and the phonecard you've got in your wallet always seems to be the wrong one! Cheers, Henry Larsen Tampere, Finland ------------------------------ Date: Mon, 16 Sep 2002 10:33:48 +0100 From: Alan Burkitt-Gray Subject: Re: Largest Calling Area David Massey wrote: > At least I can brag that we [Atlanta] have the LARGEST local > calling area in the USA and possibly the world. BT used to claim Londoners had the largest local calling area in the world -- with local-rate access not only to all fixed phones in London (in those days area code 01, now 020) but also to neighbouring towns on the periphery of London. The area's about 40 miles east-west, about the same distance north-south, and probably these days contains about 12-15 million phones. Of course, local phone calls aren't free here, but it's still a big area. Alan Burkitt-Gray Editor, Global Telecoms Business Euromoney Institutional Investor plc, Nestor House, Playhouse Yard, London EC4V 5EX, UK tel +44 20 7779 8518 fax +44 20 7779 8492 e-mail aburkitt@euromoneyplc.com www.globaltelecomsbusiness.com ------------------------------ From: News Reader Subject: Re: How Can Someone Receive a Call From 555-XXXX? Date: Mon, 16 Sep 2002 10:23:27 -0400 Organization: http://www.teranews.com How would you know WHO to report if they are sending bogus info? Actually accept the call and ask what company is calling? They'd probably just give you the name of some subsidiary and it would still be pretty tricky to find out the "real" culprit ... Richard Haendel wrote in message news:telecom22.36.14@telecom-digest.org: > Now that I know what's happening and if it happens again, I will certainly > report it. > Thanks to all, > Richard > Fritz Whittington wrote in message > news:telecom22.35.10@telecom-digest.org: >> Richard Haendel wrote: >>> Recently, I got a call from some telemarketer for which the number >>> displayed as "614-555-5555" on my caller id. >> Of course, this is in violation of FCC rules. But, if you don't >> report it, they will continue to do it. See: > > for how-to. >> Fritz Whittington >> TI Alum - http://www.tialumni.org ------------------------------ From: William Van Hefner Subject: Telecom Spammer With 800 Number Date: Sun, 15 Sep 2002 23:00:25 -0700 The only thing worse than a spammer is a spammer that is selling telecom service! Received the below e-mail, which links to a company called Web Long Distance at http://web-long-distance.com/?affiliate.cfm?aff=768gr1 . It seems that one of their "affiliates" may be behind the actual mailing, but they have done nothing to shut this affiliate's website down, or to stop his online sales. The company's actual name, address and toll-free number are listed below. Perhaps this company should be reminded that spamming is illegal (in my state, at least) and that those of us in the telecom industry are opposed to our "fellow industry professionals" using such underhanded, sleazy marketing tactics. They are: Web Long Distance, Inc. 630 Davis Drive Suite 140 Morrisville, NC 27560 1-866-433-3086 BEGIN SPAM Received: from SMTP32-FWD by bulletinboard.net (SMTP32) id A000000BC; Sun, 15 Sep 2002 12:18:13 -0700 Received: from 211.250.166.3 [211.184.46.3] by bulletinboard.net (SMTPD32-7.05) id ACF3624F0154; Sun, 15 Sep 2002 12:18:11 -0700 Received: from unknown (170.127.231.172) by smtp013.mail.yahoo.com with local; Sep, 15 2002 2:57:45 AM +0300 Received: from unknown (124.215.35.163) by rly-xw01.mx.aol.com with QMQP; Sep, 15 2002 2:00:46 AM -0800 Received: from 167.90.49.93 ([167.90.49.93]) by mailout2-eri1.midsouth.rr.com with esmtp; Sep, 15 2002 1:17:32 AM +1100 From: lots_of_hits@yahoo.com To: webmaster@zoxinc.com Cc: Subject: Please review Sender: lots_of_hits@yahoo.com Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1" Date: Sun, 15 Sep 2002 03:18:57 -0400 X-Mailer: Microsoft Outlook Express 5.50.4522.1200 Message-Id: <200209151218259.SM00120@211.250.166.3> Status: U X-UIDL: 295422751 I noticed that you didn't have a low cost 800 number on your website. We have found a company that can provide Toll free calling to your prospective customers with a $4.95 monthly fee and no special equipment needed. All you have to do is pick one of your existing numbers and they will forward the call to you and the new customer will never know!! All you pay is 6.9 cents per minute and no other costs!! Just go to http://seohelp101.com and look for the Web Long Distance website to get started!!!! Further emailing to you by the sender of this email may be stopped by contacting augmenthits_rem@hotmail.com with "Withdraw" typed into the subject line. END OF SPAM ### William Van Hefner Editor Discount Long Distance Digest http://www.thedigest.com ------------------------------ From: David Thompson Subject: Re: Spamming, etc Date: Mon, 16 Sep 2002 23:14:49 GMT Organization: AT&T Worldnet TELECOM Digest Editor noted in reponse to Geoffrey Welsh : > [TELECOM Digest Editor's Note: No [spammers] don't waste any time. I have > thought a couple times about *completely deleting* all email addresses > in the Digest, and [forwarding replies] ... I think Peter N. of *Risks* > only prints the names, not the email addresses. At least that is > what he used to do. ... For at least two years (as far back as I have handy online) RISKS items have included email addresses in most cases, presumably whenever the submitter included it, except that on request (at least according to him!) PGN suppresses the submitter's identity entirely, substituting his own. FWIW. - David.Thompson 1 now at worldnet.att.net [TELECOM Digest Editor's Note: Well, I do not usually read RISKS these days. Its just a matter of time available to do stuff. When I *used to* read RISKS regularly -- about 10-12 years ago (his e-journal is nearly as old as this one, but not quite) he was printing a From line with name but no email address on it, a Date and a Subject line. I have thought a couple times about doing that here, forcing all replies via the Digest, but it just is not realistic because of the amount of extra work it would cause me, and also I do not like the idea of being the 'star of the show' around here, where my imprintatuer is needed on all stuff that gets printed, etc. So I let addresses stay in place so readers can write back and forth to each other as desired. PAT] ------------------------------ From: John David Galt Subject: Re: And Now For Something Completely Different Date: Mon, 16 Sep 2002 16:40:42 -0700 Organization: Diogenes the Cynic Hot-Tubbing Society Joey Lindstrom quotes dictionary.com: > spam > n. > Unsolicited e-mail, often of a commercial nature, sent > indiscriminately to multiple mailing lists, individuals, or > newsgroups; junk e-mail. In newsgroups "spam" is now distinguished from "ECP" (excessive cross posts) in that "spam" is sent as many separate messages, to make it harder for sysadmins to delete and for users' news reading programs to skip automatically. Like other obnoxious forms of advertising, the point is to force unwilling people to look at it again and again. > tr.v. spammed, spamming, spams > To send unsolicited e-mail to. > To send (a message) indiscriminately to multiple mailing lists, > individuals, or newsgroups. > [From Spam(probably inspired by a comedy routine on the British > television series Monty Python's Flying Circus, in which the word is > repeated incessantly).] That comedy piece is the origin of the term only indirectly. See: http://www.cybernothing.org/faqs/net-abuse-faq.html#2.4 ------------------------------ From: Gail M. Hall Subject: Re: New Routine for Digest Starting Now Date: Mon, 16 Sep 2002 20:48:07 -0400 Reply-To: gmhall@apk.net Pat, I'm glad to see you are getting some help dealing with the spam and viruses/worms. On Sat, 14 Sep 2002 20:28:46 EDT, in comp.dcom.telecom, you (TELECOM Digest Editor ) wrote: > In the past few days, the admins at LCS-MIT have helped me a lof > getting my account here back under control without all the spam and > viruses. In addition to Procmail, I now have SpamAssassin installed, > and it sure has been busy the first day, as I expected. It works using > a point scoring system which we will discover as we go along. I just > could not handle any longer wiping it all out each day by hand. At the > present time it is keeping its output in a file called /spam were I > can browse it looking for real stuff that got thrown in there. Once I > know how well I can trust spam assassin to do its job I may decide to > send the incoming mail it point scores as spam direct to the bit > bucket. For now however, I will be looking at both NBOX for real stuff > and /spam for the junk. It already made one mistake, accusing Joey > Lindstrom of sending spam. I left his message intact as the final > article in this issue, a sort of Last Laugh. It is intact, with > SpamAsassin's commentary so Joey and others can see how it > thinks/operates. For anyone who missed that post, here is the web address for their "logic". http://spamassassin.org/tag/ There are way too many words and phrases in English that have been used with more than one meaning, and some of those words are in Joey's post as well as many others. There are other words and phrases that started out as "unacceptable-in-polite-company" phrases but have gradually worked their way into more acceptable speech and writing. Any good spam filtering sofware should also have what they call a "white list" where you can assure that messages from certain addresses would be admitted whether or not they say certain words. I don't know how much of a problem it would be for you to create such a "white list" based on posts you have *approved* in the past few months. It is true that some worms (like KLEZ) steal addresses and some criminals steal identities, so the white list would not be an absolute guarantee. But it should help reduce the number of legitminate posts that get labeled as "spam" by SpamAssassin. I haven't checked out SpamAssassin because I have other software and services from my ISP that are doing a reasonable job. Does SpamAssassin allow you to give "negative" points to certain addresses or words or phrases that would reduce the "spam score" and allow messages back into your nbox? That should work about as well as a "white list" if it has such a thing. I hope that you would have the option to set the score higher or lower for how SpamAssassin "decides" where to file the messages. Perhaps setting the number just a tad higher would have put Joey's message back in your nbox. Can you set it to look for "whole words" only instead of picking strings out of larger words, the way it did for the URL that Joey posted? Is it easier for you to sift through your "nbox" for a few spams that leak through? Or is it easier for you to sift through the huge spam directory for the one or two legitimate posts that get marked by mistake? BTW, if you ever decide to close the gateway to usenet news , I hope you give us plenty of notice because I would want to subscribe to the digest via mail if you ever did and would not want to miss any digests! Thanks for continuing this service! Gail from Ohio USA [TELECOM Digest Editor's Note: You can have 'white lists' and 'black lists and I can raise or lower the point scoring as desired. I'm still trying to figure it all out. Right now I am scanning the spam pile looking for email addresses I recognize. PAT] ------------------------------ From: Joey Lindstrom Date: Sun, 15 Sep 2002 20:35:24 -0600 Reply-To: Joey Lindstrom Subject: Spammy Spam Spam On Sun, 15 Sep 2002 17:54:08 -0400 (EDT), editor@telecom-digest.org wrote: > According to SpamAssassin, it sure is! Here is the way it was handled > by my filters and MBOX today: > Subject: *****SPAM***** Telus Sucks Dot Info Oh man -- too funny! I think if I'd omitted the word "sucks" in the domain, I'd have slipped past your filter. :-) / From the desk of Joey Lindstrom / / "Don't stay to watch a great old ship go down." / --Everything I Need To Know I Learned From Babylon 5 [TELECOM Digest Editor's Note: Yes I think you would have gotten in in that case. It read the rest of your message carefully looking to see what else it found. PAT] ------------------------------ TELECOM Digest is an electronic journal devoted mostly but not exclusively to telecommunications topics. It is circulated anywhere there is email, in addition to various telecom forums on a variety of networks such as Compuserve and America On Line, 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: 620-870-9697 Fax 1: 775-255-9970 Fax 2: 775-306-8390 Fax 3: 530-309-7234 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 second 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) Email <==> FTP: telecom-archives@telecom-digest.org Send a simple, one line note to that automated address for a help file on how to use the automatic retrieval system for archives files. You can get desired files in email. ************************************************************************* * 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. Access to Premium (P) links requires upgrade to a paid subscription. One click a day feeds a person a meal. Go to http://www.thehungersite.com Only subscribers or registered users of ICB Toll Free News web site will be able to access all or some of the full text of URLs provided. LEGAL STUFF: TELECOM Digest (sm) is owned by Patrick Townson. Copyright 2000 ICB, Inc. and TELECOM Digest. All rights reserved. Our attorney is Bill Levant, of Blue Bell, PA. --------------------------------------------------------------- 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 twenty 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 V22 #40 ***************************** From editor@telecom-digest.org Tue Sep 17 14:56:56 2002 Received: from localhost (localhost [[UNIX: localhost]]) by massis.lcs.mit.edu (8.11.3nb1/8.11.3) id g8HIuuw24945; Tue, 17 Sep 2002 14:56:56 -0400 (EDT) Date: Tue, 17 Sep 2002 14:56:56 -0400 (EDT) From: editor@telecom-digest.org Message-Id: <200209171856.g8HIuuw24945@massis.lcs.mit.edu> X-Authentication-Warning: massis.lcs.mit.edu: ptownson set sender to editor@telecom-digest.org using -f To: ptownson Approved: patsnewlist Subject: TELECOM Digest V22 #41 TELECOM Digest Tue, 17 Sep 2002 14:55:00 EDT Volume 22 : Issue 41 Inside This Issue: Editor: Patrick A. Townson D/300SC-E1 Problem With Isdiag (Sabine Jordan) Domain Registrars -- Who's the Best? (pieterek@spamcop.net) Re: Question on RJ-11 Phone Connectors (Paul A Lee) Re: Largest Calling Area (John Higdon) Re: Question on RJ-11 Phone Connectors (Carl Navarro) Re: Spamming, etc (Mark Brader) Re: New Routine for Digest Starting Now (Mark Brader) Re: New Routine for Digest Starting Now (Anonymous) Re: Largest Calling Area (obsidian) Re: Question on RJ-11 Phone Connectors (Paul Coxwell) Re: Lucent G3 PBX (Rich Campbell) Re: Telco Newsgroups & Yahoo Egroups (Pete Romfh) Re: One Area Code to Unify Divided Town (John R. Levine) Re: One Area Code to Unify Divided Town (Stanley Cline) 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. WE DO NOT PERMIT NAME/EMAIL ADDRESS HARVESTING FROM THIS JOURNAL. 'SALTED' EMAIL ADDRESSES APPEAR HEREIN TO VERIFY THIS. YOU GET SUED IN SMALL CLAIMS COURT IF YOU GET CAUGHT SPAMMING OR SENDING VIRUSES. DON'T DO IT. See the bottom of this issue for subscription and archive details and the name of our lawyer; other stuff of interest. ---------------------------------------------------------------------- From: jordan@rate-one.de (Sabine Jordan) Subject: D/300SC-E1 Problem With Isdiag Date: 17 Sep 2002 06:20:17 -0700 Organization: http://groups.google.com/ Hello, I have some troubles running and using isdiag as well as pritrace. I have a Dialogic D/300SC-E1 voice board, running with Dialogic SR 5.1 on a linux redhat 7.2 machine. The card is installed successfully and the IVR-Software is working properly also. I need to monitor the D-Channels and I would also like to start some traces. Unfortunately the isdiag program will not work. I am able to start a trace, I see calls coming in, but when the first call gets disconnected the program just hangs up. After repeating this several times, isdiag will not even start anymore until I reboot the system (since starting and stopping the Dialogic card would not solve the problem). I would really like to use this tools, and I would also require some more information on using isdiag. Is there any manual or online help, except the hit-the-"F1"-key-option which won't work on my system. Another thing is that the program detect does not work either, there are no card to be found and the program also hangs up. I can not use UDD to monitor my system because the machine is located in another computer centre and I have no access to a graphical display. I am afraid that the snmp tools won't work either. We had to remove those packages because the dialogic card had was not able to correctly detect hangups while snmp was installed.Are there any other tools or possibilities to monitor the channels? I hope that anyone can help me. Best regrads, Sabine Jordan ------------------------------ Date: Tue, 17 Sep 2002 09:01:17 -0500 From: pieterek@spamcop.net Subject: Domain Registrars -- Who's The Best? Dear fellow Digest denizens: Having dealt with (ugh, shudder) Verisign for domain registration in the course of a job and feeling like I needed a bath in one of those industrial-strength odor neutralizer products thereafter, I refuse to deal with those bogons again. A friend asked me my opinion of Dotster, with whom I'm not familiar. I've used Tucows, which seems to me to be a company that will be around for the duration, based on their long track record in the shareware community. Any suggestions for good, non-ripoff, non-scumbag registrars for USanians? I'm looking for someone that will not disappear with my friend's domain name and cash! Thanks, Claire Pieterek pieterek@spamcop.net ------------------------------ From: Paul A Lee Subject: Re: Question on RJ-11 Phone Connectors Date: Tue, 17 Sep 2002 10:39:21 -0400 'jt' wrote (in part): > I know in the UK they use the same things -- except that installers > will break off the little tab that lets you take the plug out if you > wish to undo what they did. > Buggers. That's a common way of providing just enough mechanical security to defeat the casual tamperer. Only the handle (the thinnest portion) of the latch tang is clipped off. This keeps it from projecting out of the jack opening so that you can press it against the body of the plug. Breaking off the whole "tab" (latch tang) would prevent the plug from latching in the jack. This condition is a common problem that results from numerous operations of the plug latch, or from snagging the latch tang of an unplugged plug. Now, for the big secret of how to unlatch a "clipped" modular plug: Press the plug into the jack, and insert a small (1.5-2 mm) flat blade screwdriver into the latch channel of the jack, where an unclipped latch tang handle would protrude. Advance the screwdriver blade so that it will catch the latch tang in the bottom of the latch channel (away from the plug body), and then press the screwdriver blade toward the plug body, while withdrawing the plug. The trick is to press the plug into the jack while manipulating the screwdriver, to take the tension off of the latch tang. Bob's your uncle! Paul A Lee Voice: +1 717 730-8355 Sr Telecom Engineer [Voice & Transmission] Fax: +1 717 975-3789 Rite Aid Corporation, Telecomm, 30 Hunter Lane, Camp Hill, PA 17011-2410 ------------------------------ From: John Higdon Subject: Re: Largest Calling Area Organization: Green Hills and Cows Date: Mon, 16 Sep 2002 19:37:42 -0700 In article , Alan Burkitt-Gray wrote: > BT used to claim Londoners had the largest local calling area in the > world -- with local-rate access not only to all fixed phones in London > (in those days area code 01, now 020) but also to neighbouring towns > on the periphery of London. The area's about 40 miles east-west, about > the same distance north-south, and probably these days contains about > 12-15 million phones. Of course, local phone calls aren't free here, > but it's still a big area. Well, yes, but if it isn't free, then what does "local" mean? With nationwide rates starting to push down to the $0.03/minute level, you might say that the distinction between local and long distance isn't what it used to be. Also, what about the local carriers that are now offering LATA-wide toll-free? That makes the entire LATA "local". I can assure you that the San Francisco LATA is much, much bigger than the London metro area. John Higdon | Email Address Valid | SF: +1 415 428-COWS +1 408 264 4115 | Anytown, USA | FAX: +1 408 264 4407 ------------------------------ From: Carl Navarro Subject: Re: Question on RJ-11 Phone Connectors Reply-To: cnavarro@wcnet.org Date: Tue, 17 Sep 2002 04:23:06 GMT Organization: Road Runner High Speed Online -- Northeast Ohio On Mon, 16 Sep 2002 11:31:22 -0400, jt wrote: > jk wrote in message > news:telecom22.38.4@telecom-digest.org: >> I just have a brief question that I'm sure the Telecom experts in this >> group will have no trouble with, so here goes ... >> The RJ-11 connectors and jacks which we use here in Canada and the >> U.S., are they universally used around the world, or do different >> countries use different types of connectors? Specifically I'm >> interested in knowing whether or not the standard 4-wire RJ-11 design >> is used in Romania, or do they have their own standards there? > I know in the UK they use the same things -- except that installers > will break off the little tab that lets you take the plug out if you > wish to undo what they did. > Buggers. Try a paper clip :-) Carl Navarro ------------------------------ Subject: Re: Spamming, etc Date: Tue, 17 Sep 2002 00:54:39 EDT From: msb@vex.net (Mark Brader) David Thompson writes: >> For at least two years (as far back as I have handy online) RISKS >> items have included email addresses in most cases, presumably whenever >> the submitter included it, except [by special request]... Pat writes: > When I *used to* read RISKS regularly -- about 10-12 years ago... > he was printing a From line with name but no email address on it, > a Date and a Subject line. Sorry, Pat; if you were seeing Risks like that, it was because you were reading it through software that stripped the email addresses, which have always been there. I just went to the Risks FTP archives at ftp.sri.com and downloaded one issue (issue 10) of each volume since the start of Risks. There are 242 From: lines in the 22 issues, and all but two contain @ signs. -- Mark Brader | "Have you got anything without SPAM in it?" Toronto | "Well, there's SPAM, egg, sausage, and SPAM. msb@vex.net | That's not got *much* SPAM in it." --Monty Python My text in this article is in the public domain. [TELECOM Digest Editor's Note: I guess so, then. Is he 22 years old also? So he started around 1981 or '83?? PAT] ------------------------------ Subject: Re: New Routine for Digest Starting Now Date: Tue, 17 Sep 2002 01:01:36 EDT From: msb@vex.net (Mark Brader) Gail Hall writes: > Any good spam filtering sofware should also have what they call a > "white list" where you can assure that messages from certain addresses > would be admitted whether or not they say certain words. Of course, this strategy fails when the randomly selected false address on the From line is that of someone who happens to be on your white list. Or when the spam is a SirCam-type virus propagating itself ... Mark Brader, Toronto This is a signature antibody. Please msb@vex.net remove any viruses from your signature. My text in this article is in the public domain. ------------------------------ From: Anonymous Subject: Re: New Routine for Digest Starting Now Date: Tue, 17 Sep 2002 01:16:56 -0400 I need some more clarification about the new routine for the digest. Maybe some other people are wondering, too. The reply quoted below has me puzzled! Please tell us what else has changed with your new system at TELECOM Digest! I replied to your message posted on TELECOM Digest via usenet news, but replied without changing to the address that you tell us to post to. I thought it would go to your (Pat's) personal address (well, as "personal" as you want to get for us on the Internet, not your secret special address). I got a message like this back. On Mon, 16 Sep 2002 21:53:02 -0400 (EDT), TELECOM Digest Editor wrote as an autoreply to me: > Your correspondence to TELECOM Digest (Usenet: comp.dcom.telecom) has > been received at the Digest editorial office. > Because I receive several hundred pieces of mail on an average day > for use in TELECOM Digest/comp.dcom.telecom it is impossible for me > to answer mail sent to this address with any personal reply. Only a > small portion of the mail received appears in the Digest/newsgroup. > A very large portion of what arrives here is spam or viruses that > have to be cleaned out on a daily -- sometimes hourly -- basis. [rest snipped] OK, so I thought, Oops! I should have changed that address! Apparently Pat doesn't answer his personal mail to that address any more. So I resent my message to the list address at editor@telecom-digest.org, thinking that it would be posted, and if you (Pat) saw it, you could deal with it as you like. Trouble is, that normally I never hear back any more when my messages are to the list address at telecom-digest.org. I used to get just a tiny little message back saying my message was "approved" and would be posted -- no huge missive about lots of mail and spam, etc. But now I got the *same* exact message back as if I had sent to that other address, as if I had sent my second message to the same one as before. What gives here???? Shouldn't mail sent to editor@telecom-digest.org get replies from the same address or one at the same domain? And then to my dismay, I see my FIRST message now posted on the newsgroup. That was the one that I thought, based on the reply I got via email, would sit there waiting till next month or so because Pat has so much mail to sift through. Does this mean that when my SECOND message gets there it will be posted, too? I hope you recognize it and pitch it out. If people see my second post with the same message, I hope people will forgive my confusion! How about setting up a different message when stuff is sent to editor@telecom-digest.org as compared to when it is sent to ? Also, how about using only ONE address for sending messages to be posted to the TELECOM Digest? Messages to any other would be considered for the editor personally and not to be posted. Those of us who have been posting here for YEARS now really don't need that LONG message any more. We already sympathize with your problems with spam and worms. Concerning the word filter, Joey was right about that filter. I agree that the word within the domain name he posted is the one tagged as "naughty." The truth is that the word appears many times within the names of newsgroups and in many web domains. It is a synonym for "hate" or "strongly dislike". The people who created SpamAssassin ought to know that by now. I hope y'all can create a white list for people who have a history of not causing problems. Er, I mean more serious problems that I do. ;-) To clarify for us on usenet as well as for people who get the digests by mail, can you post from time to time a summary of information about the TELECOM digest? It could be part of the "we need money" message if that would be easier. Some info that would be handy includes: * How to subscribe by email * How to read the digests on usenet * How to post messages to the group * How to contact the list owner without having messages posted to the group. * Where to find old digests Pat mentioned that he used to read the RISKS Digests a long time ago. I like to read RISKS, too. It can be found at . I have seen some interesting telecom-related messages there. At the end of each RISKS digest, the owner has an article with the subject "Abridged info on RISKS (comp.risks)" that tells how to subscribe, post, etc. The difference between the way RISKS and TELECOM digests are posted is that the RISKS Digest posts are kept in digest form with messages still together in the usenet posts whereas TELECOM Digest messages are broken up into their individual messages. I'm not sure how it is that one is done one way and the other is done another way. It must be that each propagating domain sends them out differently. Personally, I like the way the TELECOM messages are split up because my reader will sort message by thread, making following a conversation easier. This can also make Google searches easier to pin down messages with specific topics. Thanks again, Pat, for keeping up the TELECOM Digest for these many years! [TELECOM Digest Editor's Note: A lot to be responded to here: 1. For messages to the Digest, I always had the ptownson@massis.lcs.mit.edu address, and still do. There are any number of mail aliases around the world which send mail to ptownson@ or telecom@ to that address. In 1994 or 95 (I don't remember when for sure), when telecom-digest.org came into existence, anything@telecom-digest.org started getting forwarded here to massis also. All mail under any of those aliases at different sites or anything@telecom-digest.org gets dumped here at the massis location, and run through the filter-rules (old system) or the .procmailrc and SpamAssassin (new system). You can also write to me at comp-dcom-telecom (note dashes instead of dots) at many sites around the world and if the newsgroup flags are set correctly the local comp.dcom.telecom newsgroup box forwards to me here. The only difference, you see, between Usenet and private email is Usenet is a big common mailbox with permissions set for world to read; email is owner-read only. Both can have .forward files in place (although Usenet calls it something different, but same principal; if the .forward flag is in place then the 'mail', instead of being world-readable is sent to some other place.) All moderated newsgroups (Risks, telecom, etc) do that. The 'owners' collect the mail first, THEN distribute it to the general population. In an unmoderated newsgroup, it just gets left in the box for everyone to read (and it gets propogated around the world as well for reading). You could write to Peter N. at many of the same places and boxes you write to me; just use Risks instead of telecom. He gets his, and I get mine. That's an oversimplification, but that's the general idea. Usenet is just world-readable email instead of owner-readable-only email. Now sometimes a Usenet box is misconfigured; the .forward flag for a moderated newsgroup does not get properly installed. For example, if comp-dcom-telecom@yoursite is not correctly configured, then it 'leaks'. Every site that *it* (the leaking box) propogates to gets the world- readable email (i.e. Usenet) scattered around, spam and all. If the sysadmin-plumber finds out about it; the leak can be fixed. 2. For next; my personal email. you don't have my PERSONAL email addresses. All you have is variations on telecom as illustrated above and the option to write 'personal not for publication' in the subject line or the message. Making it large and garish with stars and borders helps enforce that. I'm not in love with any of you enough to give you my personal email addresses, and those of you I do have a crush on and fantasies about do in fact have my personal address. 3. For next; EVERYONE who writes to one of the variations on telecom addresses shown in (1) above is *supposed to* -- theoretically -- get an autoreply. It was broken for awhile and dreadfully obsolete even before new-massis came along. It was built in 1991 or so, when we had to sort mail according to 'administrivia' and bounce-daemons and similar. Now we have to scoop out spam up to our knees and viruses, etc.'New occassions teach new duties' as what's his name the late Supreme Court Justice Oliver Wendell Holmes once wrote, and that goes for moderators with autoreplies as well. You are now getting auto- replies again. My biggest worry in 'those days' was that I would leave a mail loop open (autoreplies chattering and quarreling with each other for days on end) and I did once or twice; witness the day I logged in and found ten thousand autoreplies that had been responding to another guy's autoreplies for several hours. If I have to sit here and wade through your 150-thousand byte spam/virus messages looking for something of enduring significance to publish here each day then you can jolly well at least scan/recognize-what-it-is my 4K-byte autoreply. 4) For last in this missive, you said (I loosely quote, not eager to go back up and read it again) "why not run a message telling people how to (un)subscribe, pay donations, etc in every issue as my competitor Peter N. does." Well, I do, but you have to read the Digest version instead of the Usenet version. People reading comp.dcom.telecom I assume are not interested in subscribing, and begging for money is a no-no in Usenet anyway. When this goes out to Usenet it goes as message.1 of 10, 2 of 10, etc. Once the individual messages go out, then I compile the Digest edition, which includes a file at the very top which warns against spam and viruses, etc. 'Header.info' is in the Digest version only, as is 'boilerplate', the final statements about subscribing/unsubscribing/my patrons/my lawyer's name/how to review the archives, etc. Oh, and I beg for crumbs and a bowl of soup there also in that section. 'boilerplate' used to be at the very top of each issue but my patrons complained that it was too much to go through each day so I moved it to the bottom of each issue. Then I make up TELECOM_Digest_Online which is the web-based version of Usenet's comp.dcom.telecom, and I leave those obnoxious whines of mine out of that also. Only the messages are there since you can read all about me and my chronic complaints elsewhere in http://telecom-digest.org . Oh, and for laughs in Online I run the messages in reverse order. The first in the email edition and Usenet becomes the last one in Online. If you ever want to see the *entire* Digest and not messsage by message Usenet style then I would refer you to http://telecom-digest.org/latest.issue.html/ in the archives or message by message web style (with appropriate links and sorting by threads, etc) to http://telecom-digest.org/TELECOM_Digest_Online/ each day. I used to hate Usenet almost as much as I hate the World Wide Web, but I had to (still do) keep Usenet because of the sheer volume of readership there. Then one day (about 1994-95) Bill Pfieffer came by and said 'use Hypermail as a way to ditch Usenet'. I tried it and after I hacked the f*** out of it for two weeks got the result now known as the Online thing. Not to be greedy though, I keep Usenet for old-time's sake and Hypermail as a 'newer' thing. Now I just ignore Usenet (otherwise my blood pressure goes up and I risk more brain desease than I have already) and I concentrate my wrath on Tim Berners-Lee and his wicked invention. I sure wish Tim B-L would come out of hiding in Switzerland so I could give him a piece of my mind with an Editor's Note Bashing. Wouldn't take long; my brain has gotten too deseased to share much of it these days. Does all this answer your questions? Sorry to be so brief, but I am running late for my lunch. Tomorrow I will try to give more details. (straight face as I say that.) PAT] ------------------------------ From: obsidian Subject: Re: Largest Calling Area Date: Tue, 17 Sep 2002 09:07:30 +0200 Organization: -= Skynet Usenet Service =- Belgium's local calling area is 30 thousand square kilometres - the entire country in fact. Alan Burkitt-Gray wrote in message news:telecom22.40.9@telecom-digest.org: > David Massey wrote: >> At least I can brag that we [Atlanta] have the LARGEST local >> calling area in the USA and possibly the world. > BT used to claim Londoners had the largest local calling area in the > world -- with local-rate access not only to all fixed phones in > London (in those days area code 01, now 020) but also to > neighbouring towns on the periphery of London. The area's about 40 > miles east-west, about the same distance north-south, and probably > these days contains about 12-15 million phones. Of course, local > phone calls aren't free here, but it's still a big area. ------------------------------ From: PaulCoxwell@aol.com Date: Tue, 17 Sep 2002 04:54:10 EDT Subject: Re: Question on RJ-11 Phone Connectors > I know in the UK they use the same things -- except that installers > will break off the little tab that lets you take the plug out if you > wish to undo what they did. The U.S. modular jacks have become common for the phone end of the cord here in Britain. In most cases however the line is wired on the outer pair of contacts, because the flat 4-in-line cord connects to the British plug at the other end and that was designed for tip & ring on the outside contacts. ------------------------------ From: Rich Campbell Subject: Re: Lucent G3 PBX Organization: AT&T Broadband Date: Tue, 17 Sep 2002 11:39:18 GMT OUCH! Your kidding me aren't you? Rich Kent Larson wrote in message news:telecom22.40.7@telecom-digest.org: > If I purchase a Lucent G3 PBX from a company that is going out of > business do I have to re-license the software? The switch is > currently running on release 9 of Lucent/Avaya Definity software. I > have been told by Avaya that I cannot use release 9 even though it is > currently on the switch. Avaya says I have to upgrade to release 11 > and pay dearly for the Definity software in order to use the used PBX > hardware. Are they pulling the wool over our eyes? I remember in the > past purchasing a used Nortel system and not having to re-license the > software. Any help would be greatly appreciated. ------------------------------ From: Pete Romfh Subject: Re: Telco Newsgroups & Yahoo Egroups Date: Tue, 17 Sep 2002 06:56:33 -0500 Organization: Not Organized > [TELECOM Digest Editor's Note: As Mr. Savage requested, his address > has been deleted to prevent unwanted email. Maybe you readers can > suggest (for publication here as he requested) *other* e-zines, > newsgroups and e-journals for Mr. Savage to subscribe to which are > legitimate news items, etc. I'd like to suggest, Mr. Savage, that > reading TELECOM Digest gets you all the news that fits, as my > competitor, the New York Times likes to claim. So please, guys, make > a list of same and I will print them here. I want him to get an > unbiased and comprehensive directory of same. PAT] For users or administrators of Avaya equipment the Avaya list is a good resource. It's not controlled by Avaya (or much of anyone else) so there's lots of user-helping-user type messages. http://groups.yahoo.com/group/Avaya-List/ for info or subscription Pete Romfh, Telecom Geek & Amateur Gourmet. promfh at texas dot net ------------------------------ Date: 16 Sep 2002 22:54:24 -0400 From: johnl@iecc.com (John R. Levine) Subject: Re: One Area Code to Unify Divided Town Organization: I.E.C.C., Trumansburg NY USA > My local calling area covers the entire country of Belgium, some 30 > thousand square kilometres [or nearly 12 thousand square miles for the > Americans.] > How big is your calling area? On my cell phone, it runs from Eastport Maine in the northeast to Niihau and Hawaii in the southwest, and from Barrow Alaska in the northwest to Key West Florida in the southeast, excepting only the offshore phones in the Gulf of Mexico. I'm not sure if it includes Puerto Rico and the US Virgin Islands, if so the southeast corner is St Croix USVI. That's a land area of, oh, three or four million square miles. On my wireline phone it's, uh, a little smaller. John R. Levine, IECC, POB 727, Trumansburg NY 14886 +1 607 387 6869 johnl@iecc.com Village Trustee and Sewer Commissioner http://iecc.com/johnl Member, Provisional board, Coalition Against Unsolicited Commercial E-mail ------------------------------ From: Stanley Cline Subject: Re: One Area Code to Unify Divided Town Date: Mon, 16 Sep 2002 22:55:20 -0400 Organization: Roamer1 Communications - Dunwoody, GA, USA Reply-To: sc1-news@roamer1.org On Sat, 14 Sep 2002 12:36:58 -0400, David Massey wrote: > We here in Kennesaw, Georgia, USA (a city near Atlanta) have two > postal zip codes and I think the area codes we can call toll-free are > 404, 770, 678, 470 and 906 of which the first four overlay the metro I think you meant 706 instead of 906 ... and you forgot Fruithurst and Ranburne, AL -- both of which are in area code 256. :) SC in Dunwoody Stanley Cline -- sc1 at roamer1 dot org -- http://www.roamer1.org/ "Never put off until tomorrow what you can do today. There might be a law against it by that time." -/usr/games/fortune ------------------------------ TELECOM Digest is an electronic journal devoted mostly but not exclusively to telecommunications topics. It is circulated anywhere there is email, in addition to various telecom forums on a variety of networks such as Compuserve and America On Line, 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: 620-870-9697 Fax 1: 775-255-9970 Fax 2: 775-306-8390 Fax 3: 530-309-7234 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 second 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) Email <==> FTP: telecom-archives@telecom-digest.org Send a simple, one line note to that automated address for a help file on how to use the automatic retrieval system for archives files. You can get desired files in email. ************************************************************************* * 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. Access to Premium (P) links requires upgrade to a paid subscription. One click a day feeds a person a meal. Go to http://www.thehungersite.com Only subscribers or registered users of ICB Toll Free News web site will be able to access all or some of the full text of URLs provided. LEGAL STUFF: TELECOM Digest (sm) is owned by Patrick Townson. Copyright 2000 ICB, Inc. and TELECOM Digest. All rights reserved. Our attorney is Bill Levant, of Blue Bell, PA. --------------------------------------------------------------- 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 twenty 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 V22 #41 ***************************** From editor@telecom-digest.org Wed Sep 18 01:10:42 2002 Received: from localhost (localhost [[UNIX: localhost]]) by massis.lcs.mit.edu (8.11.3nb1/8.11.3) id g8I5AgG27135; Wed, 18 Sep 2002 01:10:42 -0400 (EDT) Date: Wed, 18 Sep 2002 01:10:42 -0400 (EDT) From: editor@telecom-digest.org Message-Id: <200209180510.g8I5AgG27135@massis.lcs.mit.edu> X-Authentication-Warning: massis.lcs.mit.edu: ptownson set sender to editor@telecom-digest.org using -f To: ptownson Approved: patsnewlist Subject: TELECOM Digest V22 #42 TELECOM Digest Wed, 18 Sep 2002 01:10:00 EDT Volume 22 : Issue 42 Inside This Issue: Editor: Patrick A. Townson Breach of Trust Ends Greene's Career at Tribune (lisaminter@aol.org) Re: Domain Registrars -- Who's The Best? (Shaun Ewing) Re: Domain Registrars -- Who's The Best? (Dave) Re: Domain Registrars -- Who's The Best? (Stanley Cline) AT&T Messed up a Called-From Number (Carl Moore) Re: Help With Siemens Multi-Line Phone and Fax Setup (Stretch) Re: One Area Code to Unify Divided Town (Wesrock@aol.com) Re: One Area Code to Unify Divided Town (Michael D. Sullivan) Re: (created by PAT) Last Laugh! Is This Spam? (Barry Margolin) Re: Question on RJ-11 Phone Connectors (Electron_mobility@bigfoot.com) 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. WE DO NOT PERMIT NAME/EMAIL ADDRESS HARVESTING FROM THIS JOURNAL. 'SALTED' EMAIL ADDRESSES APPEAR HEREIN TO VERIFY THIS. YOU GET SUED IN SMALL CLAIMS COURT IF YOU GET CAUGHT SPAMMING OR SENDING VIRUSES. DON'T DO IT. See the bottom of this issue for subscription and archive details and the name of our lawyer; other stuff of interest. ---------------------------------------------------------------------- Date: Tue, 17 Sep 2002 14:20:49 PDT From: lisaminter@aol.org Reply-To: lisaminter@aol.org Subject: Breach of Trust Ends Greene's Career at Tribune Patrick, here is the article you asked me to send from the Chicago Tribune today (Tuesday) regards the departure of Bob Greene. Lisa -------------------- Breach of trust ends Greene's career at Tribune -------------------- By Jim Kirk and Monica Davey Tribune staff reporters September 16, 2002 By most accounts, Bob Greene was at the top of his game. As a chronicler of American life and champion of Midwestern values, glorying in nostalgia yet writing movingly about the horrible plight of abused children, Greene drew a wide and loyal following as the featured Tempo section columnist for the Chicago Tribune. With syndication in hundreds of newspapers across the country, regular television appearances on shows such as "Oprah" and Chicago's WGN-TV and a series of best-selling books to his credit, he was multimedia long before it became vogue for journalists to wear so many hats. But on Saturday Greene, 55, ended that career at the Tribune after admitting that he engaged in inappropriate sexual conduct more than a decade ago with a high school student in her late teens. Sources familiar with the incident say he wrote about her in his column. Tribune editors and executives would not comment on the details of the allegations, choosing rather to disclose Greene's resignation in a short note from the paper's editor, Ann Marie Lipinski, to readers on the front page of the Sunday newspaper. The announcement said Greene's resignation was sought by the paper after an investigation into the allegations of Greene's sexual misconduct with a "girl in her late teens whom he met in connection with his column." In an interview Sunday, Lipinski said: "Journalists have a special obligation to avoid personal conflicts that undermine their professional standing and their trust with readers, sources or news subjects. We concluded that trust had been violated. "It is a very painful day for the paper, for Bob and for the readers." Greene did not return a phone call or an e-mail requesting comment on his resignation. In an e-mail message to the Associated Press, Greene said there were "indiscretions in my life that I am not proud of. "I don't have the words to express the sadness I feel," wrote Greene, who is married. "I am very sorry for anyone I have let down, including the readers who have for so long meant so much to me." His last column in the Tribune appeared last Wednesday. Greene's contract with the newspaper had been extended over the summer, and he was in the process of negotiating a new one with the paper. Lipinski and other Tribune executives said Greene's contract status had no bearing on the paper's decision to seek his resignation. The stunning announcement capped five days of high-level meetings and an internal investigation at the newspaper that led to Greene first offering his resignation Thursday night and the paper ultimately accepting it Saturday evening. Chicago Tribune executives were first made aware of the allegations last Monday through an anonymous e-mail that came through the newspaper's Web site's news tip line, sources at the paper said Sunday. Tips that come through that way are corralled into a tip basket that is overseen by a handful of journalists on the Tribune Internet staff. The 1 1/2-page e-mail did not name Greene by name, the sources said. The message was given to Lipinski on Tuesday, and later an official from the paper's human resources department, which deals with personnel matters, was apprised of the information. Some who saw the e-mail said that its content described encounters with Greene more than a decade ago when the woman was in her late teens. The Chicago-area girl met with Greene in his office as part of a high-school project. Later she was the subject of one of Greene's columns, sources familiar with the message said. According to people who saw the e-mail, the message said that soon thereafter Greene asked the woman out to dinner. Greene later acknowledged to Tribune executives that a sexual encounter followed. At the time, the woman was of the age of legal consent, sources said. During the last year the woman phoned Greene twice, sources said. According to the e-mail, on the day after the second time, she received a call from the FBI suggesting she may be posing a threat to the columnist. Attempts to reach the Chicago office of the FBI were unsuccessful. Tribune executives first made contact with the woman last Wednesday as part of their internal investigation. On Thursday, Greene acknowledged some of the allegations, Lipinski said, and at that time, he was suspended and he offered to resign. Lipinski and Tribune managing editor James O'Shea met and interviewed the woman on Saturday. Following that meeting, they met twice with Greene and, at the second meeting, accepted his resignation, Lipinski said. Tribune officials would not identify Greene's accuser, citing Tribune policy regarding parties in internal investigations of misconduct. Attempts to reach the woman for comment for this article were unsuccessful. News organizations in recent years have not been immune to scandals and alleged breaches of ethics. Two prominent scandals rocked the Boston Globe in the late 1990s, including one that led to the resignation of its high-profile columnist Mike Barnicle, who was accused of fabricating a 1995 story about two boys with cancer. Ethicists on Sunday describe the difficult line journalists continually have to walk when it comes to the power and influence they often wield. "The only point I would make is if his position at the paper, his position as a columnist, in any way influenced or facilitated that behavior, then that's a problem," said Bill Kovach, chairman of the Committee of Concerned Journalists in Washington and ex-curator of the Nieman Fellowship for Journalists at Harvard University. "The whole relationship with a source--you have to be transparent and pure. If you can't describe the conditions under which you are relating to a source -- if you can't describe that in a story -- then you've got no business doing it." Greene, a Columbus, Ohio, native, was a wunderkind out of Northwestern University's journalism program. Within a few years of arriving at the Chicago Sun-Times in 1969, then-editor James Hoge made him a columnist. "Greene made a huge splash," said Roger Simon, a former co-worker and now U.S. News & World Report chief political correspondent. "It was a different, fresher style. He was funny. And he could be very serious." Greene jumped to the rival Tribune in 1978, where he elevated his stature from a prominent local newspaper figure to a nationally-known celebrity via his syndicated column, frequent television appearances and speaking engagements and a series of best-selling books. A prodigious writer, Greene covered a wide array of topics, from politics to popular culture to sports. Nonetheless, he often found himself returning to a handful of frequent subjects: abuse of children, music, Michael Jordan and Elvis. "Whenever there's anything to do with Elvis, I know he'll be on the air that night," said Simon. "Elvis was his." Greene was unusual for how he moved, long before most others in his profession, from newspaper writing into wide syndication, magazines, television, books and public speaking. In 1980, Greene began writing a monthly feature, "American Beat," for Esquire and he became a correspondent for ABC News' "Nightline" in 1981. "I think he always knew that he was going to reach the largest audience he could reach," said Simon, who recalled Greene advising him about what tie to wear when Simon was going on TV for the first time. Greene took a leave of absence from the paper in 1973 to go on tour with the Alice Cooper band. His "Good Morning, Merry Sunshine," a chronicle of the first year of his daughter's life, remains one of his most famous books. Friends were stunned Sunday at the news of his resignation. Paul Galloway, who started with Greene at the Sun-Times on the same day in 1969, said he was "shocked and saddened," by the news. "It's a terrible shock. It's like a kick in the stomach to me," he said. "I'm looking forward to talking to him to find out the real story. The statement in the Tribune [seemed to be] carefully crafted by lawyers. I'm sorry he and the Tribune aren't together." With the deaths of Mike Royko five years ago and Eppie Lederer, better known as Ann Landers, last June, Greene was the Tribune's most popular and best-read columnist, even if his public bent for nostalgia and small-town Midwestern values were derided as syrupy and sappy by some critics and younger readers. His departure, and the circumstances behind it, are seen as a major blow for the Tribune, where editors have not begun to consider a possible replacement. "I think it's a loss to the paper and a loss to his readers. He had a large and loyal following," said Lipinski, who wrote the page-one note to readers in her fourth-floor office in the newsroom on Saturday night. "He built up a huge following. I imagine this is a great disappointment on several levels to many of those readers, as it is to us." What this means for Greene's future as a journalist is unknown. While his column no longer will appear in the Tribune and WGN-TV no longer will broadcast his weekly commentary, the fate of his nationally syndicated column and other projects was unclear. Said one longtime colleague: "There's no one in the history of Chicago newspapers with better commercial instincts. If anybody can turn this disaster into a saleable commodity, Bob's it." Copyright (c) 2002, Chicago Tribune -------------------- To our readers -------------------- Ann Marie Lipinski, Tribune Editor September 15, 2002 Chicago Tribune columnist Bob Greene has resigned and will no longer appear in the pages of the newspaper. The resignation is effective immediately. Greene's resignation was sought after he acknowledged engaging in inappropriate sexual conduct some years ago with a girl in her late teens whom he met in connection with his newspaper column. The acknowledgment came in response to an anonymous complaint to the Tribune last week. The complaint prompted an inquiry by Tribune editors and officials. Greene was suspended by the newspaper following initial inquiries into the allegation. He resigned Saturday night after the investigation was complete. Greene's column appeared on page 2 of the Sunday main news section and three times a week in Tempo. Greene's behavior was a serious violation of Tribune ethics and standards for its journalists. We deeply regret the conduct, its effect on the young woman and the impact this disclosure has on the trust our readers placed in Greene and this newspaper. Copyright (c) 2002, Chicago Tribune [TELECOM Digest Editor's Note: Thank you very much, Lisa, for sending these items along to us. I know many netters read his columns in their local newspapers, disributed by Tribune Syndicate. It is all very unfort- unate to say the least. Those Tribune executives are all a lot of hypocrites aren't they? PAT] ------------------------------ From: Shaun Ewing Subject: Re: Domain Registrars -- Who's The Best? Date: Wed, 18 Sep 2002 12:22:19 +1000 I've been using Dotster since early 2000 and haven't had a problem with them at all (as a matter of fact I've just completed a transfer of another domain to them). They are a little bit more expensive than others (US$14.95 per year for .com/.net/.org) but their support is excellent; I've had all my inquiries replied to within 12 hours and you can also phone them in the event something drastic happens though I doubt it will. I've heard a few horror stories about cheap registrars such as GoDaddy with multiple billing, etc. so I'm staying well away from them. Tucows and their OpenSRS network also seems to be quite successful but I have no experience with them. As for Verisign - I had domains with them when they were NetworkSolutions and there is no way I would go back. It's been a while so they might have changed, but I remember their ridiculous systems for updating a domains details, their expensive pricing, support (or lack thereof), etc. Regards, Shaun wrote in message news:telecom22.41.2@telecom-digest.org: > Dear fellow Digest denizens: > Having dealt with (ugh, shudder) Verisign for domain registration in > the course of a job and feeling like I needed a bath in one of those > industrial-strength odor neutralizer products thereafter, I refuse to > deal with those bogons again. > A friend asked me my opinion of Dotster, with whom I'm not familiar. > I've used Tucows, which seems to me to be a company that will be > around for the duration, based on their long track record in the > shareware community. > Any suggestions for good, non-ripoff, non-scumbag registrars for > USanians? I'm looking for someone that will not disappear with my > friend's domain name and cash! ------------------------------ From: Dave Subject: Re: Domain Registrars -- Who's The Best? Organization: Reply to usenet group not email Date: Wed, 18 Sep 2002 02:31:38 GMT wrote in message news:telecom22.41.2@telecom-digest.org: > Having dealt with (ugh, shudder) Verisign for domain registration in > the course of a job and feeling like I needed a bath in one of those > industrial-strength odor neutralizer products thereafter, I refuse to > deal with those bogons again. > A friend asked me my opinion of Dotster, with whom I'm not familiar. > I've used Tucows, which seems to me to be a company that will be > around for the duration, based on their long track record in the > shareware community. > Any suggestions for good, non-ripoff, non-scumbag registrars for > USanians? I'm looking for someone that will not disappear with my > friend's domain name and cash! I've been moving mine over to godaddy.com. They have problems with .biz domain transfers (from Verisly) but otherwise are good. I only register names through them (for the lowest rates I have found). I do not use their other services (where they would make money). ------------------------------ From: Stanley Cline Subject: Re: Domain Registrars -- Who's The Best? Date: Tue, 17 Sep 2002 23:31:32 -0400 Organization: Roamer1 Communications - Dunwoody, GA, USA Reply-To: sc1-news@roamer1.org On Tue, 17 Sep 2002 09:01:17 -0500, pieterek@spamcop.net wrote: > A friend asked me my opinion of Dotster, with whom I'm not familiar. > I've used Tucows, which seems to me to be a company that will be > around for the duration, based on their long track record in the > shareware community. I've used Dotster for several years now with no problems at all. I've also heard good things about GoDaddy. Stanley Cline -- sc1 at roamer1 dot org -- http://www.roamer1.org/ ... "Never put off until tomorrow what you can do today. There might be a law against it by that time." -/usr/games/fortune ------------------------------ Date: Tue, 17 Sep 2002 14:19:07 EDT From: Carl Moore Subject: AT&T Messed Up a Called-From Number I have received my first AT&T bill since having to remove my local dial tone from Cavalier (thus, the bill has 23 calls forwarded from my local Maryland phone to Delaware which would have fallen under the Cavalier extended-service plan I had, but that's another point). The point of this message: A calling-card call is messed up. I made it all right (unfortunately I don't have the full number or address that I called from), but the called-from area code is definitely messed up. It shows "Called from 903 381-6832", with the place listed as "PAYPHONE, TX". ("PAYPHONE" is not a place name, but means I was using a pay phone.) I was not in Texas but on U.S. 1 between New Haven and Bridgeport, Connecticut, in area 203 (would that cause the time of the call to be shifted by an hour due to different time zone?). Unless I was closer to Bridgeport than to New Haven, the "381" would also be suspicious, because that is Bridgeport. Earlier today, I wrote about having made a calling-card call from Connecticut via AT&T and then having received a bill which showed it coming from a "payphone in Texas". I have now received this from AT&T online customer service: > I have reviewed your account and the call in question may have been > placed from Connecticut but it may have been routed to an alternate > switching station in Texas. The rate is correct. Unless I got it wrong, does that sound more like a COCOT than like AT&T? Earlier on the same day, I made a call (also via AT&T) from a pay phone on I-287 in northern New Jersey, and it showed up correctly as 973-889-xxxx (the same number I had seen when I was there). The call I complained about from Connecticut was to Delaware. What the hell does this mean to, say, police who need to review calling records? We heard years ago that security people do read this Digest. ------------------------------ From: Stretch Subject: Re: Help With Siemens Multi-Line Phone and Fax Setup Date: Tue, 17 Sep 2002 01:44:19 GMT Organization: Road Runner - Texas Cliff wrote: > I just obtained a Siemens Gigaset 8825 multi-line phone. I also have > an HP PSC950 multifunction printer/scanner/fax device. > I've disabled incoming calls on the Gigaset 8825 for my fax line (so > the phone doesn't ring when something dials in on the fax line) and > the fax successfully picks up ... HOWEVER, on the Siemens telephone I'm > still able to pick up the Fax line. It doesn't automatically go to the > second line, ie, it doesn't detect that the Fax line is in use. There are two relevant options. The first is called something like "line interrupt" or the like. I'll have to defer to the manual. Second, I seem to recall that the base station only knows the fax line is in use if the fax is plugged into the "aux" jack on the base station itself. Otherwise, it just treats it as any other phone call. > Any ideas? Is there a device I can install that will prevent me from > accidentally picking up the fax line while the fax is in use? ------------------------------ From: Wesrock@aol.com Date: Tue, 17 Sep 2002 16:16:05 EDT Subject: Re: One Area Code to Unify Divided Town In a message dated 9/16/02 1:48:54 AM Central Daylight Time,John R. Levine writes: > I imagine the largest in phone lines is probably New York City, where > all calls within the city limits are local. > To return to Erving, Mass., when they invented area codes in the > 1940s, the 413/617 line went through the middle of town. But it > sounds like until the invention of 911 and emergency dispatchers a > hundred miles away who have no idea how the data on their screens > match up with reality, it was only a minor annoyance. > The issue of exchange lines not matching town lines occurs throughout > New England. I know that Vermont also has a rule that all calls > within a town are local, regardless of normal exchange boundaries, and > I expect that Maine and New Hampshire do, too. You are probably right about New York City having the greatest number of phone lines. But aren't all calls measured? With respect to the Atlanta and Oklahoma City metropolitan exchange, and quite a few others, any calls made within the metro exchanges have no marginal cost. Towns, in the sense used in New England, do not seem to have any corresponding type of entity in other parts of the country. As to calls across boundaries, the Kansas City metropolitan area is in two states, and until fairly recently had 7D local dialing (flat rate) although toll calls had to be made with the proper area code. Don't similar situations exist in Texarkana, Ark.-Tex (even the post office uses both states), Bristol, Va.-Tenn, and for that matter the St. Louis, Mo.-East St. Louis, Ill., metropolitan exchange? Wes Leatherock wesrock@aol.com wleathus@yahoo.com ------------------------------ From: Michael D. Sullivan Subject: Re: One Area Code to Unify Divided Town Date: Wed, 18 Sep 2002 03:22:32 GMT On 16 Sep 2002 22:54:24 -0400, John R. Levine posted the following to comp.dcom.telecom: >> How big is your calling area? > On my cell phone, it runs from Eastport Maine in the northeast to > Niihau and Hawaii in the southwest, and from Barrow Alaska in the > northwest to Key West Florida in the southeast, excepting only the > offshore phones in the Gulf of Mexico. I'm not sure if it includes > Puerto Rico and the US Virgin Islands, if so the southeast corner is > St Croix USVI. That's a land area of, oh, three or four million > square miles. Your cellphone's "local" calling area should include Puerto Rico and the USVI, as well as the Commonwealth of the Northern Mariana Islands and whichever one of Guam and American Samoa has joined the NANP. The FCC's rate integration policy requires that these be treated the same as other interstate domestic calls. Michael D. Sullivan Bethesda, MD, USA (delete NOSPAM from address to mail me) ------------------------------ From: Barry Margolin Subject: Re: (created by PAT) Last Laugh! Is This Spam? Organization: Genuity, Woburn, MA Date: Tue, 17 Sep 2002 15:55:28 GMT In article , TELECOM Digest Editor responded to SpamAssassin's report on Joey Lindstrom's message: > According to SpamAssassin, it sure is! Here is the way it was handled > by my filters and MBOX today: .... > SPAM: ------------------ Start SpamAssassin results ---------------------- > SPAM: This mail is probably spam. The original message has been altered > SPAM: so you can recognise or block similar unwanted mail in future. > SPAM: See http://spamassassin.org/tag/ for more details. > SPAM: Content analysis details: (5.40 hits, 5 required) > SPAM: TO_ADDRESS_EQ_REAL (2.1 points) To: repeats address as real name Does this mean something like: To: "barmar@genuity.net" If so, I don't think it's a good idea giving it such a high score. While it's probably common in spam, I've also noticed it quite a bit in ordinary mail. I think some popular mail programs will do this if they don't know the full name (perhaps if you don't enter a full name when creating an address book entry). This was almost as responsible for classifying the message as spam as the vulgar word in the URL was. Barry Margolin, barmar@genuity.net Genuity, Woburn, MA *** DON'T SEND TECHNICAL QUESTIONS DIRECTLY TO ME, post them to newsgroups. Please DON'T copy followups to me -- I'll assume it wasn't posted to the group. ------------------------------ From: Electron_mobility@bigfoot.com Subject: Re: Question on RJ-11 Phone Connectors Date: 17 Sep 2002 19:05:35 GMT jt' wrote (in part): > I know in the UK they use the same things -- except that > installers will break off the little tab that lets you take > the plug out if you wish to undo what they did. > Buggers. And the reason they do it is because the plugs fail the BABT (British Approvals Board for Telecommunications) "safety" test ... it is a requirement that there must be no access to the phone line without use of a tool. Snapping off the tab is sufficient to keep the test labs happy. Mike ------------------------------ TELECOM Digest is an electronic journal devoted mostly but not exclusively to telecommunications topics. It is circulated anywhere there is email, in addition to various telecom forums on a variety of networks such as Compuserve and America On Line, 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: 620-870-9697 Fax 1: 775-255-9970 Fax 2: 775-306-8390 Fax 3: 775-642-0603 Fax 4: 530-309-7234 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 second 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) Email <==> FTP: telecom-archives@telecom-digest.org Send a simple, one line note to that automated address for a help file on how to use the automatic retrieval system for archives files. You can get desired files in email. ************************************************************************* * 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. Access to Premium (P) links requires upgrade to a paid subscription. One click a day feeds a person a meal. Go to http://www.thehungersite.com Only subscribers or registered users of ICB Toll Free News web site will be able to access all or some of the full text of URLs provided. LEGAL STUFF: TELECOM Digest (sm) is owned by Patrick Townson. Copyright 2000 ICB, Inc. and TELECOM Digest. All rights reserved. Our attorney is Bill Levant, of Blue Bell, PA. --------------------------------------------------------------- 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 twenty 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 V22 #42 ***************************** From editor@telecom-digest.org Wed Sep 18 15:01:43 2002 Received: from localhost (localhost [[UNIX: localhost]]) by massis.lcs.mit.edu (8.11.3nb1/8.11.3) id g8IJ1hi01236; Wed, 18 Sep 2002 15:01:43 -0400 (EDT) Date: Wed, 18 Sep 2002 15:01:43 -0400 (EDT) From: editor@telecom-digest.org Message-Id: <200209181901.g8IJ1hi01236@massis.lcs.mit.edu> X-Authentication-Warning: massis.lcs.mit.edu: ptownson set sender to editor@telecom-digest.org using -f To: ptownson Approved: patsnewlist Subject: TELECOM Digest V22 #43 TELECOM Digest Wed, 18 Sep 2002 15:00:00 EDT Volume 22 : Issue 43 Inside This Issue: Editor: Patrick A. Townson Signalling Books (Jonathan Roberts) Re: Lucent G3 PBX (ssolton) Re: Turn Your Answering Machine Into a TeleZapper!! (Mike Van Pelt) Rockefeller Center Kicks up Cell Coverage; News Headlines (Monty Solomon) Re: New Routine for Digest Starting Now (Tom Brown) comp.risks / Risks Digest (was: Spamming, etc) (Mark Brader) Re: RJ-11 Connectors (Michael N. Marcus) Re: AT&T Messed Up a Called-From Number (Scott Dorsey) Re: Lucent G3 PBX (Dave Phelps) Re: Where Have All the Phone Booths Gone? (Joel B Levin) LD to PR/USVI/etc. was Re: One Area Code to Unify Divided (Stanley Cline) Re: Domain Registrars -- Who's The Best? (John Higdon) Re: Domain Registrars -- Who's The Best? (John Schmerold) Telecom Service is Redefined With SprintMessenger (Gil) Re: Help With Siemens Multi-Line Phone and Fax Setup (Shaun Ewing) Re: One Area Code to Unify Divided Town (Linc Madison) Telecoms Signalling Books (Jonathan Roberts) Strange Ringing on Lucent Partner Mail System (Byrum Delano Siskind) Last Laugh! Order Spam Now!!! (David B. Horvath, CCP) 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. WE DO NOT PERMIT NAME/EMAIL ADDRESS HARVESTING FROM THIS JOURNAL. 'SALTED' EMAIL ADDRESSES APPEAR HEREIN TO VERIFY THIS. YOU GET SUED IN SMALL CLAIMS COURT IF YOU GET CAUGHT SPAMMING OR SENDING VIRUSES. DON'T DO IT. See the bottom of this issue for subscription and archive details and the name of our lawyer; other stuff of interest. ---------------------------------------------------------------------- From: brycheiniog@hotmail.com (Jonathan Roberts) Subject: Signalling Books Date: 17 Sep 2002 15:16:02 -0700 Organization: http://groups.google.com/ Hi, I am looking for a good book about telecom signalling systems. It would be good if the book was fairly broad. At this moment in time I primarily need coverage of the various CAS protocols, and MFC-R2. However I will shortly need to know something about ISDN, & possibly SS7 as well. Any sugestions would be appreciated. Thanks, Jonathan ------------------------------ From: Subject: Re: Lucent G3 PBX Date: Tue, 17 Sep 2002 17:16:56 -0600 You are required by Avaya, as well as other vendors to pay for RTU, and the right to use it. Steve Rich Campbell wrote in message news:telecom22.41.11@telecom-digest.org: > OUCH! Your kidding me aren't you? > Kent Larson wrote in message > news:telecom22.40.7@telecom-digest.org: >> If I purchase a Lucent G3 PBX from a company that is going out of >> business do I have to re-license the software? The switch is >> currently running on release 9 of Lucent/Avaya Definity software. I >> have been told by Avaya that I cannot use release 9 even though it is >> currently on the switch. Avaya says I have to upgrade to release 11 >> and pay dearly for the Definity software in order to use the used PBX >> hardware. Are they pulling the wool over our eyes? I remember in the >> past purchasing a used Nortel system and not having to re-license the >> software. Any help would be greatly appreciated. ------------------------------ Subject: Re: Turn Your Answering Machine Into a TeleZapper!! From: mvp@web1.calweb.com (Mike Van Pelt) Date: 18 Sep 2002 00:47:00 GMT Organization: CalWeb Internet Services, Inc. In article , John Higdon wrote: > The predictive dialers that I have written lately ignore SIT after > supervision. If the call supervises, it completely successfully. After > supervision, the only thing the dialer cares about is voice pattern > processing ("hello?") or DTMF detection. Why? If someone has gone to the trouble to record SIT tones on their answering machine, the one thing you can tell about them right off is that they are hostile to telemarketers. Why, if a telemarketer is concerned only about making a sale/profit, would he want to waste the time of his phonedroids in annoying someone who has made it clear right up front that he does not want to deal with telemarketers? I guess I'll have to resort to "Plan B" on my answering machine: "Hello?" "Ooops, sorry, hold on a minute. This is an answering machine. If you are a real person, please leave a message. If you are a telemarketer, this is your notice to put this number on your DO NOT CALL list." Have you noticed that, when we were young, we were told | Mike Van Pelt that "everybody else is doing it" was a really stupid | mvp@calweb.com reason to do something, but now it's the standard reason | KE6BVH for picking a particular software package? -- Barry Gehm ------------------------------ Date: Wed, 18 Sep 2002 01:07:43 -0400 From: Monty Solomon Subject: Rockefeller Center Kicks Up Cell Coverage; Other News 9/18/02 By Ben Charny Staff Writer, CNET News.com September 17, 2002, 3:43 PM PT A growing number of property owners are taking it upon themselves to improve cellular coverage inside their shops, transit stations and restaurants. The latest example was Tuesday, when the owners of Rockefeller Center in New York announced that they spent an undisclosed amount of cash to improve cellular coverage inside the centers' shops and restaurants, which are visited by up to 60,000 people a day. So far, only AT&T Wireless, the nation's third-largest wireless carrier, has given its customers access to the special cellular network built in the former dead zone of the buildings' interiors, according to the owners, Tishman Speyer Properties. Bad or nonexistent indoor cellular coverage is one of the major complaints from cell phone users, some who can't even get coverage inside their own homes. Such dead zones continue to exist because wireless carriers put more emphasis on fixing their outdoor dead spots rather than improving coverage indoors, telephone analysts believe. Many building owners recognize this and are taking the initiative by hiring indoor cellular systems makers like RadioFrame Networks, or InnerWireless to improve coverage, these companies said. http://news.com.com/2100-1033-958321.html Bundles of Joy? By Duane D. Freese 09/17/2002 "It is the wave of the future," according to Sam Simon of the nonprofit Telecommunications Research and Action Center. And what's that? Why, bundled telecommunications services, of course. Verizon Communications has launched new packages of bundled long distance, wireless and high-speed Internet access in New York, Massachusetts and, this month, New Jersey. That follows SBC creating an alliance with Echostar to provide a combination of its Cingular wireless phone services, Internet broadband and digital satellite television. And The Wall Street Journal reported Sept. 5 that cable companies, too, are joining the fray by offering phone, cable and their own versions of tiered high-speed Internet services. Simon says, "Having bundled services is going to be good for consumers." Will it really? Many consumers seem to want it. A J.D. Power and Associates report last year found that nearly 40 percent of phone, satellite and cable customers would like to get all their telecommunications services through one provider. And there is some sense to that. One-stop shopping for anything provides a lot of convenience. But state and federal lawmakers and regulators - being lobbied heavily by the regional Bell operating companies SBC, Verizon and Bell South for relief from rules opening the local loops to competitors - need to remember a little history: Bundling of services is only good for consumers if there is vibrant competition. http://www.techcentralstation.com/1051/techwrapper.jsp?PID=1051-250&CID=1051-091702E New Approach for AOL Broadband By SAUL HANSELL DULLES, Va., Sept. 12 - When Richard D. Parsons, the chief executive of AOL Time Warner, talks about the company's prospects for its high-speed Internet service, he suggests simply that the company has to treat America Online like its pay cable network, HBO. It is meant to reassure investors, who have seen AOL Time Warner transform HBO from a package of second-run movies to some of the hottest original programming on television. He implies that any company that could come up with "Sex and the City" and "The Sopranos" will be able to invent something equally compelling to persuade people to buy America Online's high-speed broadband service. But the concept could be a bit unsettling to Lisa A. Hook, the president of the company's small broadband unit, who was given more prominence in the reorganization of America Online last week. She is being asked, in effect, to win the equivalent of a dozen Emmys, right now, in a field so new the award categories have yet to be defined. http://www.nytimes.com/2002/09/16/technology/16HOOK.html Hart-Scott-Rodino Waiting Period Expires for Comcast/AT&T Broadband Combination - Sep 17, 2002 08:59 AM (PR Newswire) - http://finance.lycos.com/home/news/story.asp?story=28699150 ------------------------------ From: kibri@eudoramail.com (Tom Brown) Subject: Re: New Routine for Digest Starting Now Date: 17 Sep 2002 09:58:41 -0700 Organization: http://groups.google.com/ TELECOM Digest Editor wrote in message news:: > In the past few days, the admins at LCS-MIT have helped me a lof > getting my account here back under control without all the spam and > viruses. In addition to Procmail, I now have SpamAssassin installed, > and it sure has been busy the first day, as I expected. It works using > a point scoring system which we will discover as we go along. I just > could not handle any longer wiping it all out each day by hand. At the > present time it is keeping its output in a file called /spam were I > can browse it looking for real stuff that got thrown in there. Once I > know how well I can trust spam assassin to do its job I may decide to > send the incoming mail it point scores as spam direct to the bit > bucket. For now however, I will be looking at both NBOX for real stuff > and /spam for the junk. It already made one mistake, accusing Joey > Lindstrom of sending spam. I left his message intact as the final > article in this issue, a sort of Last Laugh. It is intact, with > SpamAsassin's commentary so Joey and others can see how it > thinks/operates. Hi Pat, I just thought I'd Send this posting to you as I suspect that it will be bounced. Sadly, I must use eudora as I have a very antique computer, and it is one of the few e-mails that support it. I suspect you will find this in the spam pile, I wanted to make the point that there is legitimate e-mail that gets deleted via spam filters. So until I get a new computer, I might get deleted by spam grabber. Tom [TELECOM Digest Editor's Note: As I told you in private, personal mail earlier today, you were NOT bounced into the spam bucket. The SpamAssassin program does not use any one single factor in its decision, but several dozen factors, which it 'weighs' in detirming a final 'score' which can be adjusted up or down as needed. Eudora is one consideration; you got points for that, but the offsets took you below the required cutoff point. PAT] ------------------------------ Subject: comp.risks / Risks Digest (was: Spamming, etc) Date: Tue, 17 Sep 2002 17:01:14 EDT From: msb@vex.net (Mark Brader) Pat writes: > Is he 22 years old also? So he started around 1981 or '83?? Risks Digest / comp.risks issue 1.1 is dated August 1, 1985. The volumes aren't on a calendar year basis, but are limited to a maximum of 98 issues plus an index. Some have fewer issues. Mark Brader, Toronto "VAX 3 in 1 carpet care -- now 129.95 pounds" msb@vex.net [TELECOM Digest Editor's Note: If I 'only' had 98 issues in approximatly one year, I'd feel neglected. 400-800 issues per year is more like it for me; I had a couple years where I ran over a thousand issues in one year. One year in the early 1990's I had *10* issues in one day, but on average two or three issues in one day is more my speed. My policy is to get the news out as quickly as possible. PAT] ------------------------------ Date: Tue, 17 Sep 2002 16:57:03 -0400 From: Michael N. Marcus Subject: Re: RJ-11 Connectors 'jt' wrote (in part): > I know in the UK they use the same things -- except that installers > will break off the little tab that lets you take the plug out if you > wish to undo what they did. > Buggers. It's not just installers. When I was in London in the mid-1990's, I saw brand-new phones and answerers being sold with clipped plugs on their cords. I assumed it was due to some archaic Brit rule designed to provide work for blacksmiths. Other cords were wacky, too. Electrical products, ranging from table lamps to PCs, were sold without plugs on their power cords. British houses have different styles of electrical outlets; so after spending $3 on a clock, you visit the village smithie to have a plug installed. Later on, if you want to move the clock from the kitchen to a bedroom, you might have to take the clock back to the blacksmith to have the plug changed to fit a different outlet. I'm sure glad _we_ won the Revolutionary War. Michael N. Marcus AbleComm, Inc. www.ablecom.com etc. 1977 - 2002: Still Alive at 25 ------------------------------ From: kludge@panix.com (Scott Dorsey) Subject: Re: AT&T Messed Up a Called-From Number Date: 18 Sep 2002 12:09:03 -0400 Organization: Former users of Netcom shell (1989-2000) Carl Moore wrote: > The point of this message: A calling-card call is messed up. I made > it all right (unfortunately I don't have the full number or address > that I called from), but the called-from area code is definitely > messed up. It shows "Called from 903 381-6832", with the place listed > as "PAYPHONE, TX". ("PAYPHONE" is not a place name, but means I was > using a pay phone.) I was not in Texas but on U.S. 1 between New > Haven and Bridgeport, Connecticut, in area 203 (would that cause the > time of the call to be shifted by an hour due to different time > zone?). Unless I was closer to Bridgeport than to New Haven, the > "381" would also be suspicious, because that is Bridgeport. So, whose payphone was this? It's possible you were using a COCOT on the COCOT company's private network. The COCOT was routed to their switching center in Texas, and when you dialed out, your connection was routed to an outgoing line in Texas which is where AT&T picked it up. If this is the case, AT&T is more or less correct to bill you for the call from the originating cite in Texas. It's also possible the COCOT company was reporting ANI incorrectly due to a database problem somewhere. > Unless I got it wrong, does that sound more like a COCOT than like > AT&T? Earlier on the same day, I made a call (also via AT&T) from a > pay phone on I-287 in northern New Jersey, and it showed up correctly > as 973-889-xxxx (the same number I had seen when I was there). The > call I complained about from Connecticut was to Delaware. What the > hell does this mean to, say, police who need to review calling > records? We heard years ago that security people do read this Digest. I don't think you have a security problem here, I think you have a fairly simple technical problem with a COCOT. Do you remember who owned the phone you called from? The calling card company uses ANI to get the calling number from the phone you're using and this can go wrong. --scott "C'est un Nagra. C'est suisse, et tres, tres precis." [TELECOM Digest Editor's Note: I thought that 'splashing' like that (or the act of routing a call through a far-away central office switch was illegal under current rules. PAT] ------------------------------ From: Dave Phelps Subject: Re: Lucent G3 PBX Date: Wed, 18 Sep 2002 00:42:13 -0500 Organization: Posted via Supernews, http://www.supernews.com In article , kentlar@yahoo.com says: > If I purchase a Lucent G3 PBX from a company that is going out of > business do I have to re-license the software? The switch is > currently running on release 9 of Lucent/Avaya Definity software. I > have been told by Avaya that I cannot use release 9 even though it is > currently on the switch. Avaya says I have to upgrade to release 11 > and pay dearly for the Definity software in order to use the used PBX > hardware. Are they pulling the wool over our eyes? I remember in the > past purchasing a used Nortel system and not having to re-license the > software. Any help would be greatly appreciated. That's typical Avaya. FYI, now Nortel has decided that Avaya has such a good idea there, that they are going to start this same policy next month I believe. I guess Nortel hasn't figured out why Avaya's market share has been decreasing. Dave Phelps Phone Masters Ltd. deadspam=tippenring ------------------------------ From: Joel B Levin Subject: Re: Where Have All the Phone Booths Gone? Organization: On the desert Reply-To: levinjb@gte.net Date: Wed, 18 Sep 2002 05:53:47 GMT In , henry99@mac.com (Henry) wrote: > It is true that it's getting harder and harder to _find_ a public > phone (booth or no booth), This has been going on in the US for a long time. Nearly 25 years ago, it was a joke in the first Chris Reeve Superman movie: the first time Clark Kent needs to change into Superman, he dashes to the nearest public phone, finds just a phone in an open shell instead of a phone booth, and glances quizzically at it before heading somewhere else to change (a whirling revolving door, as I recall). /JBL ------------------------------ From: Stanley Cline Subject: LD to PR/USVI/etc., was Re: One Area Code to Unify Divided Town Date: Wed, 18 Sep 2002 02:02:29 -0400 Organization: Roamer1 Communications - Dunwoody, GA, USA Reply-To: sc1-news@roamer1.org On Wed, 18 Sep 2002 03:22:32 GMT, Michael D. Sullivan wrote: > and whichever one of Guam and American Samoa has joined the NANP. The > FCC's rate integration policy requires that these be treated the same > as other interstate domestic calls. The Big Three (and 101-6868/PT-1) may follow that rule, but most smaller resellers -- and at least one major wireless carrier -- most certainly do not. The Qwest and Global Crossing reseller that I use charges distinctly higher rates to PR/the USVI/etc. -- as well as to AK and HI -- and some others charge over $1/min to Guam and/or CNMI! For that reason, for any domestic non-"lower 48" calls I make I use 101-6868 or the Sam's Club/Costco prepaid cards. Stanley Cline -- sc1 at roamer1 dot org -- http://www.roamer1.org/ ... "Never put off until tomorrow what you can do today. There might be a law against it by that time." -/usr/games/fortune ------------------------------ From: John Higdon Subject: Re: Domain Registrars -- Who's The Best? Organization: Green Hills and Cows Date: Tue, 17 Sep 2002 23:08:32 -0700 In article , Shaun Ewing wrote: > As for Verisign - I had domains with them when they were > NetworkSolutions and there is no way I would go back. It's been a > while so they might have changed, but I remember their ridiculous > systems for updating a domains details, their expensive pricing, > support (or lack thereof), etc. About seven years ago, I had to change the IP numbers on my nameservers. With Network Solutions, it was necessary to fill out Host Domain Templates, submit them via email, and then wait (and wait and wait). As I recall, it took about two weeks for Network Solutions to actually make the change ... leaving me high and dry for that period of time. Recently, I had to change those same nameservers' IP numbers again. Remembering my previous experience, I went to great pains to have both old and new IPs running and sent the request in early. A week later, I got a response that reminded me that the domain names for those name servers were now handled by Dotster. That was correct; I had forgotten that I had moved the domains. And it only took them a week to figure that out and send me the reply. In any event, I went to the Dotster domain maintenance page and filled out the web page form to change the IPs of those nameservers. No muss; no fuss. And the new numbers were in the root servers by the following morning. Why ANYONE would continue to pay VeriSign (or whatever they call themselves this week) ultra-high prices for lousy service is beyond me. John Higdon | Email Address Valid | SF: +1 415 428-COWS +1 408 264 4115 | Anytown, USA | FAX: +1 408 264 4407 ------------------------------ Date: Wed, 18 Sep 2002 10:27:53 -0500 From: John Schmerold Reply-To: Subject: Re: Domain Registrars -- Who's The Best? We've been happy with Joker.com Their service is good, they provide a DNS server if you want it. Cost is approx $7 per year. They are a German company, no phone support. Prompt email support. To date, they have stuck to the Domain business. I view this as the most important aspect of their service. They aren't pushing web services or calling, mailing and attempting to steal our customers. We had a client move their domain to Joker. For four months Verisign sent nasty notes about the customer losing their domain. For four months, I took a weekly, paniced call from the client. NEVER AGAIN All told, I'd rather deal with an outfit in Chicago (I'm in St. Louis) so I can drive up there and strangle someone if the need arises, however the US firms I've looked into are marketing machines. It's only a matter of time before someone figures out that they are making $7 per year selling Domain services, maybe they can make $300 a year selling web and email services, etc, etc, etc. John Schmerold Katy Computer, LLC 20 Meramec Station Rd Valley Park, MO 63088 314-316-9000 775-227-6947 fax ------------------------------ From: gil_s@ureach.com (Gil) Subject: Telecom Service is Redefined With Sprint Messenger Date: 18 Sep 2002 09:07:45 -0700 Organization: http://groups.google.com/ The new SprintMessenger (www.sprintmessenger.com) really takes messaging to the next level - they call it Universal Messaging. With Sprint Messenger, you can create one message and have it delivered to any number of devices (phone, mobile phone, e-mail, SMS, ICQ, fax or pager) for any number of recipients, simultaneously and immediately. ------------------------------ From: Shaun Ewing Subject: Re: Help With Siemens Multi-Line Phone and Fax Setup Date: Wed, 18 Sep 2002 18:40:20 +1000 > Any ideas? Is there a device I can install that will prevent me from > accidentally picking up the fax line while the fax is in use? I'm not sure if they're available where you are as I'm in Australia - but I bought a device from my local Tandy a while back (Radioshack) called a privacy switch. Basically it's an RJ11 splitter (1 RJ11 plug, 2 sockets) with some inbuilt circuitry to isolate sockets when one is in use. I had my fax plugged into one side, line 3 on the phone system plugged into the other. It basically prevented somebody pressing line 3 whilst the fax is in use, and vice-versa. When one side is in use, to the other side it will seem like the line is dead. Look around some electronics stores -- most likely they'll have something like it. Shaun ------------------------------ From: Linc Madison Subject: Re: One Area Code to Unify Divided Town Date: Wed, 18 Sep 2002 01:57:47 -0700 Organization: LincMad.com Consulting Reply-To: Telecom@LincMad.com In article , Michael D. Sullivan wrote: > The FCC's rate integration policy requires that [Puerto Rico, U.S. > Virgin Islands, Guam, and Commonwealth of the Northern Mariana > Islands] be treated the same as other interstate domestic calls. I've heard rumors of such a requirement, but never seen any corroboration citing regulatory specifics (e.g., 47 CFR xxx.xx(x)(xxx)). For instance, my current LD carrier charges 3.5 cents/minute for calls from California to the 47 other United States, plus the District of Columbia for good measure, but much higher rates to PR, VI, GU, and MP, not to mention AK and HI. In fact, I can call large swaths of western Europe and the Pacific Rim for less than it costs to call those states and territories. So anyway, can anyone cite "chapter and verse" for such an FCC requirement? I found a press release from 1996 on the FCC web site: which says: > The Commission stated that, with respect to rate integration, a long > distance carrier shall provide service to its subscribers in each > state at rates no higher than the rates charged to its subscribers in > any other state, as required by section 254(g) of the 1996 Act. The > Commission also determined that the statute requires that the rate > integration provisions of the Act apply to all U.S. Territories and > Possessions, which include Guam, the Northern Marianas, and American > Samoa. That means not only +1 787, +1 939, and +1 340, but also +1 671, +1 670, AND +684. However, I have to wonder if the "weasel clause" says that, so long as the rates TO Puerto Rico, for instance, are no higher FROM Guam or Alaska than from Florida, that they are technically in compliance. Since the carrier I'm using does not provide service in PR VI GU MP AK or HI, can they use that as an excuse to claim compliance with rate integration? I suppose I shouldn't be TOO surprised to see LD carriers openly disregard the rules. After all, just this morning I got an unsolicited pre-recorded sales call, which is a clear and direct violation of 47 USC 227. www dot LincMad dot com / Telecom at LincMad dot com Linc Madison * San Francisco, California ------------------------------ From: brycheiniog@hotmail.com (Jonathan Roberts) Subject: Telecoms Signalling Books Date: 18 Sep 2002 02:01:57 -0700 Organization: http://groups.google.com/ Hi, I am in need of a good book on telecom signalling systems, has anyone got any recomendations? At the moment I am interested in the various CAS protocols & MFC-R2 signalling, but in the near future I will need to know something about ISDN & possibly SS7. Thanks, Jonathan ------------------------------ From: dsweinstein@hotmail.com (Byrum Delano Siskind) Subject: Strange Ringing on Lucent Partner Mail System Date: 18 Sep 2002 02:18:43 -0700 Organization: http://groups.google.com/ We have just installed a Partner System 3 Phone system and everything seems to be working fine. Then, we installed a two port partner mail system. While the partner mail system seems to work OK, once the partner mail system is first triggered, say by an incoming call answered by the auto-attendant, the VMS system will intercom ring extension 10. If you answer the intercom on extension 10, there is no message or anything from the VMS. Once you hang up, the VMS system continues to ring extension 10. Any suggestions. Thanks. ------------------------------ Date: Mon, 16 Sep 2002 21:53:01 -0400 From: dhorvath@cobs.com (David B. Horvath, CCP) Subject: Last Laugh! Order Spam Now!!! > From the company that Norton's "SYSTEMWORKS CLEARANCE SALE_ONLY > $29.99": CLICK HERE to Order Yours NOW! or Call Toll-Free > 1-800-861-1481! Or, if you are interested in Whirligigs: > We are the world's biggest whirligig maker. > Order on-line as indicated or call toll-free at (800) 307-5238 Then there is the company that offers a bunch of free small electronic gizmos ("Free Spy Ear", "Free Scanning FM Radio", "Free Cell Antenna Booster", and others) but charges outrageous shipping and handling for each of the "free" items. The web page in the SPAM redirects to a Yahoo store. The vendor (amazingonlinevalues) can be reached via: > Tel: 800.VALUE.07 > Fax: 949.260.9618 > Postal address: > P.O. Box 10847 > Newport Beach, CA 92660 - David [TELECOM Digest Editor's Note: Thank you for submitting these latest entries for the Digest Business Directory. I'm sure readers will rush to their phones and cause massive congestion in the CO to get through and 'place their orders' for whirligig's and Spy Radios. I wonder if batteries are included at no extra charge? Readers know what to do and what kind of questions to ask before placing their orders. PAT] ------------------------------ TELECOM Digest is an electronic journal devoted mostly but not exclusively to telecommunications topics. It is circulated anywhere there is email, in addition to various telecom forums on a variety of networks such as Compuserve and America On Line, 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: 620-870-9697 Fax 1: 775-255-9970 Fax 2: 775-306-8390 Fax 3: 775-642-0603 Fax 4: 530-309-7234 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 second 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) Email <==> FTP: telecom-archives@telecom-digest.org Send a simple, one line note to that automated address for a help file on how to use the automatic retrieval system for archives files. You can get desired files in email. ************************************************************************* * 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. Access to Premium (P) links requires upgrade to a paid subscription. One click a day feeds a person a meal. Go to http://www.thehungersite.com Only subscribers or registered users of ICB Toll Free News web site will be able to access all or some of the full text of URLs provided. LEGAL STUFF: TELECOM Digest (sm) is owned by Patrick Townson. Copyright 2000 ICB, Inc. and TELECOM Digest. All rights reserved. Our attorney is Bill Levant, of Blue Bell, PA. --------------------------------------------------------------- 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 twenty 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 V22 #43 ***************************** From editor@telecom-digest.org Thu Sep 19 12:20:01 2002 Received: from localhost (localhost [[UNIX: localhost]]) by massis.lcs.mit.edu (8.11.3nb1/8.11.3) id g8JGK1a06587; Thu, 19 Sep 2002 12:20:01 -0400 (EDT) Date: Thu, 19 Sep 2002 12:20:01 -0400 (EDT) From: editor@telecom-digest.org Message-Id: <200209191620.g8JGK1a06587@massis.lcs.mit.edu> X-Authentication-Warning: massis.lcs.mit.edu: ptownson set sender to editor@telecom-digest.org using -f To: ptownson Approved: patsnewlist Subject: TELECOM Digest V22 #44 TELECOM Digest Thu, 19 Sep 2002 12:20:00 EDT Volume 22 : Issue 44 Inside This Issue: Editor: Patrick A. Townson Is Mass Avaya Layoff in Silicon Valley Office True? (Mike V.) Re: New Routine for Digest Starting Now (J Kelly) Re: New Routine for Digest Starting Now (Barry Margolin) Re: One Area Code to Unify Divided Town (Roger Conklin) Re: One Area Code to Unify Divided Town (Joe) Re: RJ-11 Connectors (ken) Re: RJ-11 Connectors (Phil McKerracher) Re: Turn Your Answering Machine Into a TeleZapper!! (John Higdon) ACD Call Record from a Lucent Switch (Asokan Gunanathan) News Headlines of Interest 9/19/02 (Monty Solomon) 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. WE DO NOT PERMIT NAME/EMAIL ADDRESS HARVESTING FROM THIS JOURNAL. 'SALTED' EMAIL ADDRESSES APPEAR HEREIN TO VERIFY THIS. YOU GET SUED IN SMALL CLAIMS COURT IF YOU GET CAUGHT SPAMMING OR SENDING VIRUSES. DON'T DO IT. See the bottom of this issue for subscription and archive details and the name of our lawyer; other stuff of interest. ---------------------------------------------------------------------- From: valemike@yahoo.com (Mike V.) Subject: Is Mass Avaya Layoff in Silicon Valley Office True? Date: 18 Sep 2002 22:51:51 -0700 Organization: http://groups.google.com/ It says in a website (hint, it's an expletive in the name) @#*%edcompany.com that Avaya on Sept 18th, closed down it's Silicon Valley branch, with over 450 affected. Is this true? ------------------------------ From: J Kelly Subject: Re: New Routine for Digest Starting Now Date: Wed, 18 Sep 2002 18:38:35 -0500 Organization: Monkey Crap On 17 Sep 2002 09:58:41 -0700, kibri@eudoramail.com (Tom Brown) wrote: > [TELECOM Digest Editor's Note: As I told you in private, personal > mail earlier today, you were NOT bounced into the spam bucket. The > SpamAssassin program does not use any one single factor in its > decision, but several dozen factors, which it 'weighs' in detirming > a final 'score' which can be adjusted up or down as needed. Eudora is > one consideration; you got points for that, but the offsets took you > below the required cutoff point. PAT] Why is mail from Eudora more likely spam? Why not bounce all mail from OE since it is more virus prone? ------------------------------ From: Barry Margolin Subject: Re: New Routine for Digest Starting Now Organization: Genuity, Woburn, MA Date: Wed, 18 Sep 2002 19:27:23 GMT In article , TELECOM Digest Editor noted in response to Tom Brown: > Eudora is one consideration; you got points for that, but the > offsets took you below the required cutoff point. PAT] Why is Eudora considered a factor? Isn't it one of the most popular email programs? Don't spammers mostly use high-volume mail programs for blasting to thousands of addresses, rather than typical consumer mail clients? Barry Margolin, barmar@genuity.net Genuity, Woburn, MA *** DON'T SEND TECHNICAL QUESTIONS DIRECTLY TO ME, post them to newsgroups. Please DON'T copy followups to me -- I'll assume it wasn't posted to the group. ------------------------------ Subject: Re: One Area Code to Unify Divided Town From: Roger.Conklin@corning.com Date: Wed, 18 Sep 2002 20:07:56 -0400 Carl, I didn't mean to imply that an overlay was the same as a split of a town between two area codes, and am sorry if I left that impression. What I wanted to indicate was that an overlay also gives two area codes to a single city. In the case of an overlay, those assigned to one area code are all mixed in together whereas with a divided city, subscribers on one side of the AC border have one area code, while those on the other side have the other AC. The result is the same only that in both cases there are two area codes for the same city. Roger Conklin > You (Roger.Conklin@corning.com) refer to an overlay (305/786 > in Florida), and that doesn't seem to be the case in Erving, > Massachusetts, which apparently was split between 413 and 617 > until 1988, with the 617 part then going to 508 and still later > from 508 to 978. I've got overlays where I am in Maryland > (443 overlaid on 410), and there is even at least one hospital > near me which now has its telephones in 443 area. But in > Erving (Mass.), you'd be near the boundary between two GEOGRAPHIC > area codes. ------------------------------ From: Joe Subject: Re: One Area Code to Unify Divided Town Date: Wed, 18 Sep 2002 23:06:28 -0400 Michael D. Sullivan wrote: > On 16 Sep 2002 22:54:24 -0400, John R. Levine posted the following to > comp.dcom.telecom: >>> How big is your calling area? >> On my cell phone, it runs from Eastport Maine in the northeast to >> Niihau and Hawaii in the southwest, and from Barrow Alaska in the >> northwest to Key West Florida in the southeast, excepting only the >> offshore phones in the Gulf of Mexico. I'm not sure if it includes >> Puerto Rico and the US Virgin Islands, if so the southeast corner is >> St Croix USVI. That's a land area of, oh, three or four million >> square miles. > Your cellphone's "local" calling area should include Puerto Rico and > the USVI, as well as the Commonwealth of the Northern Mariana Islands > and whichever one of Guam and American Samoa has joined the NANP. The > FCC's rate integration policy requires that these be treated the same > as other interstate domestic calls. Does this mean that rate plans which have one rate for the continental USA and other rates for AK HI are improper? obsidian wrote: > My local calling area covers the entire country of Belgium, some 30 > thousand square kilometres [or nearly 12 thousand square miles for the > Americans.] > How big is your calling area? In the USA it can vary widely. Now with unlimited long distance plans, the "local" calling area can beome the entire United States, if desired. > What has existed in Erving for all these years is not that much > different than what we now have in Miami (and a lot of other > communities). My phone number is in area code 305 but the neighbor > two doors down has the area code of 786, the latter being the > "overlay" area code that was opened up a couple of years ago. We dial > 10 digits to call both within our own area or the neighbor next door > in a different area. The overlay area code system is in place in eastern Massachusetts too, including 978 area code, although that was not mentioned in the article. 978 is overlayed with area code 351, although there aren't many 351- numbers yet. So anyone in the eastern part of the Erving could have had a 351 number while their neighbors have 978. BTW: 10 digit calling is mandatory in all cases where there are overlays EXCEPT NYC which has an odd exception. ------------------------------ From: ken Subject: Re: RJ-11 Connectors Date: Thu, 19 Sep 2002 10:01:34 +0100 Organization: ntlworld News Service Michael N. Marcus wrote in message news:telecom22.43.7@telecom-digest.org: > (newsfep1-win.server.ntli.net) > 'jt' wrote (in part): >> I know in the UK they use the same things -- except that installers >> will break off the little tab that lets you take the plug out if you >> wish to undo what they did. >> Buggers. > It's not just installers. When I was in London in the mid-1990's, I saw > brand-new phones and answerers being sold with clipped plugs on their > cords. I assumed it was due to some archaic Brit rule designed to > provide work for blacksmiths. > Other cords were wacky, too. > Electrical products, ranging from table lamps to PCs, were sold > without plugs on their power cords. British houses have different > styles of electrical outlets; so after spending $3 on a clock, you > visit the village smithie to have a plug installed. Later on, if you > want to move the clock from the kitchen to a bedroom, you might have > to take the clock back to the blacksmith to have the plug changed to > fit a different outlet. > I'm sure glad _we_ won the Revolutionary War. Actually, the current standard for UK electrical outlets - designed for a "square" pin, fused 3-pole plug - was drawn up in 1947, and in use for all new construction within about 10 years. You must have been staying in a house that hadn't been re-wired in a long time. I haven't seen the old, multi-sized, round-pin sockets for many years. In the USA, where houses over 30 years old must be demolished to make work for the construction industry, I suppose you don't see that kind of obsolescence ;) It's uncommon now to have appliances sold without plugs. I suspect the practice originated on legal advice due to concern over the possibility of plugs being wrongly wired -- with potentially fatal consequences -- somewhere in the supply chain between the manufacturer and the customer. The risk was passed to the consumer. Products designed for different markets would at one time have had plugs added by an importer, with the correctly-sized fuse. Nowadays, most appliances come fitted with moulded plugs that can't be tampered with. Products like lamps and clocks may still be sold with re-wirable plugs, but these usually don't need an earth connection and the consequences of plug mis-wiring are less serious. Of course, if you buy stuff for $3, do you really expect it to come complete? Or was this clock a semi-antique (with an old plug), bought from a thrift shop? To get back to telecomms, a study was carried out some years ago on the harmonisation of PSTN outlets throughout Europe. Even though some countries use connectors with as many as 10 poles (Austria), only 2 or 3 connectors are used in practice, though with some variation in the circuitry used for protection or line testing. The conclusion was that there was no technical reason why it couldn't be done if all the other obstacles -- economic, social, political -- could be overcome. This is proven by the availability of adaptors for each market, which may have reduced the need for a common standard. With so many business installations now using structured cabling with outlets to the RJ45 pattern, I suspect that will become a de-facto standard. Many business telephones here are now supplied with two leads -- one with RJ45 termination at the outlet end, the other with the local plug, both with RJ11 at the phone end. ------------------------------ From: Phil McKerracher Subject: Re: RJ-11 Connectors Date: Thu, 19 Sep 2002 14:27:30 GMT Organization: blueyonder (post doesn't reflect views of blueyonder) Michael N. Marcus wrote in message news:telecom22.43.7@telecom-digest.org: > 'jt' wrote (in part): >> I know in the UK they use the same things -- except that installers >> will break off the little tab that lets you take the plug out if you >> wish to undo what they did. >> Buggers. The origin of this is a safety regulation -- it's designed to prevent a child putting a finger into the socket (or sucking a plug) and getting a shock when the phone rings. In a product I designed where we wanted the plug to be removeable, we avoided the problem by using a different plug and socket that had contacts sufficiently removed from a standard "test finger" to be deemed safe. It's easy enough to take the plug out if you have a screwdriver or paperclip to lift the tab. > It's not just installers. When I was in London in the mid-1990's, I saw > brand-new phones and answerers being sold with clipped plugs on their > cords. I assumed it was due to some archaic Brit rule designed to > provide work for blacksmiths. > Other cords were wacky, too. > Electrical products, ranging from table lamps to PCs, were sold > without plugs on their power cords. British houses have different > styles of electrical outlets; so after spending $3 on a clock, you > visit the village smithie to have a plug installed. Later on, if you > want to move the clock from the kitchen to a bedroom, you might have > to take the clock back to the blacksmith to have the plug changed to > fit a different outlet. > I'm sure glad _we_ won the Revolutionary War. :-) Products were sold without plugs in the 80s because they had to work in different European countries. People didn't like this, so now they tend to come with (more expensive) twin leads -- one UK and one "continental". The original intention was to standardise plugs throughout Europe. But there is a regulation that states that the "superior" standard shall be used in such circumstances, and the UK plug was clearly superior for various reasons but was in such a minority that it was less expensive to stick with dual standards (I oversimplify a bit). Different outlets are still sometimes used, for example for light sockets controlled from a dimmer that is not capable of feeding an electric fire. Phil McKerracher www.mckerracher.org ------------------------------ From: John Higdon Subject: Re: Turn Your Answering Machine Into a TeleZapper!! Organization: Green Hills and Cows Date: Wed, 18 Sep 2002 12:06:58 -0700 In article , mvp@web1.calweb.com (Mike Van Pelt) wrote: > In article , John Higdon > wrote: >> The predictive dialers that I have written lately ignore SIT after >> supervision. If the call supervises, it completely successfully. After >> supervision, the only thing the dialer cares about is voice pattern >> processing ("hello?") or DTMF detection. > Why? > If someone has gone to the trouble to record SIT tones on their > answering machine, the one thing you can tell about them right off is > that they are hostile to telemarketers. It is a matter of resources. Why listen for something on a line that would be invalid even if detected? I guess I could make it a user option. > Why, if a telemarketer is concerned only about making a sale/profit, > would he want to waste the time of his phonedroids in annoying someone > who has made it clear right up front that he does not want to deal > with telemarketers? That would be the telemarketer's choice. I only design the machines; I don't dictate their use. John Higdon | Email Address Valid | SF: +1 415 428-COWS +1 408 264 4115 | Anytown, USA | FAX: +1 408 264 4407 ------------------------------ From: asokan.gunanathan@avotus.com (Asokan Gunanathan) Subject: ACD Call Record from a Lucent Switch Date: 18 Sep 2002 12:44:47 -0700 Organization: http://groups.google.com/ I have been trying to find out about what ACD call records look like in a Lucent switch. The different types of calls that I am interested in are: Outgoing calls made by an agent, Incoming calls to an agent, Calls that go from one queue to another, and Outgoing calls from an agent from the secondary line. I hope someone has some information on this. Thanks. ------------------------------ Date: Wed, 18 Sep 2002 16:24:14 -0400 From: Monty Solomon Subject: News Headlines of Interest 9/19/02 Cable glitch shows potential power of copy-blocking By Dawn C. Chmielewski Mercury News Some subscribers to one of the nation's largest cable systems are unable to make digital recordings of television shows in what the company labeled an unforeseen technological glitch but consumer advocates called a chilling curb on home recording. An industry newsletter reported that Cablevision has invoked copy restrictions on all unscrambled digital TV programming delivered to its 3 million subscribers in metropolitan New York. It renders a range of cable shows -- from late 1970s sitcoms like 'Diff'rent Strokes' to Formula One racing on Speedvision -- unrecordable on certain types of devices. The incident shows how easy it is for cable providers to block recording, consumer advocates said. Even if what Cablevision did was inadvertent, they said, it is a example of how copy-blocking can be used to set limits on how individuals use the most ubiquitous of technologies -- the television set. http://www.siliconvalley.com/mld/siliconvalley/news/local/4097198.htm Who's Running the Digital Show? By Brad King 2:00 a.m. Sep. 18, 2002 PDT The future of the PC isn't personal, it's political. While the federal government delayed the official announcement of its cybersecurity recommendations -- originally scheduled to take place Wednesday -- a draft release of the report suggests that lawmakers want to maintain a measure of control over what people do online. Congress is getting help from technology developers in its quest to lock down and monitor the Internet. http://www.wired.com/news/business/0,1367,55149,00.html Excerpt from http://www.whitehouse.gov/pcipb/ President's Critical Infrastructure Protection Board September 18, 2002 Subject: A National Strategy to Secure Cyberspace President Bush directed the development of a National Strategy to Secure Cyberspace to ensure that America has a clear roadmap to protect a part of its infrastructure so essential to our way of life. The draft of that road map was developed in close collaboration with key sectors of the economy that rely on cyberspace, State, and local governments, colleges and universities, and concerned organizations. Click here to download the draft. http://www.whitehouse.gov/pcipb/cyberstrategy-draft.pdf U.S. Cybersecurity Strategy Faulted - Sep 18, 2002 06:26 PM (AP Online) By MATTHEW FORDAHL AP Technology Writer PALO ALTO, Calif. (AP) - Computer security experts denounced a White House panel's eagerly awaited strategy on defending the nation's critical systems from cyberattacks, assailing Wednesday's report for not being tough enough. Instead of proposing bold government actions, the 'National Strategy to Secure Cyberspace' stresses voluntary cooperation and education. It says users -- from home PC buyers to corporate technology officers -- need to know of vulnerabilities so that they can assess the risks in their own corner of cyberspace. - http://finance.lycos.com/home/news/story.asp?story=28725458 ------------------------------ TELECOM Digest is an electronic journal devoted mostly but not exclusively to telecommunications topics. It is circulated anywhere there is email, in addition to various telecom forums on a variety of networks such as Compuserve and America On Line, 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: 620-870-9697 Fax 1: 775-255-9970 Fax 2: 775-306-8390 Fax 3: 775-642-0603 Fax 4: 530-309-7234 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 second 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) Email <==> FTP: telecom-archives@telecom-digest.org Send a simple, one line note to that automated address for a help file on how to use the automatic retrieval system for archives files. You can get desired files in email. ************************************************************************* * 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. Access to Premium (P) links requires upgrade to a paid subscription. One click a day feeds a person a meal. Go to http://www.thehungersite.com Only subscribers or registered users of ICB Toll Free News web site will be able to access all or some of the full text of URLs provided. LEGAL STUFF: TELECOM Digest (sm) is owned by Patrick Townson. Copyright 2000 ICB, Inc. and TELECOM Digest. All rights reserved. Our attorney is Bill Levant, of Blue Bell, PA. --------------------------------------------------------------- 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 twenty 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 V22 #44 ***************************** NOTE: Issues 45-46 appear below in reverse order. PAT From editor@telecom-digest.org Fri Sep 20 13:43:11 2002 Received: from localhost (localhost [[UNIX: localhost]]) by massis.lcs.mit.edu (8.11.3nb1/8.11.3) id g8KHhBU12397; Fri, 20 Sep 2002 13:43:11 -0400 (EDT) Date: Fri, 20 Sep 2002 13:43:11 -0400 (EDT) From: editor@telecom-digest.org Message-Id: <200209201743.g8KHhBU12397@massis.lcs.mit.edu> X-Authentication-Warning: massis.lcs.mit.edu: ptownson set sender to editor@telecom-digest.org using -f To: ptownson Approved: patsnewlist Subject: TELECOM Digest V22 #46 TELECOM Digest Fri, 20 Sep 2002 13:42:00 EDT Volume 22 : Issue 46 Inside This Issue: Editor: Patrick A. Townson Book Review: Teach Yourself Web Publishing with HTML (Rob Slade) Cavalier Telephone (Denis) FCC Boosts Wireless War Chests (Eric Friedebach) Re: One Area Code to Unify Divided Town (Michael D. Sullivan) As Cellphone Options Grow, Sites Help Sort Them Out (Monty Solomon) Re: Local Calling Area (Bob Goudreau) Re: Turn Your Answering Machine Into a TeleZapper!! (Ed Ellers) Re: Turn Your Answering Machine Into a TeleZapper!! (Vince) Re: Blind Vigilantes (SELLCOM Tech support) RIM Granted Handheld Email Patent - Clobbers Handspring (Monty Solomon) Being Wireless (Monty Solomon) What Are These Numbers? (John Savage) DSL Provider (Corey J. Goodman) Trunk to Trunk transfer on Merlin Legend 7.0 (Etop Udoh) Addition to the Business Directory (Steven Lichter) Empfehlungsschreiben ! (Doina Popoviciu) Last Laugh! The Onion: Al-Qaeda Telemarketing (Marcus Jervis) 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. WE DO NOT PERMIT NAME/EMAIL ADDRESS HARVESTING FROM THIS JOURNAL. 'SALTED' EMAIL ADDRESSES APPEAR HEREIN TO VERIFY THIS. YOU GET SUED IN SMALL CLAIMS COURT IF YOU GET CAUGHT SPAMMING OR SENDING VIRUSES. DON'T DO IT. See the bottom of this issue for subscription and archive details and the name of our lawyer; other stuff of interest. ---------------------------------------------------------------------- From: Rob Slade Organization: Vancouver Institute for Research into User Date: Thu, 19 Sep 2002 11:06:23 -0800 Subject: Book Review: Teach Yourself Web Publishing with HTML 4 in 21 Days BKTYWPHT.RVW 20020628 "Teach Yourself Web Publishing with HTML 4 in 21 Days", Laura Lemay/Denise Tyler, 2000, 0-672-31725-7, U$29.99/C$34.95/UK#21.99 %A Laura Lemay lemay@lne.com webmaster@lemayprod.com %A Denise Tyler %C 201 W. 103rd Street, Indianapolis, IN 46290 %D 2000 %G 0-672-31725-7 %I SAMS Publishing %O U$29.99/C$34.95/UK#21.99 800-428-5331 800-428-3804 %P 831 p. %T "Teach Yourself Web Publishing with HTML 4 in 21 Days, 2nd Ed." For a number of years, this was my preferred alternate to the now classic "HTML: The Definitive Guide" (cf. BKHTMLDG.RVW). However, while the basics are still here, the revisions have not been kind. The heart of the book is still reasonable. There is fairly good coverage of the basics, links, formatting, images, graphics, image maps, style sheets, tables, frames, multimedia, forms, scripting, and design. The new material describing the Web is rather a waste of space, as is the content on promotion of sites. Additions to the original work have very much emphasized "style" over substance. The existing tutorial text, where it was weak, has not been improved. In fact, where the initial work was quite careful to be free of errors in example code, the new topics tend to be rife with mistakes. The chapter one "Dynamic HTML," for example, does talk about the need for JavaScript to be compatible between different browser versions, but starts off by teaching scripting commands that are limited to Internet Explorer only. (In addition, a number of the sample scripts do no work properly in any browser.) Although the book can still be helpful for those learning HTML, it is no longer possible to recommend the work highly. copyright Robert M. Slade, 1995, 2002 BKTYWPHT.RVW 20020628 ====================== (quote inserted randomly by Pegasus Mailer) rslade@vcn.bc.ca rslade@sprint.ca slade@victoria.tc.ca p1@canada.com McDonald's, which does not wait on your table, does not cook your food to order, and does not clear your table, came up with the slogan `We Do It All For You.' - Dave Barry http://victoria.tc.ca/techrev or http://sun.soci.niu.edu/~rslade ------------------------------ From: dmeloche@mindspring.com (Denis) Subject: Cavalier Telephone Date: 19 Sep 2002 11:45:32 -0700 Organization: http://groups.google.com/ I had the most interesting problem with Cavalier Telephone. I switched to Cavalier last November. Yesterday they disconnected my service. I called to find out what was wrong and after being switched around I was told that my bill had not been paid in six months. I paid it three weeks ago and the balance is minus 53 cents. After talking to another 5 people and waiting up to 35 minutes on hold here is the jist of the problem. Cavalier says that I voluntarily cancelled phone service 6 months ago. I did not and was unaware of the situation, perhaps I got slammed. The phone has worked the same as always with call waiting, caller ID and three way calling until yesterday when the land line was disconnected. For the last six months my phone bill was much less than normal, I was only billed for minutes used and the bills were only $6 to $12 a month. But Cavalier says that I was fraudlent in paying the bill they sent since I knew my service agreement was for $24.99/month. My number has been permanently cancelled and I cannot get it back. Cavalier cannot understand why my bill and service are paid up to date according to their system and yet be in arrears or why the phone worked. The land line was finally disconnected by Version since the account has been technically dormant for six months. I have lost all rights to my phone number and a new Cavalier plan will cost $50/month with a $50 deposit and they are willing to waive the six months I owe them for service if I sign up again. Strange huh? I went with Version and the package is less than Cavalier and I get 56K modem. Cavalier is only 28.8. I don't know what to do when the bill for six months unbilled services comes, perhaps I will have to fight them in court. I suggest you stay away from Cavalier, their system is not yet mature! [TELECOM Digest Editor's Note: I had a very similar situation about thirty years ago; middle 1970's. I was living in an apartment-hotel on the near north side of Chicago, which served the residents with a cord switchboard. I had a personal phone installed by Illinois Bell, with my own number, dial tone, etc apart from the building switchboard. I went for *one year* and never got a bill on that phone. It appears that although plant had turned the line on, the paperwork never got to the accounting office. Since I had unlimited call-pak on the line (a deal where you did not pay anything for the 'units' used, and only had to pay for 'coin rated' calls such as long distance, I was very careful not to make ANY long distance calls on that line. Then about one year later, some (obscenity-deleted) phreak made a couple of long distance calls (these were third-party billed calls) and wouldn't you know it? The charges came through to the accounting office, and 'fell out' for lack of an appropriate billing number. At that point the charges went into the suspense ledger until an investigator got around to working on them. Some telco person actually *dialed* my number, got an answer, then wound up calling the plant and asking them when their records showed the number in service. The next month I got a bill for the phone showing the amount per month *billed for twelve months to date* and it also included those two phraud charges. Telco agreed to write off those two phraud charges *as soon as I paid for the rest of the bill*, but the service rep said to me, "None of us have our hands very clean, do we?" I really could not say much; just sit there as she slapped my hands. PAT] ------------------------------ Date: Thu, 19 Sep 2002 12:04:37 PDT From: Eric Friedebach Reply-To: friedebach@yahoo.com Subject: FCC Boosts Wireless War Chests by Mark Lewis, 09.18.02, Forbes.com NEW YORK - Thanks to the magic of rebranding, VoiceStream is now T-Mobile. Those ubiquitous advertisements featuring Jamie Lee Curtis have been replaced by equally inescapable T-Mobile ads featuring Catherine Zeta-Jones. But changing names and pitchwomen does not change the fact that Deutsche Telekom needs to attract a buy for its U.S. wireless unit. Fortunately, the potential buyers have more change in their pockets, now that the Federal Communications Commission (FCC) has signaled that it will refund the $16 billion that wireless firms bid for radio spectrum licenses held by NextWave Telecom. After NextWave went bankrupt, the FCC repossessed its licenses and auctioned them off to eager bidders such as Verizon Wireless, which put up about $8 billion just by itself. But NextWave filed suit to retain the licenses, and the case still is pending before the U.S. Supreme Court. Last week the FCC indicated that it would not wait for a decision before letting the bidders off the hook. http://www.forbes.com/2002/09/18/0918wireless.html ------------------------------ From: Michael D. Sullivan Subject: Re: One Area Code to Unify Divided Town Date: Fri, 20 Sep 2002 02:19:16 GMT On Wed, 18 Sep 2002 23:06:28 -0400, Joe posted the following to comp.dcom.telecom: > Michael D. Sullivan wrote: >> On 16 Sep 2002 22:54:24 -0400, John R. Levine posted the following to >> comp.dcom.telecom: >>>> How big is your calling area? >>> On my cell phone, it runs from Eastport Maine in the northeast to >>> Niihau and Hawaii in the southwest, and from Barrow Alaska in the >>> northwest to Key West Florida in the southeast, excepting only the >>> offshore phones in the Gulf of Mexico. I'm not sure if it includes >>> Puerto Rico and the US Virgin Islands, if so the southeast corner is >>> St Croix USVI. That's a land area of, oh, three or four million >>> square miles. >> Your cellphone's "local" calling area should include Puerto Rico and >> the USVI, as well as the Commonwealth of the Northern Mariana Islands >> and whichever one of Guam and American Samoa has joined the NANP. The >> FCC's rate integration policy requires that these be treated the same >> as other interstate domestic calls. > Does this mean that rate plans which have one rate for the continental > USA and other rates for AK HI are improper? No. What it means is that the rates for the offshore US points have to be computed on the same basis as for other US points -- i.e., integrated into the domestic rate plan, instead of treating them as quasi-international. If the plan is "flat rate domestic LD 5 cents/minute" that has to apply to the offshore points also. If the plan is "5 cents/minute for calls up to 1000 miles, 7 cents/minute for up to 3000 miles" then it had better not be 60 cents to call offshore points. And if it is "5 cents/minute for calls to the 48 states" that had better be the rate to the 48 states from the offshore points (if they or an affiliate offer service there), and vice versa. > obsidian wrote: >> My local calling area covers the entire country of Belgium, some 30 >> thousand square kilometres [or nearly 12 thousand square miles for the >> Americans.] >> How big is your calling area? > In the USA it can vary widely. Now with unlimited long distance plans, > the "local" calling area can beome the entire United States, if desired. >> What has existed in Erving for all these years is not that much >> different than what we now have in Miami (and a lot of other >> communities). My phone number is in area code 305 but the neighbor >> two doors down has the area code of 786, the latter being the >> "overlay" area code that was opened up a couple of years ago. We dial >> 10 digits to call both within our own area or the neighbor next door >> in a different area. > The overlay area code system is in place in eastern Massachusetts too, > including 978 area code, although that was not mentioned in the > article. 978 is overlayed with area code 351, although there aren't > many 351- numbers yet. So anyone in the eastern part of the Erving > could have had a 351 number while their neighbors have 978. BTW: 10 > digit calling is mandatory in all cases where there are overlays > EXCEPT NYC which has an odd exception. Michael D. Sullivan Bethesda, MD, USA (delete NOSPAM from address to mail me) ------------------------------ Date: Thu, 19 Sep 2002 23:12:13 -0400 From: Monty Solomon Subject: As Cellphone Options Grow, Sites Help Sort Them Out By THOMAS J. FITZGERALD NAVIGATING the options when shopping for cellular service has always been a struggle, to say the least, but lately it seems to be reaching a new level. Turn on the television and you see ads for flashy new phones and new types of wireless plans, some with new and confusing terminology. Walk into a mall and you see pushcarts and booths selling a wide array of phones and plans just outside the full-size stores of the national carriers. The growing complexity in the cellphone world is partly the result of efforts by national carriers to keep cellphones and service plans from becoming undifferentiated commodities. Yet for deluged consumers trying to make sense of the proliferating options, it would be helpful if there were a single place to go for a snapshot of all the available plans, phones and promotions. The Web is tailor-made for solutions of this sort, and sure enough, several companies have developed Web sites that do a pretty good job of staying up to date on plans, phones and promotional offers. At the very least they provide a good starting point, and they may help save money and time. http://www.nytimes.com/2002/09/19/technology/circuits/19BASI.html ------------------------------ From: Bob Goudreau Subject: Re: Local Calling Area Date: Thu, 19 Sep 2002 23:49:01 -0400 obsidian wrote: > my local calling area covers the entire country > of Belgium, some 30 thousand square kilometres > [or nearly 12 thousand square miles for the americans] > how big is your calling area? I think that by the standards of most North American telephone users, your local calling area would be 0 km^2 :-). That's because (with some exceptions), most Americans and Canadians consider their "local calling area" to be the zone to which calls have *zero* cost. As I understand it, in Belgium and most other European countries, the meter is always running, even for calls to the house next door. (There are a few such areas in the US too, plus some other areas in which a local call incurs a fixed per-call cost regardless of length, but most of us don't pay anything for residential wireline calls to the immediate area.) Bob Goudreau Cary, NC ------------------------------ From: Ed Ellers Subject: Re: Turn Your Answering Machine Into a TeleZapper!! Date: Thu, 19 Sep 2002 17:46:52 -0400 John Higdon wrote: > It is a matter of resources. Why listen for something on a line that > would be invalid even if detected? Why do you consider the SIT signal invalid? [TELECOM Digest Editor's Note: It would be invalid from a *telemarketer's perspective* since old-time, experienced telemarketers pay no attention to it anyway. If some phone equipment at telco somewhere listens to it (that is to say, line is in fact disconnected) that's a different matter. I think the 'SIT signal invalid' comment above was directed to human listeners who would pay no attention to it (telemarketers) rather than telco machinery (which might pay attention). PAT ------------------------------ From: vince@kidrock.com (Vince) Subject: Re: Turn Your Answering Machine Into a TeleZapper!! Date: 19 Sep 2002 14:41:54 -0700 Organization: http://groups.google.com/ mvp@web1.calweb.com (Mike Van Pelt) wrote in message news:: > In article , John Higdon > wrote: >> The predictive dialers that I have written lately ignore SIT after >> supervision. If the call supervises, it completely successfully. After >> supervision, the only thing the dialer cares about is voice pattern >> processing ("hello?") or DTMF detection. > Why? > If someone has gone to the trouble to record SIT tones on their > answering machine, the one thing you can tell about them right off is > that they are hostile to telemarketers. > Why, if a telemarketer is concerned only about making a sale/profit, > would he want to waste the time of his phonedroids in annoying someone > who has made it clear right up front that he does not want to deal > with telemarketers? > I guess I'll have to resort to "Plan B" on my answering machine: > "Hello?" > phonedroid.> > "Ooops, sorry, hold on a minute. This is an answering machine. > If you are a real person, please leave a message. If you are a > telemarketer, this is your notice to put this number on your DO > NOT CALL list." SIT Tones on an answering machine only works on PDs. Check out http://www.antitelemarketer.com ------------------------------ From: SELLCOM Tech support Subject: Re: Blind Vigilantes Organization: www.sellcom.com Reply-To: support@sellcom.com Date: Fri, 20 Sep 2002 01:02:05 GMT Bret A Fausett posted on that vast internet thingie: > How had it gained access to my mail server? Simple. It had forged > the headers on its email to convince my mail server that the email > it sent was from a permitted user. You see, my mail servers were set > up to pass mail only from a domain name of which I am the only > user. It blocks everything else. That's not an open relay. Unless > you're a user in my domain, you can't use it. No offense sir, but if they could do it anyone could do it. You most certainly are running an insecure "open" server. Think of the other side of this that anyone anywhere can send anyone or everyone email as *YOU* and it would come from *YOUR* server. Your enemy is whoever configured your email server or possibly your email server software company. Think about it again. Your server would let anyone in the world send email to anyone else in the world as YOU and all the header info would point to your server. Are you really a lawyer? Hire yourself an IT guy to deal with all the weird internet stuff. Sincerely, Steve at SELLCOM (Note: The opinions expressed in this email are probably the opinion of the author and do not represent the official opinion of the US Government or any other organization express or implied. These opinions are not covered by any warranty express or implied and by reading these opinions you agree to hold harmless the author his family, dependents and his pets. Your reading this far affirms your agreement to these terms and conditions. If you do not agree to these terms and conditions you should delete this message and not read it ever again.) http://www.sellcom.com Discount multihandset cordless phones by Siemens, EnGenius NEW EP436 4line (the longest range), Panasonic, Twinhead notebooks, WatchGuard firewall, Okidata, Polycom! If you sit at a desk www.ergochair.biz you owe it to yourself. ------------------------------ Date: Fri, 20 Sep 2002 00:35:02 -0400 From: Monty Solomon Subject: RIM Granted Handheld Email Patent - Clobbers Handspring By Andrew Orlowski in San Francisco On Tuesday Research in Motion was granted a patent for a "hand-held email device", and waited just 24 hours before clobbering rival Handspring Inc. with a writ. Have a close look at the patent [6,452,588, here], because it's sure to cast a very long shadow over the handheld wireless and cellular businesses in the coming months. http://www.theregister.co.uk/content/7/27205.html ------------------------------ Date: Fri, 20 Sep 2002 10:13:57 -0400 From: Monty Solomon Subject: Being Wireless Nicholas Negroponte explains why Wi-Fi "lily pads and frogs" will transform the future of telecom. EVERYTHING you assumed about telecommunications is about to change. Large wired and wireless telephone companies will be replaced by micro-operators, millions of which can be woven into a global fabric of broadband connectivity. How will this come to be? Here's the story. http://www.wired.com/wired/archive/10.10/wireless.html ------------------------------ From: John Savage Subject: What Are These Numbers? Date: Fri, 20 Sep 2002 12:30:19 GMT Organization: Road Runner - Portland, Maine What does it mean when these numbers show up on a Caller ID? 999-123-9999 999-555-9999 I assume it means somebody is using a calling card ... is this correct? If this is correct, what other numbers are available that would show up on a caller ID when someone uses a calling card? JLS [TELECOM Digest Editor's Note: I do not think you are correct. When numbers like that show up on caller ID I think it is just a company with a misprogrammed PBX (either accidentally or dliberatly). PAT] ------------------------------ From: cgstudly@aol.com (Corey J. Goodman) Subject: DSL Provider Date: 20 Sep 2002 08:53:03 -0700 Organization: http://groups.google.com/ I am looking for information on DSL.net services that I can use for referring their services to possible clients. DSL.net is a National Provider of DSL and T-1 services and I am looking to find out what our current customers think of the service. Any feedback from our customers would be great. Please feel free to send me a direct e-mail, as well as posting your response. If you would like to speak about our services, please feel free to call me at 877-375-6381 ext.3449. Thanks in advance for the feedback, Corey J. Goodman cgoodman@dsl.net 877-375-6381 ext.3449 ------------------------------ From: Etop Udoh Subject: Trunk to Trunk Transfer on Merlin Legend 7.0 Organization: WEBUSENET.com Date: Fri, 20 Sep 2002 09:14:24 -0400 Could someone please explain how to initiate a trunk to trunk transfer on a Merlin legend 7.0 system. Trunk to trunk transfer has been made active on the required extension, but I haven't figured out how to get it to work. I tried hitting transfer, and 9 then phone number but I get a 'Call denied' error message. I'm not even sure I'm going about it the correct way. Help will be appreciated. Thanks, ================================================================== | Etop Udoh | Http://www.geocities.com/sdruid11 | | P.O. Box 1054| Http://www.angelfire.com/ga3/sdruid | |Snellville, Ga| Http://www.freeyellow.com/members7/sdruid | | 30078 | Http://www.geocities.com/siliconvalley/bit/9122 | |--------------| Http://home.earthlink.net/~sdruid11 | | | | | sdruid11@earthlink.net sdruid11@netzero.net sdruid11@yahoo.com | | !! ..........Peace and Love to All......... !! | ================================================================== ------------------------------ From: stevenl11@aol.com (Steven Lichter) Date: 20 Sep 2002 13:11:14 GMT Organization: AOL http://www.aol.com Subject: Addition to the Business Directory ... to teach this individual about the cost of owning an Toll Free number ... -----Original Message----- Readers of the UltimateSports.info newsletter who join BOF NOW get an exclusive 25% sign up bonus on the spot! Plus,you'll be rewarded with an additional 15% bonus each time you reload your account. That's a total of 45% in FREE bonuses! Call 1-866-873-2387 or log on at http://www.betonfantasy.com ============================== Remember it is against the law to harrass anyone by telephone. Also you should use a payphone so that the operator can make a little money. Apple Elite II 909-359-5338. Home of GBBS/LLUCE, support for the Apple II 24 hours 2400/14.4. An OggNet Server. The only good spammer is a dead one!!! Have you hunted one down today? (c) Kill Spammers, Inc. A Hope You Roast In Hell Company. ------------------------------ From: Doina Popoviciu Subject: Empfehlungsschreiben ! Date: Fri, 20 Sep 2002 13:30:47 +0300 Reply-To: Doina Popoviciu [TELECOM Digest Editor's Request: Neither I nor my good friend (although I am beginning to wonder) SpamAssassin could read the note below. Please read it to me and tell me if once again, the Digest got spammed. Thanks. PAT] Empfehlungsschreiben Sehr geehrte Damen und Herren, Ich habe von Ihnen dürch INTERNET erfahren. Meine Name ist POPOVICIU DOINA, ich bin Dipl.ing.Oberbekleidungstechnik mit einer guten Erfahrung in Produktion und internationalen Verträgen. Ich glaube dass ich eine gute Wahl fuer Ihre Firma bin. Meine Erfahrung zussammen mit meine Persohnlichkeit und Arbeitsethik werden Ihre Firma im nexten Jahr helfen. Zu Ihre weiteren Information finden Sie in der Anlage einen detaillierten Lebenlauf oder an WEB-adresse: http://popdoina.tripod.com/index.html Meine e-mail Adresse ist: pdoina@keysys.ro Ich würde mich freuen, bald von Ihnen zu hören. Mit besten Gruessen Doina Popoviciu ------------------------------ From: Marcus Jervis Subject: Last Laugh! The Onion: Al-Qaeda Telemarketing Date: Fri, 20 Sep 2002 01:25:56 +0000 http://theonion.com/onion3834/al-qaeda_telemarketing.html [TELECOM Digest Editor's Note: For another good cartoon on telemarketers, Mike Sandman has something similar to this. His shows an Al-Qaeda member answering one phone call after another, each a telemarketer selling phone service, from MCI, Sprint and whoever. I think is called 'How to win the war against terrorism'. Just torment them continually with telemarketing calls. His version is http://sandman.com look for his online catalog. Its on the front page of the e-catalog. And don't forget to read the foreign language letter elsewhere in this issue and tell me about it; also the Burn in Hell company's offering today. PAT] ------------------------------ TELECOM Digest is an electronic journal devoted mostly but not exclusively to telecommunications topics. It is circulated anywhere there is email, in addition to various telecom forums on a variety of networks such as Compuserve and America On Line, 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: 620-870-9697 Fax 1: 775-255-9970 Fax 2: 775-306-8390 Fax 3: 775-642-0603 Fax 4: 530-309-7234 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 second 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) Email <==> FTP: telecom-archives@telecom-digest.org Send a simple, one line note to that automated address for a help file on how to use the automatic retrieval system for archives files. You can get desired files in email. ************************************************************************* * 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. Access to Premium (P) links requires upgrade to a paid subscription. One click a day feeds a person a meal. Go to http://www.thehungersite.com Only subscribers or registered users of ICB Toll Free News web site will be able to access all or some of the full text of URLs provided. LEGAL STUFF: TELECOM Digest (sm) is owned by Patrick Townson. Copyright 2000 ICB, Inc. and TELECOM Digest. All rights reserved. Our attorney is Bill Levant, of Blue Bell, PA. --------------------------------------------------------------- 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 twenty 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 V22 #46 ***************************** NOTE: Issues 45 and 46 got mailed in reversed order. 46 is ahead of this issue 45 in this archives. From editor@telecom-digest.org Sat Sep 21 15:14:02 2002 Received: from localhost (localhost [[UNIX: localhost]]) by massis.lcs.mit.edu (8.11.3nb1/8.11.3) id g8LJE2Z21734; Sat, 21 Sep 2002 15:14:02 -0400 (EDT) Date: Sat, 21 Sep 2002 15:14:02 -0400 (EDT) From: editor@telecom-digest.org Message-Id: <200209211914.g8LJE2Z21734@massis.lcs.mit.edu> X-Authentication-Warning: massis.lcs.mit.edu: ptownson set sender to editor@telecom-digest.org using -f To: ptownson Approved: patsnewlist Subject: TELECOM Digest V22 #45 TELECOM Digest Fri, 20 Sep 2002 12:40:00 EDT Volume 22 : Issue 45 Inside This Issue: Editor: Patrick A. Townson Norstar ICS 4.0 and Music on Hold (Justin) Strange Caller ID (re: What Are These Numbers?) (Mark J Cuccia) Re: How Can Someone Receive a Call From 555-XXXX? (Fritz Whittington) AT&T Merlin Mail 007 Internal Modem ... (Etop Udoh) Re: Turn Your Answering Machine Into a TeleZapper!! (John Higdon) Re: Turn Your Answering Machine Into a TeleZapper!! (John Mianowski) Re: Domain Registrars -- Who's The Best? (H. Peter Anvin) Re: Cavalier Telephone (Steven Lichter) Re: Cavalier Telephone (GHS) Re: Empfehlungsschreiben ! (James Carlson) Re: Empfehlungsschreiben ! (Phil McKerracher) Re: Empfehlungsschreiben ! (David B. Horvath, CCP) Re: Empfehlungsschreiben ! (Richard Todd) Re: Empfehlungsschreiben ! (Shaun Ewing) Re: Empfehlungsschreiben ! (Gail M. Hall) Re: One Area Code to Unify Divided Town (Mark Roberts) Re: One Area Code to Unify Divided Town (Carl Moore) Re: As Cellphone Options Grow, Sites Help Sort Them Out (Joseph Singer) Last Laugh! Nasty Emailing Service and Ink Jet Refills (David Horvath) 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. WE DO NOT PERMIT NAME/EMAIL ADDRESS HARVESTING FROM THIS JOURNAL. 'SALTED' EMAIL ADDRESSES APPEAR HEREIN TO VERIFY THIS. YOU GET SUED IN SMALL CLAIMS COURT IF YOU GET CAUGHT SPAMMING OR SENDING VIRUSES. DON'T DO IT. See the bottom of this issue for subscription and archive details and the name of our lawyer; other stuff of interest. ---------------------------------------------------------------------- From: Overdrive79@hotmail.com (Justin) Subject: Norstar ICS 4.0 and Music on Hold Date: 20 Sep 2002 11:04:31 -0700 Organization: http://groups.google.com/ Is there any way possible to have the customer hear music instead of ringing when being transferred? Here is my situation. As of now, if a caller requests technical support the operator transfers the caller to a hunt group and it will ring up to 12 times before either being answered by a rep or transfered back to the operator. I am in the process of turning on the automated attendant so that the receptionist doesn't have to answer all the calls for tech support. If the automated attendant transfers the call to the hunt group, it can ring for even longer than 12 rings and then go to voicemail. Does anyone have any suggestions to resolve this? I suspect some people may hang up if they are left there ringing for too long. I would prefer if the music on hold could be used during the transfer, but it doesn't look like it can be done unless someone has some tricks up their sleeves that I don't know about. Any help would be greatly appreciated. Thanks, Justin ------------------------------ Date: Fri, 20 Sep 2002 13:23:15 CDT From: Mark J Cuccia Subject: Strange Caller ID (re: What Are These Numbers?) John Savage wrote: > What does it mean when these numbers show up on a Caller ID? > 999-123-9999 > 999-555-9999 > I assume it means somebody is using a calling card ... is this > correct? If this is correct, what other numbers are available > that would show up on a caller ID when someone uses a calling > card? TELECOM Digest Editor replied: > I do not think you are correct. When numbers like that show up > on caller ID I think it is just a company with a misprogrammed > PBX (either accidentally or deliberatly). While it is possible (and most likely) that this PHONY "C-ID" data is from a PBX arrangement, and MOST LIKELY one that is DELIBERATELY MIS-programmed because the calling party is a telemarketer (since the general public might not realize that there is not yet a '999' area code, nor notice the '1XX' or '0XX' or even '555' "C.O." Code which are not REAL possible calling numbers) ... it *IS* also possible that this "arbitrary" ten-digit number as "Caller-ID" could also be coming from some pre-paid card platform, some pre-paid "throwaway" cellular platform, some "budget" calling card, or some A-O-Sleaze "operator service". While these are not "technically" PBXes, they do use a lot of the same interfaces with the legit telephone network that many (telemarketing) PBXes or boiler rooms do. Thus, these "card" or "operator" platforms can also send out such phony/arbitrary "Caller-ID" via SS7 ... However, the phony "C-ID" which might be sent by a card platform or pre-paid cellular platform is most likely not going to be an actual "billing/account" number of the calling party. It is most likely some "arbitrary" number that the switch SS7's out to the real POTS network. And as Pat has frequently mentioned in complaints of SWBell's Privacy Manager (if that's the name of what SWBell calls it), or even telco provided C-ID in general, it is QUITE a sham(e) that telco doesn't do its own "verification" that the delivered ten-digit number fits a correct format or have valid type NPA and NXX codes. I understand that many (legit) PBX or call-center situations might not want to send a valid number of someone's desk telephone, or they might not even HAVE actual call-back numbers for the service rep that called you ... thus the PBX is sending something that is more-or-less "phony" or maybe the main directory listing or the main attendant (who might have no idea what you are calling back about). But what is quite reprehensible is that in many PBXes, the PBX manager/maintenance/owner/etc. (or telemarketer scum) are able to (and have done so as well) sent out C-ID data that *IS* valid, but for SOMEONE ELSE, and not themselves, which IMO, is *FRAUD*!!! Mark J. Cuccia [TELECOM Digest Editor's Note: SWBell does indeed call it (and charge an arm and a leg for) 'Privacy Manager' service. In theory, when a person willfully denies caller-id (*67) -OR- telco is unable to supply a name to go along with the number shown -OR- the number is known to be a telemarketer, then instead of my phone ringing the call is supposed to go to the Privacy Manager center (in my case, Wichita, KS) for treatment and returned to me with caller-id name given as 'Privacy Manager' and the privacy manager center's phone number. A recorded message at that point is to announce 'Privacy Manger call, press 1 to hear the name/number recorded by caller.' After doing that, you are then advised 'press 1 to accept call, 2 to send to voicemail, 3 to send a legal warning to telemarketers, etc'. If you do not answer the Privacy Manager call at all, i.e. not at home, etc. then when you do come home and see 'Privacy Manager' as a caller on your caller-id and return the call, (to an 800 number), privacy manager is supposed to say, 'the caller isn't here any more, press 1 to hear what they said when they called'. Pressing 1 gets you the name/number information. I have this one good friend in California who always uses a cell phone to call me at night when he gets those calls for free and a local guy here in Independence who always calls me on his prepaid cell phone from Alltel at any time. Since caller-id does not work in their cases, I assumed that when Privacy Manager was installed, I would need to give those two guys a VIP code number so they would be able to get through without being questioned each time. The idea is, you dial the desired number, and the instant the privacy manager intercept kicks in, on the first word, just tap out your VIP code, the call is withdrawn and sent back to your number, or maybe passed on through. You don't want your friends to be questioned and delayed like that each time. But oh no! Instead the California caller is assigned the name "Wireless Caller" but his number is shown and he gets through unmolested by Privacy Manager, which is good. The local guy is assigned the name "Name Unavailable" and his number is shown. Also good. When the local Independence guy dials my 800 number (which camps onto my local real number) his name is given as "Liberty, Kansas" (where the Alltel tower is located and his number is given as 620-332-some bogus last four. 332 *is* a local prefix here, but only used for a couple large companies and the city government offices, etc, and apparently the Alltel tower. Everyone else in town is 620-331. His number is 620-924-xxxx which is Liberty, Kansas, a wide space in the road just south of here where the cell tower is located. (If you come north out of Coffeyville on the east side of town on Sunflower Street past amazon.com you go through what amounts to Liberty where the (then) County Road 4500 passes the cement factory and becomes our Cement Street coming into the far southeast corner of Independence.) But telemarketers get through unmolested using the name "Name Withheld" and all sorts of crazy numbers. You'd think SWBell would have a script to manually send those guys with 'Name Withheld' through Wichita. You'd think so, but I get in a of trouble these days for thinking. PAT] ------------------------------ From: Fritz Whittington Reply-To: f.whittington@att.net Organization: Only on odd Tuesdays Subject: Re: How Can Someone Receive a Call From 555-XXXX? Date: Fri, 20 Sep 2002 21:01:26 GMT News Reader wrote: > How would you know WHO to report if they are sending bogus info? > Actually accept the call and ask what company is calling? They'd > probably just give you the name of some subsidiary and it would still > be pretty tricky to find out the "real" culprit ... True, unfortunately. You have to at least pretend some interest in the product. Eventually, after all, they have to give *some* contact info in order to let you order something. If all you get is a 1-800 number, that's enough for the FCC to locate the perp. Fritz Whittington TI Alum - http://www.tialumni.org ------------------------------ From: Etop Udoh Subject: AT&T Merlin Mail 007 Internal Modem Organization: WEBUSENET.com Date: Fri, 20 Sep 2002 16:00:34 -0400 I know the Internal Modem on the 007 is on port 7. I called the port and it answers but it does not answer my modem when I turn it on. What command should I be using with my modem and modem software to connect with internal modem on the 007 ? I tried atx1d and my modem turned on but would not connect with the remote modem on the 007 Voice Mail. Any ideas ? ================================================================== | Etop Udoh | Http://www.geocities.com/sdruid11 | | P.O. Box 1054| Http://www.angelfire.com/ga3/sdruid | |Snellville, Ga| Http://www.freeyellow.com/members7/sdruid | | 30078 | Http://www.geocities.com/siliconvalley/bit/9122 | |--------------| Http://home.earthlink.net/~sdruid11 | | | | | sdruid11@earthlink.net sdruid11@netzero.net sdruid11@yahoo.com | | !! ..........Peace and Love to All......... !! | ================================================================== ------------------------------ From: John Higdon Subject: Re: Turn Your Answering Machine Into a TeleZapper!! Organization: Green Hills and Cows Date: Fri, 20 Sep 2002 13:05:00 -0700 In article , Ed Ellers wrote: > John Higdon wrote: >> It is a matter of resources. Why listen for something on a line that >> would be invalid even if detected? > Why do you consider the SIT signal invalid? SIT after supervision? Supervision denotes an answered call. How can a call answer and then fail to complete? I have to assume that the SIT is being played by the person who answered the call. In that context, the SIT is invalid. The SIT can tell the predictive dialer a number of things before the call completes. Usually, it simply reports a soft error regarding a network failure such as ATB (not particularly useful). It also can report improper dialing (useful information) or disconnected number (possibly useful information). Contrary to the TeleZapper ads, telemarketers don't necessarily remove "out of service" numbers from the database. They move on with receipt of the SIT, but they figure that the number will ultimately go back in service. But an SIT (number not in service) AFTER supervision means one thing: the customer is trying to fake out the dialer. Or it could mean a misconfigured CO switch ... but telemarketers (and I) see the TeleZapper ads, too. John Higdon | Email Address Valid | SF: +1 415 428-COWS +1 408 264 4115 | Anytown, USA | FAX: +1 408 264 4407 ------------------------------ From: John Mianowski Subject: Re: Turn Your Answering Machine Into a TeleZapper!! Date: Fri, 20 Sep 2002 18:16:40 -0500 Organization: Nortel It's my understanding that, if supervision is returned, there should be no SIT - SIT would only be returned from the network; no answer, no answer supervision. Therefore, if there is both supervision & SIT, the SIT is invalid. JM Ed Ellers wrote in message news:telecom22.46.7@telecom-digest.org: > John Higdon wrote: >> It is a matter of resources. Why listen for something on a line that >> would be invalid even if detected? > Why do you consider the SIT signal invalid? > [TELECOM Digest Editor's Note: It would be invalid from a *telemarketer's > perspective* since old-time, experienced telemarketers pay no attention > to it anyway. If some phone equipment at telco somewhere listens to > it (that is to say, line is in fact disconnected) that's a different > matter. I think the 'SIT signal invalid' comment above was directed > to human listeners who would pay no attention to it (telemarketers) > rather than telco machinery (which might pay attention). PAT ------------------------------ From: H. Peter Anvin Subject: Re: Domain Registrars -- Who's The Best? Date: 20 Sep 2002 17:12:00 -0700 Organization: Transmeta Corporation, Santa Clara CA pieterek@spamcopnet wrote in in newsgroup: comp.dcom.telecom: > Dear fellow Digest denizens: > Having dealt with (ugh, shudder) Verisign for domain registration in > the course of a job and feeling like I needed a bath in one of those > industrial-strength odor neutralizer products thereafter, I refuse to > deal with those bogons again. > A friend asked me my opinion of Dotster, with whom I'm not familiar. > I've used Tucows, which seems to me to be a company that will be > around for the duration, based on their long track record in the > shareware community. > Any suggestions for good, non-ripoff, non-scumbag registrars for > USanians? I'm looking for someone that will not disappear with my > friend's domain name and cash! I have had good luck with GANDI, http://www.gandi.net/. They're French, but that hardly matters when you bill to a credit card. They're not the cheapest around these days anymore, but I'll stick with them for now. at work, in private! "Unix gives you enough rope to shoot yourself in the foot." http://www.zytor.com/~hpa/puzzle.txt ------------------------------ From: stevenl11@aol.com (Steven Lichter) Date: 21 Sep 2002 01:13:47 GMT Organization: AOL http://www.aol.com Subject: Re: Cavalier Telephone > TELECOM Digest Editor's Note: I had a very similar situation about > thirty years ago; middle 1970s. I was living in an apartment-hotel > on the near north side of Chicago, which served the residents with a > cord switchboard. I had a personal phone installed by Illinois Bell, Several years ago I have GTE Long Distance installed out of their service area. This included an 800 number that I used on my BBS for my network at the time. The service was supposed to be on as of a set date. When it did not work called their long distance repair in Washing (it was handled by GTE North West) They looked into the problem and agreed it should be on. They contacted the NOC in Texas which got both the L/D and the 800 working. But as in your case the paperwork never got closed and until the charges hit a certain amount; $100.00 nothing was done. At that point I was contacted. I did not let it go. I called every month for 5 months and as told that is takes a couple months to get it going. When they did catch up, they have a policy when the billing error is their fault, not to charge for any calls over 6 months, so they wrote it off. They were really nice about it and still did not understand how it happened; until I explained. One reason is I'm retired from GTE Calif. and know most of the people I had talked to on that very interesting weekend. All went fine for a long time, that is until I changed my main billing number from an Analog Electronic, to a digital switch. It should not have made any difference, but when I advised them of the change that PacBell had made they stopped billing. After time my long distance service stopped. I was out of town and called them and talked to a very nice manager at their Arizona Call Center, he got on it and in short time it was working. Texas got involved and contacted me and I even got a nice letter from The President of GTE Long Distance saying he was sorry for the problem and hoped I was enjoying my retirement, plus a 600 minute LD prepaid card. All went fine until the merger and Verizon, then all hell broke loose, the bill got messed up and never got fixed. I just dropped them and went to Sprint. Some months later I go a huge bill from a collection agency demanding payment under my old number and for months of service that I never had. They were very nasty and I went to Verizon who said they would take the charges off if I proved I had paid them. I again informed them I did not even have the service during the time, they claimed and besides that was not my number. I have no idea what happened, the agency appears to have sent the account back to the agency and Verizon has yet to contact me and there is nothing in my credit reports. I was so mad over this I dropped my Verizon Wireless, which had been AirTouch, which I was happy with and have had for many years, I told them the reason and they said they were sorry to see me go, and said that even though they had the same name it was another company which I know. But so what. Apple Elite II 909-359-5338. Home of GBBS/LLUCE, support for the Apple II 24 hours 2400/14.4. An OggNet Server. The only good spammer is a dead one!!! Have you hunted one down today? (c) Kill Spammers, Inc. A Hope You Roast In Hell Company. [TELECOM Digest Editor's Note: Did you know most reputable collection agencies these days *absolutely refuse* to handle telco accounts placed in collection because they are so screwed up. When I lived in Chicago and worked for the attornies for several years the attornies were approached by AT&T and asked to handle their collection accounts. Oh, the attornies were so excited, this was gonna be a multi-million dollar account for them each year. That's what they thought. Then a truck showed up at the attornies' recieving room dock with literally tons of paper files. The attornies' corporate mouth watered thinking about the business. Then they had the phone guys start sorting it out and calling the debtors. The distaste came rapidly. Every *damn* one of the accounts -- several hundred thousand of them -- had disputes about service. Every one! Flimsy equipment, improperly billed toll, you name it. Reputable agencies make their money by using the brains the client's customer service people either didn't have or refused to use. My job there was to straighten out the mess, get things right, then if you please, remit to us, *we* will pay off AT&T less our commissions, etc. But these were not multi-million dollar accounts each year. After a couple weeks of sorting and finding mostly twenty or fifty dollar disputes (customer service told me x cents per minute then I got billed 3 times X when the bill came), the attornies washed their hands of the mess, and handed it all back to AT&T. They had earlier been tricked by Ameritech (Illinois Bell) in the same way with the bulljive about 'millions of dollars annually if you will collect these'. Now most reputable agencies treat telco business as poison to be avoided at any cost. Wonder why? PAT] ------------------------------ From: GHS Subject: Re: Cavalier Telephone Date: Fri, 20 Sep 2002 18:30:40 UTC Organization: Cavalier Telephone, LLC. Wow, it sounds as if Cavalier really screwed up, let us know if you get satisfaction. I've been a Cavalier customer for nine months now, for DSL and POTS package including voice mail, remote call forwarding, call waiting, etc. and have had no billing problems. I only switched from Verizon because Verizon could not supply DSL at my distance from the CO and Cavalier could. Cavalier customer service is not as good as Verizon, usually 10 minute waits and ISP support for DSL problems is not 24 hours. However, I've been quite satisfied with Cavalier and in my area they were quite a bit less expensive. By the way, do you always write "Version" (instead of "Verizon"), or was that a case of overactive spellchecking? ------------------------------ From: James Carlson Subject: Re: Empfehlungsschreiben ! Date: 20 Sep 2002 16:01:15 -0400 Organization: Sun Microsystems Inc. - BDC Doina Popoviciu writes: > [TELECOM Digest Editor's Request: Neither I nor my good friend > (although I am beginning to wonder) SpamAssassin could read the > note below. Please read it to me and tell me if once again, the > Digest got spammed. Thanks. PAT] Yeah, it looks like spam. It's someone claiming to be looking for a job, but the web site listed isn't real, and it's clearly off-topic. James Carlson, Solaris Networking SUN Microsystems / 1 Network Drive 71.234W Vox +1 781 442 2084 MS UBUR02-212 / Burlington MA 01803-2757 42.497N Fax +1 781 442 1677 ------------------------------ From: Phil McKerracher Subject: Re: Empfehlungsschreiben ! Date: Fri, 20 Sep 2002 20:32:24 GMT Organization: blueyonder (post doesn't reflect views of blueyonder) "Doina Popoviciu" wrote in message news:telecom22.46.16@telecom-digest.org: > [TELECOM Digest Editor's Request: Neither I nor my good friend > (although I am beginning to wonder) SpamAssassin could read the > note below. Please read it to me and tell me if once again, the > Digest got spammed. Thanks. PAT] You were spammed. He's looking for a job. Phil McKerracher www.mckerracher.org ------------------------------ Date: Fri, 20 Sep 2002 20:29:30 -0400 From: dhorvath@cobs.com (David B. Horvath, CCP) Subject: Re: Empfehlungsschreiben! > From: Doina Popoviciu > Subject: Empfehlungsschreiben ! > Date: Fri, 20 Sep 2002 13:30:47 +0300 > Reply-To: Doina Popoviciu > [TELECOM Digest Editor's Request: Neither I nor my good friend > (although I am beginning to wonder) SpamAssassin could read the > note below. Please read it to me and tell me if once again, the > Digest got spammed. Thanks. PAT] The original note appeared to be in German, so I plugged it into babelfish.altavista.com -- it looks like a note begging for a job. - David ------------------------------ Subject: Re: Empfehlungsschreiben ! From: Richard Todd Date: 20 Sep 2002 19:50:21 -0500 Doina Popoviciu writes: > [TELECOM Digest Editor's Request: Neither I nor my good friend > (although I am beginning to wonder) SpamAssassin could read the > note below. Please read it to me and tell me if once again, the > Digest got spammed. Thanks. PAT] You got spammed, it looks like. This is some guy trying to get hired ("I think I would be a good choice for your firm") and sending out the URL for his resume. ------------------------------ From: Shaun Ewing Subject: Re: Empfehlungsschreiben ! Date: Sat, 21 Sep 2002 13:06:08 +1000 According to the babelfish (http://babelfish.altavista.com) translator: Recommendation letter Ladies and Gentlemen, I received InterNet from you duerch. My name is POPOVICIU DOINA, I is Dipl.ing.Oberbekleidungstechnik with a good experience in production and international contracts. I believe that I a good choice for your company am. My experience zussammen with my Persohnlichkeit and work ethics your company in the nexten year will help. Too you find your further information in the plant a detailed life run or at Web address: http://popdoina.tripod.com/index.html My email address is: pdoina@keysys.ro A bit garbled, but at first guess I'd say it was spam. Shaun > Meine e-mail Adresse ist: pdoina@keysys.ro > Mit besten Gruessen > Doina Popoviciu ------------------------------ From: Gail M. Hall Subject: Re: Empfehlungsschreiben ! Date: Fri, 20 Sep 2002 20:12:26 -0400 Reply-To: gmhall@apk.net Hi, Pat, Wish me luck! I accidentally sent a reply to the poster instead of to you. I hope that doesn't set me up for a slew of German spam! Anyway, here is what I wanted to send to you. Pat, you may choose not to post this, but I have no problem if you do. I suppose everyone on this list already knows how ignorant I am. If someone with more knowledge of German posts a more informed response, I would certainly defer to that person and suggest that my response might be a bloat of your digest. On Fri, 20 Sep 2002 13:30:47 +0300, in comp.dcom.telecom, you (Doina Popoviciu ) wrote: > [TELECOM Digest Editor's Request: Neither I nor my good friend > (although I am beginning to wonder) SpamAssassin could read the > note below. Please read it to me and tell me if once again, the > Digest got spammed. Thanks. PAT] I can read only a few of the words, but if I were a betting person, I would bet that it is one of those "Nigerian" pleas for help based on the first paragraph. BTW, they are not all "Nigerian" any more. The last one I got claimed to be someone from Zimbabwe. However, based on the later paragraphs, I think this is simply a sales pitch for using this person's company. > Empfehlungsschreiben I can't find this in my not-very-good German-English dictionary, but empfehlen means to recommend, and schreiben means to write. > Sehr geehrte Damen und Herren, Very honored ladies and gentlemen, > Ich habe von Ihnen d? INTERNET erfahren. I have learned of you through the Internet. > Meine Name ist POPOVICIU DOINA, My name is POPOVICIU DOINA, Need I go further? > ich bin Dipl.ing.Oberbekleidungstechnik > mit einer guten Erfahrung in Produktion und internationalen > Vertr?gen. Without looking further in the dictionary, I think he is saying here what his position is. Most of these letters say the person has or had a high-ranking position or are a close relative of someone who had a high-ranking position. > Ich glaube dass ich eine gute Wahl fuer Ihre Firma bin. > Meine Erfahrung zussammen mit meine Persohnlichkeit und > Arbeitsethik werden Ihre Firma im nexten Jahr helfen. Different from the Nigerian letter, I think this guy is saying that his firm can be good for "your" firm in the next year. Some real Germans will probably cringe at my gueses on this. But whenever a perfect stranger writes to me as "honored ladies and gentlemen," I am highly suspicious. If this is the usual custom in German-speaking countries, then my education is certainly lacking! Then he gives his web address and email and ends with a polite closing. I didn't see anything in there about telecommunications. I might ask those more knowledgeable German if "Empfehlungsschreiben!" is a good flag for spam. I believe that exclamation points should carry some points, but some of us non-spammers are expressive, so I wouldn't label all subjects with exclamation points as spam out of hand. Does SpamAssassin check for domains that are known spam-friendly domains or domains with open relays? When you posted this to comp.dcom.telecom, the path was from your site and not the poster's, so there is no way I can tell from the headers I see what kind of place he posted from. Does SpamAssissin have lists of spam-words from other languages available to add to your words and phrases? I have added several Spanish words to my filters, but I haven't received spam in German as yet. So if "Empfehlungsschreiben" is a high indication of spam, I hope someone lets us know. Other signs of spam in this message: 1. The message is in German, and the poster is posting from a Romanian address and has a name that looks Romanian to me. 2. He/she is also sending messages indiscrimately without regard for the predominant language of the person or group he/she is sending to. 3. I don't see any indication that this pertains to the topic of this group, another sign of the "shotgun" approach of spammers. Language is one thing that telemarketers seem to be more careful about, at least as far as the predominant language of the target area. I have received calls from people with heavy accents, but the telemarketers always speak English. On-topic German words might include: Fernmeldewesen (telecommunications) Telefon (telephone) Telefonkarte (telephone card) Good luck! Gail from Ohio USA [TELECOM Digest Editor's Note: *Thank you* very much for that excellent dissertation on the mystery message. What was that you said about 'everyone knowing how ignorant you are'?? I dunno that much about what SpamAssassin does with its point-scoring, just that some things that are 'obviously' spam fall through at me, but thus far only Joey Lindstrom's reply to John Higdon fell the wrong way. Maybe the original poster will have as much fun figuring out your reply as we did in reading it. PAT] ------------------------------ From: markrobt@hotmail.com (Mark Roberts) Subject: Re: One Area Code to Unify Divided Town Date: Sat, 21 Sep 2002 02:13:54 -0000 Organization: 1.94 meters Wesrock@aol.com had written: > Towns, in the sense used in New England, do not seem to have any > corresponding type of entity in other parts of the country. There are townships in some states (Illinois and some Missouri counties for instance) ... the farther west you go, though, the less likely you are to find governmental townships. In California, the county takes precedence over all other bodies of local government, e.g., cities do not cross county boundaries and new counties and districts cannot be formed without approval of a special county commission known as a LAFCO. > As to calls across boundaries, the Kansas City metropolitan area is in > two states, and until fairly recently had 7D local dialing (flat rate) > although toll calls had to be made with the proper area code. I believe 1+10d went into effect in the KC metro in 2001. Measured-rate service has been available in Kansas City for about fifteen years but it has been a service that has gotten relatively little use. Now for another question ... Is there any source for area-code reassignments that occurred before the 1970s? For example, I recall that three exchanges in central Missouri were moved from ac 816 to ac 314 (now 573) sometime in the mid-1960s. They were Centralia (formerly 816-362 a/k/a EMpire 2, became 314/573-682), Sturgeon (now 573-687) and Clark (now 573-641). But I don't remember exactly when. I also don't remember the specific rationale, but it did move the 314-816 line out of relatively populous Boone County into more rural Randolph and Audrain counties. Mark Roberts | "How do you like following the goat story?" -- Oakland, Cal.| Dennis Richmond to meteorologist Bill Martin on NO HTML MAIL | KTVU's "Ten O'Clock News", 9-13-2002 ------------------------------ Date: Fri, 20 Sep 2002 17:33:19 EDT From: Carl Moore Subject: Re: One Area Code to Unify Divided Town The 301/410 split in Maryland happened before the coming of the overlays (301/240 and 410/443). (And recently, someone came to me asking about area code 240, and I responded that it's the same geographic area as 301.) BEFORE those overlays, because of the occurrence of pseudo-foreign prefixes around the edges of the Baltimore-Washington area, some cases occur where (aside from the use of foreign exchange) phones from different area codes were mixed together. For example, 301-261 (and I believe also 301-858) is used for DC metro service from the Annapolis area, whose other prefixes went to area 410. ------------------------------ From: Joseph Singer Subject: Re: As Cellphone Options Grow, Sites Help Sort Them Out Date: Fri, 20 Sep 2002 13:23:43 -0700 Organization: Drizzle Reply-To: joeofseattle@yahoo.com On Thu, 19 Sep 2002 23:12:13 -0400, Monty Solomon wrote: > NAVIGATING the options when shopping for cellular service has always > been a struggle, to say the least, but lately it seems to be reaching > a new level. Turn on the television and you see ads for flashy new > phones and new types of wireless plans, some with new and confusing > terminology. Walk into a mall and you see pushcarts and booths selling > a wide array of phones and plans just outside the full-size stores of > the national carriers. Reading the article among the things that it says: "One of those Web sites, GetConnected .com, is an online store that carries most cellphones and service offerings from the major telecommunications carriers, according to Sasha Novakovich, the site's co-founder and president." When I plug in my own ZIP code it does not show all the carriers in my area so you don't have the complete picture despite what they might advertise. Personal replies most likely will not be read. Please reply in the newsgroup. ------------------------------ Date: Fri, 20 Sep 2002 20:26:24 -0400 From: dhorvath@cobs.com (David B. Horvath, CCP) Subject: Last Laugh! Nasty Emailing Service and Ink Jet/Toner Refills I received an email the other day that included an interesting link at the bottom. I followed that link (there was no tag that would identify *me*) -- it was an emailing service. I figured you might be interested in this service! Web page says: Emailng can be as easy as your ABC's with the right emailing company Bulk Friendly ISP Service Available Click Here 1-800-764-5360 Bullet Proof Hosting Also Available For just $99 we will submit your bulk email ad to 500,000 recipients with no Spam Emails. Please respond fast because this offer is for a limited time only. No need to use your ISP and get shut down, we are the ISP and we will do the whole job for you from beginning to end. Whois says the domain belongs to: Gabriel, Richard 50@50.com 3 Barnet Rd Pine Brook , NJ 07058 us (PHONE)973-244-2439 (FAX)973-244-1077 You may want to verify their claim that they don't send SPAM -- I got email from them advertising some a service for jobs in the oil industry (and I know I didn't opt-in). And if you're looking for Ink Jet/Toner Refills, call these folks: > Toll Free phone (877) 4KALVIN (452-5846) David ------------------------------ TELECOM Digest is an electronic journal devoted mostly but not exclusively to telecommunications topics. It is circulated anywhere there is email, in addition to various telecom forums on a variety of networks such as Compuserve and America On Line, 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: 620-870-9697 Fax 1: 775-255-9970 Fax 2: 775-306-8390 Fax 3: 775-642-0603 Fax 4: 530-309-7234 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 second 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) Email <==> FTP: telecom-archives@telecom-digest.org Send a simple, one line note to that automated address for a help file on how to use the automatic retrieval system for archives files. You can get desired files in email. ************************************************************************* * 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. Access to Premium (P) links requires upgrade to a paid subscription. One click a day feeds a person a meal. Go to http://www.thehungersite.com Only subscribers or registered users of ICB Toll Free News web site will be able to access all or some of the full text of URLs provided. LEGAL STUFF: TELECOM Digest (sm) is owned by Patrick Townson. Copyright 2000 ICB, Inc. and TELECOM Digest. All rights reserved. Our attorney is Bill Levant, of Blue Bell, PA. --------------------------------------------------------------- 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 twenty 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 V22 #45 ***************************** NOTE: ISSUE 46 GOT MAILED AHEAD OF 45. IT APPEARS IN FRONT OF 45 THIS TIME AROUND. PAT. From editor@telecom-digest.org Mon Sep 23 16:49:45 2002 Received: from localhost (localhost [[UNIX: localhost]]) by massis.lcs.mit.edu (8.11.3nb1/8.11.3) id g8NKnjP01664; Mon, 23 Sep 2002 16:49:45 -0400 (EDT) Date: Mon, 23 Sep 2002 16:49:45 -0400 (EDT) From: editor@telecom-digest.org Message-Id: <200209232049.g8NKnjP01664@massis.lcs.mit.edu> X-Authentication-Warning: massis.lcs.mit.edu: ptownson set sender to editor@telecom-digest.org using -f To: ptownson Approved: patsnewlist Subject: TELECOM Digest V22 #47 TELECOM Digest Mon, 23 Sep 2002 16:50:00 EDT Volume 22 : Issue 47 Inside This Issue: Editor: Patrick A. Townson Telecom Update (Canada) #350, September 23, 2002 (Angus TeleManagement) Re: Lucent G3 PBX (George Meyers) Any Round Trip Traceroutes Out There? (William J King) Re: ACD Call Record from a Lucent Switch (George Myers) Cable Thrives, but Broadcast TV Is Hardly Extinct (Monty Solomon) Avaya / PC Phone (Ray) Re: Empfehlungsschreiben ! (Alan Burkitt-Gray) Re: Norstar ICS 4.0 and Music on Hold (Dave Phelps) Re: One Area Code to Unify Divided Town (Wes Leatherock) Re: Turn Your Answering Machine Into a Telezapper! (temp6@thewolfden.org) Re: AT&T Merlin Mail 007 Internal Modem (JRoDOKC@aol.com) Re: Tool to Convert Text Strings to TTY WAV File? (Jeff) Sorry, Wrong Number (Monty Solomon) Sprint Selling Yellow Pages Business - From the AP (Ed Ellers) Re: Question on RJ-11 Phone Connectors (Lars Poulsen) Last Laugh! *****SPAM***** Goodday (Oluwafunmi Williams) 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. WE DO NOT PERMIT NAME/EMAIL ADDRESS HARVESTING FROM THIS JOURNAL. 'SALTED' EMAIL ADDRESSES APPEAR HEREIN TO VERIFY THIS. YOU GET SUED IN SMALL CLAIMS COURT IF YOU GET CAUGHT SPAMMING OR SENDING VIRUSES. DON'T DO IT. See the bottom of this issue for subscription and archive details and the name of our lawyer; other stuff of interest. ---------------------------------------------------------------------- Date: Mon, 23 Sep 2002 10:33:24 -0400 From: Angus TeleManagement Subject: Telecom Update (Canada) #350, September 23, 2002 ************************************************************ TELECOM UPDATE ************************************************************ published weekly by Angus TeleManagement Group http://www.angustel.ca Number 350: September 23, 2002 Publication of Telecom Update is made possible by generous financial support from: ** BELL CANADA: http://www.bell.ca ** CISCO SYSTEMS CANADA: http://www.cisco.com/ca/letstalk ** CYGCOM INTEGRATED TECHNOLOGIES: http://www.cygcom.com ** ERICSSON CANADA: http://www.ericsson.ca ** JUNIPER NETWORKS: http://www.juniper.net ** PRIMUS CANADA: http://www.primustel.ca ** Q9 NETWORKS: http://www.Q9.com ** TELUS: http://www.telus.com ************************************************************ IN THIS ISSUE: ** Turnaround Group Buys Teleglobe LD Business ** Bell Slams AT&T Petition ** Hewlett-Packard Takes Over Intria-HP ** Quebecor Refuses to Comply With CRTC Order ** Cost Cutting Boosts Telecom Profits ** Judge Stops CTEA Pay Equity Vote ** Telus Loses Union Jurisdiction Appeal ** Canadian On-Line Spending Increases ** Open Text to Acquire Centrinity ** Local-LD Bundles Require Tariff ** Bell Mobility Launches 1X Network in West ** Cancom Must Pay Revenue Tax ** Bell Endows E-Governance Chair ** RIM Sues Handspring ** Aliant Messaging Trial Denied Again ** Sympatico Backs Home Networking ** Telus Buys Back Debt ** Goldberg on Price Caps at Angus Seminar ============================================================ TURNAROUND GROUP BUYS TELEGLOBE LD BUSINESS: Teleglobe Inc. has agreed to sell its core voice and data business to a company controlled by TenX Capital Partners and Cerberus Capital Management for US$155.3 million cash. Philadelphia- based TenX, a "turnaround management firm," owns a number of communications and business services companies. The buyers say Teleglobe will stay in Montreal. (See Telecom Update #221, 238) ** Teleglobe has completed the sale of its equity in Intelsat, Ltd. to Intelsat Global Sales & Marketing Ltd. for US$65 million. BELL SLAMS AT&T PETITION: In an 80-page response submitted Thursday, Bell Canada urges the Federal Cabinet to "swiftly and categorically" reject AT&T Canada's appeal against the CRTC price caps decision. Bell says AT&T wants Cabinet to "jettison years of highly successful regulatory policy ... in order to address AT&T's financial challenges." HEWLETT-PACKARD TAKES OVER INTRIA-HP: Hewlett-Packard has bought out its joint venture partner in Intria-HP, the Canadian Imperial Bank of Commerce. The 1,280 employees of Toronto-based Intria will transfer to HP Services. ** At the same time, CIBC has awarded HP a $2-billion, seven- year contract to manage a "significant percentage" of CIBC's IT infrastructure. QUEBECOR REFUSES TO COMPLY WITH CRTC ORDER: Quebecor Media has refused to carry out CRTC instructions to make payments it had withheld from RDS, a sports channel owned by Bell Globemedia. Quebecor says it can't comply because the matter is before the courts; RDS wants the Commission to issue a mandatory order that Videotron pay up. (See Telecom Update #347) COST CUTTING BOOSTS TELECOM PROFITS: Statistics Canada says that Canadian telecom operating revenues in the first quarter of 2002 were only 1% higher than in 2001, but operating profits were up 33.7% as a result of cost-cutting. Total operating expenses were down 3.7%. JUDGE STOPS CTEA PAY EQUITY VOTE: A Quebec Superior Court judge has halted a vote by Canadian Telephone Employees' Association members on a proposed settlement of their pay equity dispute with Bell Canada, ruling that the CTEA had provided inadequate information on the deal. (See Telecom Update #348) TELUS LOSES UNION JURISDICTION APPEAL: Last year, the Canadian Labour Relations Board ruled that the bargaining unit covered by Telus's unions was not restricted to Alberta and B.C., but could extend to Telus's operations in Ontario and Quebec. On September 9, the Federal Court of Canada upheld that decision, rejecting an appeal by Telus. ** A related dispute, concerning the extension of union representation to employees of Telus Mobility (formerly Clearnet) in Ontario and Quebec, is currently before the CLRB. http://decisions.fct-cf.gc.ca/fct/2002/2002fca310.html CANADIAN ON-LINE SPENDING INCREASES: StatsCan reports Canadian consumers spent nearly $2 billion shopping online in 2001, almost double the previous year's level but only 0.3% of total spending. Canadian websites won 65% of the sales. OPEN TEXT TO ACQUIRE CENTRINITY: Open Text Corp. of Waterloo, Ontario, has agreed to buy Richmond Hill-based Centrinity, Inc, which makes messaging and collaboration software, for $30 million in cash. The deal is to close by year-end. LOCAL-LD BUNDLES REQUIRE TARIFF: Responding to a Group Telecom complaint, CRTC Decision 2002-58 rules that Bell Canada cannot offer business local service customers a rebate on long distance charges without obtaining tariff approval. Major telcos must report any similar services by October 21. http://www.crtc.gc.ca/archive/ENG/Decisions/2002/dt2002- 58.htm BELL MOBILITY LAUNCHES 1X NETWORK IN WEST: Bell Mobility has activated its higher-speed 1XRTT wireless network in Calgary, Edmonton, Vancouver, and Victoria. CANCOM MUST PAY REVENUE TAX: In Telecom Decision 2002-57, the CRTC rules that Canadian Satellite Communications (Cancom) must pay into the central telecom contribution fund. Cancom had argued that, as a broadcasting undertaking, it should be exempt. The CRTC says that Cancom also provides non- broadcasting transmission services, on which it must pay contribution. http://www.crtc.gc.ca/archive/ENG/Decisions/2002/dt2002-57.htm BELL ENDOWS E-GOVERNANCE CHAIR: Bell Canada has given $500,000 to McGill University to endow the Bell Chair in e-Governance, which will promote research into links between technology, e-commerce, ethics, and law. RIM SUES HANDSPRING: Research In Motion has filed suit in a U.S. federal court against Handspring Inc, alleging that its Treo devices infringe on RIM patented keyboard design. ** Separately, RIM has filed a fourth lawsuit against Good Technology, alleging misappropriation of secrets, breach of contract, and civil conspiracy. ALIANT MESSAGING TRIAL DENIED AGAIN: CRTC Telecom Order 2002- 383 rejects Aliant's proposed five-city market trial of Voice Mobility messaging services as too broad. In July, the Commission blocked a company-wide trial on the same grounds. http://www.crtc.gc.ca/archive/ENG/Orders/2002/o2002-383.htm SYMPATICO BACKS HOME NETWORKING: Bell Sympatico has added Linksys wireless LAN equipment to the resources offered by its informational Web page on networking home computers for high-speed Internet access. http://www1.sympatico.ca/help/local/bell/homenetworking/products.html TELUS BUYS BACK DEBT: Telus has closed its equity offering and used most of the net proceeds of $324 million to buy back debt with a face value of $400 million. (See Telecom Update #349) GOLDBERG ON PRICE CAPS AT ANGUS SEMINAR: We're pleased to announce that Mark Goldberg, author of "The Price Cap Decision: Real Winners and Losers" (Decima Publishing) will make a special presentation on the impact of the CRTC's controversial price caps decision at the Angus TeleManagement briefing "Canadian Telecom After the Meltdown," next month. ** This intensive half-day program will be offered once only, in Toronto, on October 16. Space is strictly limited: to guarantee that a seat is reserved for you, download the seminar brochure and register today. http://www.angustel.ca/Angus-Seminars.pdf. ============================================================ HOW TO SUBMIT ITEMS FOR TELECOM UPDATE E-MAIL: editors@angustel.ca FAX: 905-686-2655 MAIL: TELECOM UPDATE Angus TeleManagement Group 8 Old Kingston Road Ajax, Ontario Canada L1T 2Z7 =========================================================== HOW TO SUBSCRIBE (OR UNSUBSCRIBE) TELECOM UPDATE is provided in electronic form only. There are two formats available: 1. The fully-formatted edition is posted on the World Wide Web on the first business day of the week at http://www.angustel.ca 2. The e-mail edition is distributed free of charge. To subscribe, send an e-mail message to: TelecomUpdate@add.postmastergeneral.com To stop receiving the e-mail edition, send an e-mail message to: TelecomUpdate@remove.postmastergeneral.com Sending e-mail to these addresses will automatically add or remove the sender's e-mail address from the list. Leave subject line and message area blank. We do not give Telecom Update subscribers' e-mail addresses to any third party. For more information, see http://www.angustel.ca/update/privacy.html. =========================================================== COPYRIGHT AND CONDITIONS OF USE: All contents copyright 2002 Angus TeleManagement Group Inc. All rights reserved. For further information, including permission to reprint or reproduce, please e-mail rosita@angustel.ca or phone 905-686-5050 ext 500. The information and data included has been obtained from sources which we believe to be reliable, but Angus TeleManagement makes no warranties or representations whatsoever regarding accuracy, completeness, or adequacy. Opinions expressed are based on interpretation of available information, and are subject to change. If expert advice on the subject matter is required, the services of a competent professional should be obtained. ----------------------------- From: George Myers Subject: Re: Lucent G3 PBX Date: Mon, 23 Sep 2002 10:04:51 -0500 Organization: Posted via Supernews, http://www.supernews.com Kent Larson wrote in message news:telecom22.40.7@telecom-digest.org: > If I purchase a Lucent G3 PBX from a company that is going out of > business do I have to re-license the software? The switch is > currently running on release 9 of Lucent/Avaya Definity software. I > have been told by Avaya that I cannot use release 9 even though it is > currently on the switch. Avaya says I have to upgrade to release 11 > and pay dearly for the Definity software in order to use the used PBX > hardware. Are they pulling the wool over our eyes? I remember in the > past purchasing a used Nortel system and not having to re-license the > software. Any help would be greatly appreciated. No wool, they did the same to our company. We were going to purchase a small system for a remote office and we were told we also had to pay them for the right to use the software. They also wanted a very large amount of $$ to come in and certify the equipment if we wanted them to carry a maintainence contract on it. One quess on how much they wanted? ------------------------------ Date: Mon, 23 Sep 2002 01:42:02 GMT From: bill@Hawaii.Edu (William J King) Subject: Any Round trip Traceroutes Out There? Organization: University of Hawaii Anyone seen a round trip tracerout URL out there? William J. King Networking/Telecommunications University of Hawaii--Manoa 2565 The Mall, Keller 202A Honolulu, Hawaiian Islands, 96822 808 956 2403 ( voice ) 808 956 2412 ( fax ) bill@hawaii.edu ( e-mail ) Actually: 21 degrees 17 minutes 56.2653 seconds North 157 degrees 48 minutes 57.8565 seconds West .,,.-*"*-.,,.-*"*-.,,.-*"*-.,,.-*"*-.,,.-*"* ------------------------------ From: George Myers Subject: Re: ACD Call Record from a Lucent Switch Date: Mon, 23 Sep 2002 10:09:19 -0500 Organization: Posted via Supernews, http://www.supernews.com Asokan Gunanathan wrote in message news:telecom22.44.9@telecom-digest.org: > I have been trying to find out about what ACD call records look like > in a Lucent switch. The different types of calls that I am interested > in are: > Outgoing calls made by an agent, > Incoming calls to an agent, > Calls that go from one queue to another, > and Outgoing calls from an agent from the secondary line. > I hope someone has some information on this. Sounds like you need CenterVu (I think they call it something else now) Get your wallet out. ------------------------------ Date: Mon, 23 Sep 2002 08:53:52 -0400 From: Monty Solomon Subject: Cable Thrives, but Broadcast TV Is Hardly Extinct Cable Thrives, but Broadcast TV Is Hardly Extinct By JIM RUTENBERG All anyone seems to talk about is HBO's "The Sopranos," a sore point to the executives of the broadcast television networks as they prepared to roll out the bulk of the new fall season, beginning tonight. But if the buzz created by a cable show is humiliating, there are signs that ought to give the networks' relief from predictions that they are dinosaurs doomed to extinction by the rise of cable and the rapidly spreading 200-channel universe. Recent estimates indicate that NBC and CBS had the best advanced ad sales in their histories (about $2.6 billion and $2 billion, respectively) after an industrywide decrease in those sales last year. Even ABC and Fox, both of which struggled last season, did slightly better than expected. Based on the surprisingly strong ratings for the few shows unveiled last week, the prognosis is somewhat encouraging. http://www.nytimes.com/2002/09/23/business/media/23TUBE.html ------------------------------ From: rtjoseph@ev1.net (Ray) Subject: Avaya / PC Phone Date: 23 Sep 2002 10:52:01 -0700 Organization: http://groups.google.com/ The phone at my place of work is an Avaya MLX-10DP. Is there any way to use my PC in place of the phone? I would like to utilize my address book to dial numbers and track my phone usage, and possibly use caller ID. Ray ------------------------------ From: Burkitt-Gray Alan Subject: Re: Empfehlungsschreiben ! Date: Mon, 23 Sep 2002 10:05:31 +0100 It's fairly straightforward. There's no great mystery and he's not proposing criminal activity. He's a Romanian (note the .ro in his email address; and his name POPOVICIU DOINA sounds Romanian) writing in German, and he's looking for a job. He writes about his experience together with his personality and work ethics. "Empfehlungsschreiben" is not a code-word for Nigerian-style financial scams. It just means letter of reference/recommendation. And exclamation marks are a normal part of German punctuation -- especially for the greeting at the top of a letter. If you got to www.keysys.rom (the website address derived from his email address) you can read about his current employer, which is a respectable Microsoft-certified software supplier in Romania. Not a very good way to seek a job. Yes, it is spam, but that's all. Alan B-G Alan Burkitt-Gray Editor, Global Telecoms Business Euromoney Institutional Investor plc, Nestor House, Playhouse Yard, London EC4V 5EX, UK tel +44 20 7779 8518 fax +44 20 7779 8492 e-mail aburkitt@euromoneyplc.com www.globaltelecomsbusiness.com ------------------------------ From: Dave Phelps Subject: Re: Norstar ICS 4.0 and Music on Hold Date: Sat, 21 Sep 2002 19:13:57 -0500 Organization: Posted via Supernews, http://www.supernews.com In article , Overdrive79@hotmail.com says: > Is there any way possible to have the customer hear music instead of > ringing when being transferred? > Here is my situation. As of now, if a caller requests technical > support the operator transfers the caller to a hunt group and it will > ring up to 12 times before either being answered by a rep or > transfered back to the operator. > I am in the process of turning on the automated attendant so that the > receptionist doesn't have to answer all the calls for tech support. > If the automated attendant transfers the call to the hunt group, it > can ring for even longer than 12 rings and then go to voicemail. > Does anyone have any suggestions to resolve this? I suspect some > people may hang up if they are left there ringing for too long. I > would prefer if the music on hold could be used during the transfer, > but it doesn't look like it can be done unless someone has some tricks > up their sleeves that I don't know about. It can't be changed. If you are getting the NVM, maybe you should look at the small ACD included with it. Dave Phelps Phone Masters Ltd. deadspam=tippenring ------------------------------ From: wesrock@aol.com (Wes Leatherock) Date: 22 Sep 2002 00:27:07 GMT Organization: AOL http://www.aol.com Subject: Re: One Area Code to Unify Divided Town On Sat, 21 Sep 2002 02:13:54 -0000 markrobt@hotmail.com (Mark Roberts) wrote: > Wesrock@aol.com had written: >> Towns, in the sense used in New England, do not seem to have any >> corresponding type of entity in other parts of the country. > There are townships in some states (Illinois and some Missouri > counties for instance) ... the farther west you go, though, the > less likely you are to find governmental townships. There are townships in Oklahoma, but their function as governmental entities (mostly dealing with road maintenance, I believe) could be eliminated by a vote of the people in that township and indeed every one was eliminated within a relatively short time after statehood in 1907. They remain as townships in the surveyor's sense (every place surveyed in the standard form customary in most of the U.S.A. except the very early states and Texas) have townships six miles on a side, with names although the more usual designation nowadays is by range and township (numeric) from the various initial points. > ... In California, the county takes precedence over all other > bodies of local government, e.g., cities do not cross county > boundaries and new counties and districts cannot be formed without > approval of a special county commission known as a LAFCO. That seems curiously restrictive on cities, and would seem to lead to the kind of bizarre balkanization that is perhaps most exteme in St. Louis County, Mo., with about 98 separate municipalities. These grew because St. Louis city became an independent city (not in any county) and this fixed the boundary so it could not grow into the county. Many cities in other states are in two or more counties. I believe Oklahoma City extends into parts of five counties. A very small place, Maud, Oklahoma, lies right astride a county line, leading eventually to legislation covering legal publications required to be made in a newspaper published in a certain county. (The newspaper was in one county, the post office a block away but in the other county.) > I believe 1+10d went into effect in the KC metro in 2001. > Measured-rate service has been available in Kansas City for about > fifteen years but it has been a service that has gotten relatively > little use. Measured rate service has been available in many exchanges for many years; it was available in Dallas when I lived there in the early 1950s. As in Kansas City, it never has had much use. > For example, I recall that three exchanges in central Missouri were > moved from ac 816 to ac 314 (now 573) sometime in the mid-1960s. They > were Centralia (formerly 816-362 a/k/a EMpire 2, became 314/573-682), > Sturgeon (now 573-687) and Clark (now 573-641). But I don't remember > exactly when. I also don't remember the specific rationale, but it did > move the 314-816 line out of relatively populous Boone County into > more rural Randolph and Audrain counties. In those years some of them were moved to better coincide with their toll centers and other electromechanical offices further up the hierarchy. Both central office facilities and toll circuits were often relatively limited in those days. When Waxahachie, Texas, cut over to 5XB with DDD in the late 1950s, Italy, Texas, was carefully removed from all lists of dialable points furnished to customers. The original 5XB in Waxahachie would have to send all 214 calls to Dallas (about 30 miles), and thus a call from Waxahachie to Italy (a class 5 office homing on Waxahachie) would have to travel from Waxahachie to Dallas and then back through Waxahachie to reach Italy, 15 miles or so further south. Such a call would be completed, hence it was not desired to let customers know thus because they might use these scarce resources. Yes, I know that's hard to look back on, when now you routinely made be handled by a switch hundreds of miles away over trunk groups of a size that would have been unimaginable then. Wes Leatherock wesrock@aol.com wleathus@yahoo.com [TELECOM Digest Editor's Note: Chicago has that situation and has for many years. Ohare Airport is not contiguous in any direction with the city of Chicago, but in their greed the politicians decided that Ohare would be part of the city, one way or another for the tax benefits they would obtain from it. Trouble is, geographically, it is part of the town of Rosemont, IL, and you to go through at least one suburb (Schiller Park, IL is most direct and closest) to get to Rosemont and the airport. And the law, that damn nuisance which is always getting in the way of politicians/civil serpents up there, says for a city to annex an area, it has to touch it in some place. So you know what they did? After cutting a deal with Schiller Park and Rosemont to give them water for a discounted rate, or free, the city annexed a tiny sliver of Foster Avenue from the northwest city limits out to where the street ends, then a tiny sliver through the forest preserve (Cook County) to Rosemont's Mannheim Road then like a pumped up balloon the entire airport into Chicago. Where one small, two block long street intersected Foster Avenue had a street name which duplicated an existing street name elsewhere in Chicago (Michigan Avenue) they just changed the name of the little street that started in Schiller Park and terminated two blocks later in the sliver-zone. They changed the name only for a half-block that is. Oh, and about one-quarter of Ohare Airport (a deserted, out of the way area) is in DuPage County, but owned and operated and policed (of course!) and taxed (but of course, absolutely!!) by the City of Chicago. Its amazing how far you can get in life with a lot of greed, isn't it? Imagine how it would hurt their pride to have to admit it was in Rosemont, IL. And ob-telecom ... it all used to be a/c 312 until the megacorps downtown and the politicians got to fretting and saying *WE* are gonna run out of telephone numbers, so *YOU* will have to change your area code. *WE* cannot do that, it would cost millions to reprint our stationary, so *YOU* others will have to change yours instead. Thus 312 was kept downtown; everyone else had to reprogram themselves for 773. PAT] ------------------------------ Date: Sat, 21 Sep 2002 15:26:21 -0500 From: temp6@thewolfden.org Subject: Re: Turn Your Answering Machine Into a TeleZapper! John Higdon wrote: > In article , Ed Ellers > wrote: >> Why do you consider the SIT signal invalid? > SIT after supervision? Supervision denotes an answered call. How can a > call answer and then fail to complete? I have to assume that the SIT is > being played by the person who answered the call. In that context, the SIT > is invalid. > Contrary to the TeleZapper ads, telemarketers don't necessarily remove > "out of service" numbers from the database. They move on with receipt of > the SIT, but they figure that the number will ultimately go back in > service. But an SIT (number not in service) AFTER supervision means one > thing: the customer is trying to fake out the dialer. Or it could mean a > misconfigured CO switch ... but telemarketers (and I) see the TeleZapper > ads, too. So?!?! You still know the person you're calling is going to be hostile to the telemarketer, so why not honor the "technically invalid" SIT and move on. As you said, it's doubtful the number will be permanently removed from the number database anyway. How dense does one have to be to approach a person with a huge "don't bother me" sign and start talking to them. Why don't you sell a device like the telezapper that tells the dialers to go away and then have your dialers honor it, or license a method of doing so to all dialer manufacturers. Then you get the money on both ends. -CW P.S. Want to get off the call lists for telemarketers asking for donations? Pledge $50 to the first one that calls, and then never send it in. I've not gotten another call like that since. [TELECOM Digest Editor's Note: That *does* work. I get calls frequently from Chicago Symphony asking for my donation for this year. I finally got tired of it and pledged one hundred dollars just to get them off my case, with no intention of honoring it. Always take some money amount they are glad to get but too small to bother suing you to make good on. After two or three more calls they quit calling, but so did PBS, public television and the Tulsa opera people. They spread the word with others in their circle, 'this one is a deadbeat'. They had all previously phoned me. PAT] ------------------------------ From: JRoDOKC@aol.com Date: Sat, 21 Sep 2002 16:32:16 EDT Subject: Re: AT&T Merlin Mail 007 Internal Modem In a message dated 9/21/02 14:16:48 Central Daylight Time, Etop Udoh writes: > I know the Internal Modem on the 007 is on port 7. I called the port > and it answers but it does not answer my modem when I turn it on. > What command should I be using with my modem and modem software to > connect with internal modem on the 007 ? > I tried atx1d and my modem turned on but would not connect with the > remote modem on the 007 Voice Mail. That is not the way you get to the programming port of a Merlin mail system. You must know the admin password of the system and have Avaya's VM software. If you tell me the exact version of Merlin mail you have I may be able to help. But I have only programmed mine through the telephone, as our MM didn't have the modem attached. The new one (MLM) does use the modem but you can only check certain things with it. To progam it, you use either the telephone (and dial the admin extension) or use the network connection. In both cases you need the admin password. ------------------------------ From: jlindborg@attbi.com (Jeff) Subject: Re: Tool to Convert Text Strings to TTY WAV File? Date: 21 Sep 2002 23:19:00 -0700 Organization: http://groups.google.com/ Hey folks, Just thought I'd follow up with everyone; I went ahead and wrote a tool to do this myself. It was actually ind of a fun research project digging around to find all the bits and pieces I needed to construct WAV file prompts based on ASCII input; Short story ; used Cool Edit to generate a "SPACE" and a "MARK" WAV file that are 1800 and 1400 Hz for 45.45 baud these WAV files are 22 ms long (1000/45.45 = 22). I then simply use a WAV appending program we already had lying around to slap series of marks and spaces to make an "alphabet" which is then used to convert ASCII to WAV files that can play out on a TTY/TDD phone that supports Baudot. Pretty simple, actually, just took a while to find all the little details. I originally just wrote it quick and dirty and converted our Unity prompt set (some 2500 prompts or so in a little over 5 minutes) into 45.45 baud Baudot WAV files. I decided to dress it up a little and added a dictionary so you can do word replacement and silence appending, etc; to make it play better on a TTY/TDD phone, added a CSV import mode for batch prompt creation and supported 45.45, 50, 75 and 110 baud speeds for the WAV file creation (basically just use different sets of the mark and space WAV files that are recorded for different periods of time). I've tested it against several different phones and it works great; it's very handy for creating audio text applications and IVR type things . I've gone ahead and published it as freeware if folks are interested in using it; you can find it on my AnswerMonkey site here: http://www.answermonkey.net/App_TTYAngel.htm Questions, comments and suggestions are always welcome. -Jeff ------------------------------ Date: Sun, 22 Sep 2002 01:40:15 -0400 From: Monty Solomon Subject: Sorry, Wrong Number The world's favorite statistic about phone use is no longer true. So why won't people just drop it? By Clay Shirky Half the world has never made a phone call. It's a striking statistic, especially handy when underlining the seriousness of the digital divide between the Western and the developing worlds. Future South African president Thabo Mbeki cited it in a speech he gave at the Information Society and Development Conference in 1996. Vice President Al Gore said it in 1998; former FCC boss Reed Hundt said it in 2000; HP's Carly Fiorina said it in 2001; and - though they were not debating each other at the time - Michael Moore and Newt Gingrich both said it in 2001. As did Kofi Annan, secretary general of the UN, in a presentation at the World Economic Forum in Davos. Not to be outdone, Tatang Razak, a spokesperson for Indonesia's Mission in New York, raised the stakes in April: "After all," he summed up in a speech before the UN, "most of the people in the world have never made a phone call." http://www.wired.com/wired/archive/10.10/view.html?pg=2 ------------------------------ From: Ed Ellers Subject: Sprint Selling Yellow Pages Business Date: Sun, 22 Sep 2002 23:43:28 -0400 OVERLAND PARK, Kan. -- Sprint Corp. is selling its yellow pages publishing business as part of an effort to relieve heavy debt, the telecommunications company said Sunday. The $2.23 billion cash sale to R.H. Donnelly, expected to close early next year, is the latest in a string of phone directory sales by debt-laden telecoms seeking some financial breathing room. http://www.washingtonpost.com/ac2/wp-dyn/A53193-2002Sep22?language=printer ------------------------------ Date: Sun, 22 Sep 2002 21:52:43 -0700 From: Lars Poulsen Subject: Re: Question on RJ-11 Phone Connectors jk wrote: > The RJ-11 connectors and jacks which we use here in Canada and the > U.S., are they universally used around the world, or do different > countries use different types of connectors? Specifically I'm > interested in knowing whether or not the standard 4-wire RJ-11 design > is used in Romania, or do they have their own standards there? There is an index of telephone connectors used around the world at http://www.kropla.com/phones2.htm and much to my surprise, it indicates that Romania uses the USA RJ-11 type of connectors. See also the larger article at http://www.kropla.com/phones.htm / Lars Poulsen +1-805-569-5277 http://www.beagle-ears.com/lars/ 125 South Ontare Rd, Santa Barbara, CA 93105 USA lars@beagle-ears.com ------------------------------ From: Oluwafunmi Williams Reply-To: oluwafunmi_williams@accountant.com Date: Mon, 23 Sep 2002 18:38:22 -0700 Subject: Last Laugh! *****SPAM***** Goodday TELECOM Digest Editor's Note: SpamAssassin got this one correct, and I am including it for its originality. Its just a variation (although I think ingenious one) on the Nigerian spams. PAT] SPAM: -------------------- Start SpamAssassin results ---------------------- SPAM: This mail is probably spam. The original message has been altered SPAM: so you can recognise or block similar unwanted mail in future. SPAM: See http://spamassassin.org/tag/ for more details. SPAM: SPAM: Content analysis details: (6.50 hits, 5 required) SPAM: USER_AGENT_OE (-0.3 points) X-Mailer header indicates a non-spam MUA (Outlook Express) SPAM: US_DOLLARS_2 (-0.5 points) BODY: Nigerian scam key phrase ($NNN.N m/USDNNN.N m/US$NN.N m) SPAM: US_DOLLARS (2.6 points) BODY: Nigerian scam key phrase (million dollars) SPAM: US_DOLLARS_4 (1.8 points) BODY: Nigerian scam key phrase ($NNN.N m/USDNNN.N m/US$NN.N m) SPAM: SPAM_PHRASE_05_08 (0.7 points) BODY: Spam phrases score is 05 to 08 (medium) SPAM: [score: 7] SPAM: DATE_IN_FUTURE_06_12 (1.7 points) Date: is 6 to 12 hours after Received: date SPAM: MSG_ID_ADDED_BY_MTA_2 (0.5 points) 'Message-Id' was added by a relay (2) SPAM: SPAM: -------------------- End of SpamAssassin results --------------------- Attn: ptownson@telew, My name is Oluwafunmi Williams, the manager, credit and foreign bills of Ecobank Plc. I am writing in respect of a foreign customer of my bank with account number 14-255-2004/utb/t who perished in a plane crash [Korean Air Flight 801] with the whole passengers aboard on August 6, 1997. Since the demise of this our customer, I personally has watched with keen interest to see the next of kin but all has proved abortive as no one has come to claim his funds of usd.20.5 m, [twenty million five hundred thousand united states dollars] which has been with my branch for a very long time. On this note, I decided to seek for whom his name shall be used as the next of kin as no one has come up to be the next of kin. And the banking ethics here does not allow such money to stay more than Six years, because money will be recalled to the bank treasury as unclaimed after this period. In view of this I got your contact through a trade journal after realizing that your name and country is similar to the deceased. I will give you 25% of the total. Upon the receipt of your response, I will send you by fax or e-mail the application, bank's fax number and the next step to take. I will not fail to bring to your notice that this business is hitch free and that you should not entertain any fear as all modalities for fund transfer can be finalized within five banking days, after you apply to the bank as a relation to the deceased. When you receive this letter. Kindly send me an e-mail signifying Your decision including your private Tel/Fax numbers for quick communication. Respectfully submitted, Oluwafunmi W, 234-80-33324692 ------------------------------ TELECOM Digest is an electronic journal devoted mostly but not exclusively to telecommunications topics. It is circulated anywhere there is email, in addition to various telecom forums on a variety of networks such as Compuserve and America On Line, 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: 620-870-9697 Fax 1: 775-255-9970 Fax 2: 775-306-8390 Fax 3: 775-642-0603 Fax 4: 530-309-7234 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 second 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) Email <==> FTP: telecom-archives@telecom-digest.org Send a simple, one line note to that automated address for a help file on how to use the automatic retrieval system for archives files. You can get desired files in email. ************************************************************************* * 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. Access to Premium (P) links requires upgrade to a paid subscription. One click a day feeds a person a meal. Go to http://www.thehungersite.com Only subscribers or registered users of ICB Toll Free News web site will be able to access all or some of the full text of URLs provided. LEGAL STUFF: TELECOM Digest (sm) is owned by Patrick Townson. Copyright 2000 ICB, Inc. and TELECOM Digest. All rights reserved. Our attorney is Bill Levant, of Blue Bell, PA. --------------------------------------------------------------- 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 twenty 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 V22 #47 ***************************** From editor@telecom-digest.org Tue Sep 24 13:30:16 2002 Received: from localhost (localhost [[UNIX: localhost]]) by massis.lcs.mit.edu (8.11.3nb1/8.11.3) id g8OHUGX01032; Tue, 24 Sep 2002 13:30:16 -0400 (EDT) Date: Tue, 24 Sep 2002 13:30:16 -0400 (EDT) From: editor@telecom-digest.org Message-Id: <200209241730.g8OHUGX01032@massis.lcs.mit.edu> X-Authentication-Warning: massis.lcs.mit.edu: ptownson set sender to editor@telecom-digest.org using -f To: ptownson Approved: patsnewlist Subject: TELECOM Digest V22 #48 TELECOM Digest Tue, 24 Sep 2002 13:30:00 EDT Volume 22 : Issue 48 Inside This Issue: Happy Birthday to Editor PAT Internet Society Statement in Response to ICANN (Anne Shroeder) Re: Avaya / PC Phone (Rich Campbell) Nortel Voicemail Card (Collin Rose) Re: Turn Your Answering Machine Into a TeleZapper! (John Higdon) Re: Any Round trip Traceroutes Out There? (Tom Schmidt) Re: Where Have All the Phone Booths Gone? (1515@mindspring.com) Re: Largest Calling Area (H. Peter Anvin) News Headlines of Interest 9/24/02 (Monty Solomon) Icomera Unveils Icomera Train (Eworldwire) SpamAssassin Missed One! Filtering SE>< Re: Spamming (Henry E Schaffer) SpamAssassin Missed Two! *****SPAM***** Telemarketers Calling Businesses 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. WE DO NOT PERMIT NAME/EMAIL ADDRESS HARVESTING FROM THIS JOURNAL. 'SALTED' EMAIL ADDRESSES APPEAR HEREIN TO VERIFY THIS. YOU GET SUED IN SMALL CLAIMS COURT IF YOU GET CAUGHT SPAMMING OR SENDING VIRUSES. DON'T DO IT. See the bottom of this issue for subscription and archive details and the name of our lawyer; other stuff of interest. ---------------------------------------------------------------------- From: Anne Shroeder - Internet Society Subject: Internet Society Statement in Response to ICANN Internet Society Statement in response to ICANN's Final Staff Evaluation Report on Proposals for Reassignment of the .Org Registry On June 19, 2002, the Internet Society along with 10 other organizations submitted proposals to the Internet Corporation for Assigned Names and Numbers (ICANN) to be considered as the next registry operator for the .ORG domain. Yesterday afternoon, ICANN's Final Staff Evaluation Report was posted recommending that the Internet Society (ISOC) be selected as the next .ORG registry operator. Lynn St. Amour, the President and CEO of ISOC released the following statement in response to the final staff report "We are very pleased with the recommendation of the final staff evaluation report. The ICANN staff and all of the evaluation teams have placed significant confidence in ISOC and in our chosen service provider, Afilias Limited, by ranking our bid highest overall. We are privileged to have been recommended from among so many other commendable bids. "We respect the fact that ICANN extended the evaluation process in order to thoroughly review comments and concerns not only from the other bidders but especially from the public, and we applaud their efforts to make this evaluation process as open, objective and fair as possible. "For over 10 years ISOC has played a vital role in helping to ensure the Internet remains open and accessible, while at the same time working to ensure its stability. We believe that this approach, coupled with Afilias' extensive experience in registry operations, will bring a higher level of service and value to .ORG registrants, should the ICANN Board approve the staff recommendation. We hope to have the opportunity to bring this level of stability, coupled with innovative services and technical superiority to the non-commercial community through the management of .ORG." Contact: Julie Williams Tel:+1-703-326-9880x111 Cell: +1-703-402-6715 Email: jwilliams@isoc.org ------------------------------ From: Rich Campbell Subject: Re: Avaya / PC Phone Organization: AT&T Broadband Date: Mon, 23 Sep 2002 21:13:34 GMT You need a TAPI phone and driver. Ray wrote in message news:telecom22.47.5@telecom-digest.org: > The phone at my place of work is an Avaya MLX-10DP. Is there any way > to use my PC in place of the phone? I would like to utilize my > address book to dial numbers and track my phone usage, and possibly > use caller ID. ------------------------------ From: Collin Rose Subject: Nortel Voicemail Card Date: Mon, 23 Sep 2002 17:28:52 -0400 Organization: Michigan Online Group Hey all, I have a Nortel Meridian Voicemail box on my MICS phone system. I am wondering if anybody knows what the model of the dialogic cards used in these is. I would like to try to make my own system. I was hoping they were Dialogic D42/NS cards but I didn't see any way to check. Thanks, Collin Rose ------------------------------ From: John Higdon Subject: Re: Turn Your Answering Machine Into a TeleZapper! Organization: Green Hills and Cows Date: Mon, 23 Sep 2002 18:39:16 -0700 In article , temp6@thewolfden.org wrote: > Why don't you sell a device like the telezapper that tells the dialers > to go away and then have your dialers honor it, or license a method of > doing so to all dialer manufacturers. Then you get the money on both > ends. I'd much rather see a national "do not call" list with heavy penalties for violations. I think it would be more effective. John Higdon | Email Address Valid | SF: +1 415 428-COWS +1 408 264 4115 | Anytown, USA | FAX: +1 408 264 4407 ------------------------------ Reply-To: Tom Schmidt From: Tom Schmidt Subject: Re: Any Round trip Traceroutes Out There? Date: Tue, 24 Sep 2002 01:55:57 GMT William J King wrote in message news:telecom22.47.2@telecom-digest.org: > Anyone seen a round trip tracerout URL out there? By round trip I assume you mean trace route to the remote site and then do another from the remote site back to you. I don't think that is possible unless the remote site is running a remotely accessible trace route daemon. /Tom ------------------------------ From: 1515@mindspring.com Subject: Re: Where Have All the Phone Booths Gone? Date: Tue, 24 Sep 2002 01:56:14 -0400 Organization: MindSpring Enterprises In the Southeast US, things move a bit more slowly. Sprint (as did Carolina Telephone before them), maintains the local phone booths in the coastal town of NEW BERN, NORTH CAROLINA. No bench, but units still retain most of their glass panels. Exteriors are painted red. I'm amazed, and transported back in time, every time I drive through this town with its lovely red phone booths on street corners. Regards, Mike Oniffrey 79* 01' 59.88" W 35* 55' 54.12" N 919.929.1515 -- voice; fwds to pgr 919.507.1515 -- pgr 1515 at mindspring dot com ------------------------------ From: H. Peter Anvin Subject: Re: Largest Calling Area Date: 23 Sep 2002 23:25:55 -0700 Organization: Transmeta Corporation, Santa Clara CA obsidian wrote in newsgroup: comp.dcom.telecom: > Belgium's local calling area is 30 thousand square > kilometres - the entire country in fact. Most, or probably all, phone companies in Sweden has also gone uniform rate for the entire country (mobile phones excepted.) That makes 449,964 km according to the CIA (so it's probably way off, but ...) hpa at work, in private! "Unix gives you enough rope to shoot yourself in the foot." http://www.zytor.com/~hpa/puzzle.txt ------------------------------ Date: Mon, 23 Sep 2002 21:35:46 -0400 From: Monty Solomon Subject: News Headlines of Interest /24/02 Transition to Digital Television Committee Hearing H.R.___, Regarding the Transition to Digital Television Subcommittee on Telecommunications and the Internet September 25, 2002 10:00 AM 2123 Rayburn House Office Building http://energycommerce.house.gov/107/hearings/09252002Hearing719/hearing.htm Sustainably Powered Microwave Transmissions at the Big Green At the Big Green Gathering, near Cheddar in Somerset, UK, over 5 days during 21 to 25 July 2002, Psand.net ran a truly mobile, sustainably powered satellite wireless internetwork. This page attempts to cover what we did, how we did it, and some of the lessons learnt. http://dialspace.dial.pipex.com/town/estate/aax20/green/ Telecom's Slow Train Wreck Coming The slow-motion train wreck that is the telecom sector was all over the news this morning, as it has been since late last week. Reporter Jeff Smith of the Rocky Mountain News seems to have broken word, on Saturday, that Qwest will restate nearly $1.5 billion in revenue, $950 million of it from the now-widely-scorned capacity swaps the carrier engaged in with its peers. The RMN also ran a couple of handy sidebars with brief histories of Qwest's accounting "mistakes" and of the steps its new CEO has taken to get straight with the Street, Congress, and federal investigators. Qwest was one of the three telecom stories that crowded the top four in today's Wall Street Journal tech section. The New York Times also prominently featured the Qwest restatement. Neither New York paper advanced the story much beyond where the RMN had left it, although the Times did mention rumors of negotiations to sell Qwest wireless properties to Verizon. Many outlets ran a brief Reuters wrap of the Qwest news. http://newsletter.mediaunspun.com/index000020683.cfm#a95744 Laptops Sprout Wings with Verizon Airfone JetConnect Service OAK BROOK, Ill., Sept. 24 /PRNewswire/ -- Airline travelers now can enjoy the benefits of the Internet at 30,000 feet. Instant messages, online games and up-to-the-minute news are taking to the skies on flights equipped with Verizon Airfone's new in-flight data service, JetConnect(SM). Verizon Airfone recently installed JetConnect service on several commercial aircraft and will expand the service to some 100 additional aircraft by year-end. Airfone is upgrading its in-flight voice and data network to offer a multitude of useful, entertaining communication services to airlines and their passengers. http://finance.lycos.com/home/news/story.asp?story=28797546 ------------------------------ Date: Tue, 24 Sep 2002 01:07:34 -0400 From: Eworldwire Subject: Icomera Unveils Icomera Train Icomera Unveils Icomera Train Gateway(TM),High-speed Internet Access On Trains At INNOTRANS In Berlin September 24-27 Changing The Perspective Of Traveling Gteborg, Sweden/EWORLDWIRE/September 24, 2002 --- Icomera will launch its high-speed Internet onboard train solution, Icomera Train Gateway(TM), at INNOTRANS 2002 in Berlin, 24-27 September 2002. The Icomera Train Gateway(TM) revolutionizes travel by train by providing passengers and personnel with high-speed and reliable Internet connectivity, travel information, onboard entertainment and wireless communication services while onboard. Icomera Train Gateway's wireless communication system provides trains with reliable, cost effective and high-speed connections to the Internet. The solution enables passengers to work online with corporate resources or to enjoy onboard entertainment programs. The Icomera value-added functionalities offer revenue generating opportunities to train operators, and a chance to win additional market share while increasing the number of passengers and reducing the cost-per-business transaction. Features include: * Real-time Internet access --- Passengers and train personnel can be online in real-time and have access to the web, e-mail, corporate resources and instant mservices through a reliable high-speed Internet connection. * Wireless Communication system --- All end-user communication is wireless and available in every seat through standard WLAN technology (IEEE 802.11b), eliminating the need for expensive cable installations onboard trains. * Onboard Entertainment --- The travel experience is more enjoyable by making the best movies, music, games and news magazines electronically available onboard. * Online Credit Card Validation --- Train operators and personnel can increase sales on board the train, while at the same time ensuring that credit cards are valid at the point-of-sale, saving a significant amount of money in losses and lowering the offline validation rates. "Because general travel and business commuting by train is increasing throughout Europe, we developed Icomera Train Gateway(TM). Our product enables train operators to better serve their customers' travel needs by offering reliable and secure Internet connectivity via high bandwidth at a low cost," explains Mr. Michael Johansson, CEO Icomera AB. "Icomera integrates a variety of existing network technologies including cellular networks, satellite, digital TV and wireless LAN to deliver the most cost-effective, working solution for high-speed Internet connectivity onboard trains." Icomera is a leading provider of wireless communication management software for enterprise and transportation vehicles including trains, buses and trucks. Mobile professionals receive optimized, convenient and reliable access to business critical information and instant collaboration. More information about Icomera Train Gateway(TM) is available at www.icomera.com. HTML: http://www.eworldwire.com/wr/092402/icomera.htm ONLINE NEWSROOM: http://www.eworldwire.com/profile/icomera.htm CONTACT: Mr. Michael Johansson CEO Icomera AB Stena Center 1C Gteborg, SE 412 92 Sweden PHONE: +46-733-940 901 ALT PHONE: +46-31-772 6010  FAX: +46-31-772 8091  EMAIL: info@icomera.com URL: http://www.icomera.com Copyright 2002 Eworldwire, All rights reserved. Press Relase Distribution By EWORLDWIRE http://www.eworldwire.com (973)252-6800. For Media Questions: http://www.eworldwire.com/forthemedia.htm ------------------------------ From: hes@hes01.unity.ncsu.edu (Henry E Schaffer) Subject: SpamAssassin Missed One! Filtering SE>< Re: Spamming, etc Date: Tue, 24 Sep 2002 12:59:12 UTC Organization: North Carolina State University [TELECOM Digest Editor's Note: A good example of SpamAssassin at work in the next two messages. This one *was* passed with no hassles. PAT] From news@unity.ncsu.edu Tue Sep 24 08:59:17 2002 Received: from xuxa.iecc.com (xuxa.iecc.com [208.31.42.42]) by massis.lcs.mit.edu (8.11.3nb1/8.11.3) with SMTP id g8OCxHB05488 for ; Tue, 24 Sep 2002 08:59:17 -0400 (EDT) Received: (qmail 24960 invoked by uid 166); 24 Sep 2002 08:59:16 -0400 Delivered-To: virtual-telecom-editor@telecom-digest.org Received: (qmail 24958 invoked from network); 24 Sep 2002 08:59:16 -0400 Received: from mailbox3.ucsd.edu (132.239.1.55) by mail2.iecc.com with SMTP; 24 Sep 2002 08:59:16 -0400 Received: from uni00nw.unity.ncsu.edu (uni00nw.unity.ncsu.edu [152.1.2.40]) by mailbox3.ucsd.edu (8.12.3/8.12.3) with ESMTP id g8OCxDs3066169 for ; Tue, 24 Sep 2002 05:59:14 -0700 (PDT) Received: (from news@localhost) by uni00nw.unity.ncsu.edu (8.8.4/EC02Jan97) id IAA09951 for comp-dcom-telecom@moderators.isc.org; Tue, 24 Sep 2002 08:59:12 -0400 (EDT) To: comp-dcom-telecom@moderators.isc.org Path: news.ncsu.edu!not-for-mail From: hes@hes01.unity.ncsu.edu (Henry E Schaffer) Newsgroups: comp.dcom.telecom Subject: Filtering SE>< Re: Spamming, etc Date: Tue, 24 Sep 2002 12:59:12 +0000 (UTC) Organization: North Carolina State University Lines: 7 Message-ID: References: NNTP-Posting-Host: hes01.unity.ncsu.edu X-Trace: uni00nw.unity.ncsu.edu 1032872352 9949 152.1.10.55 (24 Sep 2002 12:59:12 GMT) X-Complaints-To: news@unity.ncsu.edu NNTP-Posting-Date: 24 Sep 2002 12:59:12 GMT X-MailScanner: PASSED (v1.2.6 54071 g8OCxDs3066169 mailbox3.ucsd.edu) X-Spam-Status: No, hits=-7.0 required=5.0 tests=INVALID_MSGID,NOSPAM_INC,REFERENCES,SIGNATURE_SHORT_DENSE, SPAM_PHRASE_01_02 version=2.41 X-Spam-Level: Status: RO Regarding filtering rules - I just got a spam ad for porn which used two characters >< instead of X - apparently to avoid filtering on the three letter word. I put that version in the Subject: line to see what happens. -- --henry schaffer hes@ncsu.edu (Above is how it got here. After my local editorial work it came out like the below. PAT) Regarding filtering rules - I just got a spam ad for porn which used two characters >< instead of X - apparently to avoid filtering on the three letter word. I put that version in the Subject: line to see what happens. --henry schaffer hes@ncsu.edu [TELECOM Digest Editor's Note: Henry, your messsage came right through with no complaints from SpamAssassin. The other message in this series was not so lucky. PAT] ------------------------------ Date: Mon, 23 Sep 2002 23:35:48 -0400 From: Matt Bartlett Subject: SpamAssassin: *****SPAM***** Telemarketers Calling Businesses Organization: Optimum Online [TELECOM Digest Editor's Note: This message wound up in the spam basket and had to be processed by hand. Here is what it said. PAT] From news@srv1.mail.cv.net Mon Sep 23 23:37:26 2002 Received: from xuxa.iecc.com (xuxa.iecc.com [208.31.42.42]) by massis.lcs.mit.edu (8.11.3nb1/8.11.3) with SMTP id g8O3bQB03196 for ; Mon, 23 Sep 2002 23:37:26 -0400 (EDT) Received: (qmail 18489 invoked by uid 166); 23 Sep 2002 23:37:25 -0400 Delivered-To: virtual-telecom-editor@telecom-digest.org Received: (qmail 18487 invoked from network); 23 Sep 2002 23:37:24 -0400 Received: from horus.isnic.is (root@193.4.58.12) by mail2.iecc.com with SMTP; 23 Sep 2002 23:37:24 -0400 Received: from srv1.mail.cv.net (srv1.mail.cv.net [167.206.112.40]) by horus.isnic.is (8.12.3/8.12.3/isnic) with ESMTP id g8O3bNZf053344 for ; Tue, 24 Sep 2002 03:37:23 GMT (envelope-from news@srv1.mail.cv.net) Path: 53ab2750!not-for-mail Received: from news4.srv.hcvlny.cv.net (news.srv.hcvlny.cv.net [167.206.3.3]) by srv1.mail.cv.net (Sun Internet Mail Server sims.4.0.2000.10.12.16.25.p8) with ESMTP id <0H2X00ENQB8LRR@srv1.mail.cv.net> for comp-dcom-telecom@moderators.isc.org; Mon, 23 Sep 2002 23:33:58 -0400 (EDT) Received: by news4.srv.hcvlny.cv.net (8.9.3/8.9.3) id XAA15632; Mon, 23 Sep 2002 23:35:52 -0400 (EDT) X-trace: news4.srv.hcvlny.cv.net 1032838552 24.187.79.120 (Mon, 23 Sep 2002 23:35:52 EDT) Date: Mon, 23 Sep 2002 23:35:48 -0400 From: Matt Bartlett Subject: *****SPAM***** Telemarketers Calling Businesses To: comp-dcom-telecom@moderators.isc.org Message-id: Organization: Optimum Online X-MIMEOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V6.00.2600.0000 Content-transfer-encoding: 7BIT NNTP-posting-date: Mon, 23 Sep 2002 23:35:52 EDT X-Priority: 3 X-MSMail-priority: Normal Newsgroups: comp.dcom.telecom Lines: 40 NNTP-posting-host: 24.187.79.120 X-Newsreader: Microsoft Outlook Express 6.00.2600.0000 X-Spam-Status: Yes, hits=8.6 required=5.0 tests=EXCUSE_3,EXCUSE_7,INVALID_MSGID,NOSPAM_INC, PRIORITY_NO_NAME,SPAM_PHRASE_13_21 version=2.41 X-Spam-Flag: YES X-Spam-Level: ******** X-Spam-Checker-Version: SpamAssassin 2.41 (1.115.2.8-2002-09-05-exp) Status: RO SPAM: -------------------- Start SpamAssassin results ---------------------- SPAM: This mail is probably spam. The original message has been altered SPAM: so you can recognise or block similar unwanted mail in future. SPAM: See http://spamassassin.org/tag/ for more details. SPAM: SPAM: Content analysis details: (8.60 hits, 5 required) SPAM: NOSPAM_INC (-2.8 points) Where are you working at? SPAM: INVALID_MSGID (1.2 points) Message-Id is not valid, according to RFC 2822 SPAM: EXCUSE_7 (2.6 points) BODY: Claims you can be removed from the list SPAM: EXCUSE_3 (1.9 points) BODY: Claims you can be removed from the list SPAM: SPAM_PHRASE_13_21 (3.0 points) BODY: Spam phrases score is 13 to 21 (high) SPAM: [score: 13] SPAM: PRIORITY_NO_NAME (2.7 points) Message has priority setting, but no X-Mailer SPAM: SPAM: -------------------- End of SpamAssassin results --------------------- Hello All, At my office I have been getting telemarketing calls on some of my lines that start out as: Me: Hello? TM: Uh yeah..oh hold on a sec....Sorry, I tried to reach you the other day but I couldnt. You see, I just started a new carpet cleaning business........ If you are interested in our services, press 8, or if you wish to be removed from our list, press 2 and ask for Don If you press 2, a recording comes on and says "Hi This is Don, your # has been removed from our list". About 10 minutes later I get another call on one of our other lines (which I can automatically tell is a telemarketer or wrong number because a real caller never dials directly into anything other than line 1 on our 8 line system. I hit the button for the human, and he proceeded to inform me that in fact it is legal what they are doing and they even won a lawsuit. Apparently it is legal to telemarketer to a business with an autodialer as long as they don't call two of your lines at once. I checked on the FCCs website and apparently this is correct. Has anyone heard anything to the contrary about this, or have you heard anything about this being changed? Thanks, Matt Bartlett to reply personally use every other word: matt is at email liradio yup dot uhhuh com (With the above, SpamAssassin was furious and pitched poor Matt into the bit bucket, where I found him swimming around this morning. PAT) Hello All, At my office I have been getting telemarketing calls on some of my lines that start out as: Me: Hello? TM: Uh yeah ... oh hold on a sec....Sorry, I tried to reach you the other day but I couldnt. You see, I just started a new carpet cleaning business ....... If you are interested in our services, press 8, or if you wish to be removed from our list, press 2 and ask for Don. If you press 2, a recording comes on and says "Hi This is Don, your number has been removed from our list". About 10 minutes later I get another call on one of our other lines (which I can automatically tell is a telemarketer or wrong number because a real caller never dials directly into anything other than line 1 on our 8 line system. I hit the button for the human, and he proceeded to inform me that in fact it is legal what they are doing and they even won a lawsuit. Apparently it is legal to telemarketer to a business with an autodialer as long as they don't call two of your lines at once. I checked on the FCCs website and apparently this is correct. Has anyone heard anything to the contrary about this, or have you heard anything about this being changed? Thanks, Matt Bartlett to reply personally use every other word: matt is at email liradio yup dot uhhuh com [TELECOM Digest Editor's Note: Although Matt wrote a perfectly legimate message for our little Digest, he was found swimming in the spam bucket for my birthday present this morning where SpamAssassin had pitched him. Although the use of >< for 'x' in 'sex' did not score high enough to cast out the earlier message, Matt's comments about 'remove from calls' and 'won lawsuits' was enough to send Matt to the bit bucket, even though he was only quoting phone calls from telemarketers. These two messages were placed here in juxtaposition to allow those of you who monitor these things to compare them both closely. Poor Matt; but I found him there in my sorting of mail today. Might it have been his use of a phalse return address that got him instead? This is a very good example of how *nothing* -- no script in the world -- is going to replace the human brain, deseased or not, in writing a user-written journal like this one. PAT] ------------------------------ TELECOM Digest is an electronic journal devoted mostly but not exclusively to telecommunications topics. It is circulated anywhere there is email, in addition to various telecom forums on a variety of networks such as Compuserve and America On Line, 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: 620-870-9697 Fax 1: 775-255-9970 Fax 2: 775-306-8390 Fax 3: 775-642-0603 Fax 4: 530-309-7234 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 second 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) Email <==> FTP: telecom-archives@telecom-digest.org Send a simple, one line note to that automated address for a help file on how to use the automatic retrieval system for archives files. You can get desired files in email. ************************************************************************* * 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. Access to Premium (P) links requires upgrade to a paid subscription. One click a day feeds a person a meal. Go to http://www.thehungersite.com Only subscribers or registered users of ICB Toll Free News web site will be able to access all or some of the full text of URLs provided. LEGAL STUFF: TELECOM Digest (sm) is owned by Patrick Townson. Copyright 2000 ICB, Inc. and TELECOM Digest. All rights reserved. Our attorney is Bill Levant, of Blue Bell, PA. --------------------------------------------------------------- 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 twenty 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 V22 #48 ***************************** From editor@telecom-digest.org Wed Sep 25 21:26:42 2002 Received: from localhost (localhost [[UNIX: localhost]]) by massis.lcs.mit.edu (8.11.3nb1/8.11.3) id g8Q1QgM07636; Wed, 25 Sep 2002 21:26:42 -0400 (EDT) Date: Wed, 25 Sep 2002 21:26:42 -0400 (EDT) From: editor@telecom-digest.org Message-Id: <200209260126.g8Q1QgM07636@massis.lcs.mit.edu> X-Authentication-Warning: massis.lcs.mit.edu: ptownson set sender to editor@telecom-digest.org using -f To: ptownson Approved: patsnewlist Subject: TELECOM Digest V22 #49 TELECOM Digest Wed, 25 Sep 2002 21:27:00 EDT Volume 22 : Issue 49 Inside This Issue: Editor: Patrick A. Townson State of Pennsylvania v. WorldCom -- Court Documents Now (Monty Solomon) Motorola Vanguard Router Support SUPPORT (Mike) Re: Turn Your Answering Machine Into a TeleZapper! (John David Galt) Re: Turn Your Answering Machine Into a TeleZapper! (temp6@thewolfden.org) Motorola Announces Revolutionary Single Chip GPS Device (Monty Solomon) Motorola's Latest in Family of Single Chip GPS Devices (Monty Solomon) FCC Toll-Free Proceeding (Jeffrey James Bryan Carpenter) Re: SpamAssassin: Telemarketers Calling Businesses (Dave Phelps) Re: SpamAssassin: Telemarketers Calling Businesses (John Higdon) Spam (Spyros Bartsocas) Re: Norstar ICS 4.0 and Music on Hold (Justin) Re: Looking For Prepaid Billing Software & IP Minutes (Sasa Nowe) Re: Nortel Voicemail Card (Dave Phelps) 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. WE DO NOT PERMIT NAME/EMAIL ADDRESS HARVESTING FROM THIS JOURNAL. 'SALTED' EMAIL ADDRESSES APPEAR HEREIN TO VERIFY THIS. YOU GET SUED IN SMALL CLAIMS COURT IF YOU GET CAUGHT SPAMMING OR SENDING VIRUSES. DON'T DO IT. See the bottom of this issue for subscription and archive details and the name of our lawyer; other stuff of interest. ---------------------------------------------------------------------- Date: Wed, 25 Sep 2002 09:10:09 -0400 From: Monty Solomon Subject: State of Pennsylvania v. WorldCom -- Court Documents Now http://www.politechbot.com/p-04018.html Date: Tue, 24 Sep 2002 14:58:50 -0400 From: Declan McCullagh Subject: State of Pennsylvania v. WorldCom -- court documents now online I've put some pretty interesting (and important) documents online. The first is a set of court documents that Pennsylvania attorney general Mike Fisher filed last week to force WorldCom to block URLs of alleged child porn sites. In what must be entirely a coincidence, Fisher, a Republican, is running for governor and is behind in the polls by about 7 percent. His filings: http://www.politechbot.com/docs/worldcom.pa.order.092402.pdf WorldCom replied yesterday. It said it would comply -- but technologically had no choice but to block sites by IP address, not URL. It also said complying with the order meant it would have to block those IP addresses not only for Pennsylvania residents, but for *all of North America*: http://www.politechbot.com/docs/worldcom.pa.reply.092402.pdf Previous Politech message: "Pennsylvania county judge orders Worldcom to block sex sites" http://www.politechbot.com/p-04006.html -Declan http://news.com.com/2100-1023-959045.html?tag=cd_mh WorldCom blocks access to child porn By Lisa M. Bowman and Declan McCullagh September 23, 2002, 12:46 PM PT Bowing to an order from Pennsylvania's attorney general, WorldCom will block customer access to some offshore Web sites by the end of the day. Last week, a Pennsylvania judge, at the request of Attorney General Mike Fisher, ordered WorldCom, the bankrupt Internet and voice provider, to block access to five purported child pornography sites. Among those was a site hosted by Terra.es, Spain's largest Internet portal and a division of Terra Lycos. Because it doesn't have the technical capability to stop residents of a particular state from viewing specific Web sites, WorldCom plans to block all of its North American subscribers from some of the IP (Internet Protocol) addresses. POLITECH -- Declan McCullagh's politics and technology mailing list You may redistribute this message freely if you include this notice. To subscribe to Politech: http://www.politechbot.com/info/subscribe.html This message is archived at http://www.politechbot.com/ Declan McCullagh's photographs are at http://www.mccullagh.org/ [TELECOM Digest Editor's Note: As usual, someone is lying about the inability to block things they don't like, and how everyone, everywhere has to be blocked. Worldcom/MCI is good at making up stories like that. First of all, if it is technically correct that they cannot block one state without doing the entire country, then Worldcom should have respectfully suggested to the court that because PA does not micro-manage the entire United States, the matter was outside the PA court's juris- diction and get it transferred to federal court. But the thing is, it is NOT technically impossible. Consider this: the internet is world- wide. Why wouldn't Worldcom claim the entire world had to be blocked therefore? Neither does Worldcom handle all internet circuits in the USA. I am making the assumption the offending web site is located in PA or some PA resident was offended by the viewing, which would give PA authorities the right to act against the site (by blocking access to PA residents). But it is NOT technically correct that it is 'impossible to block one state without blocking everyone'. MCI knows or should know that, else they should pension off Vint Cerf and get someone else to handle internet things. Second, let's make another, admittedly broad assumption; that *most netizens* use ISPs or DSLs or cable faciltities in their own state and or region. With this assumption, however valid it is, why didn't the court bring in representatives for those ISPs/DSLs/cablecos and order *them* to do the blocking locally? Do not pass traffic from your customers to those particular IP addresses ... do not hand the traffic to Worldcom *or any other backbone*. Verbotin, forbidden. Here is a list of IP addresses we do not want residents of PA to have access to. Kill the traffic there at your switch. Oh yes, I know that some of the local ISPs and cablecos, etc 'splash' a little outside the geographic boundaries of their states, etc (so a few of their customers would be blocked if they remained with that ISP, etc) and I know some people in PA would no doubt use a 'national ISP' such as AOL, etc so not everyone would be 'caught' who made those viewings and maybe some viewers on state boundary lines might get imposed on. But I really believe if Worldcom/MCI had explained this to the court, the court would have been quite happy to wind up with around a 90-95 percent compliance (those PA netizens who use local ISPs and cables to do their viewing) instead of millions of the rest of us being imposed on to satisfy Worldcom's ignorance in the matter. You *can* take a small subset of the overall traffic (PA residents) and mostly block it off from some other small subset outbound (viewing of porn sites, etc). The fact that a few people get around the blockade and a few others (with no judicial order in effect) cannot get past does not invalidate the whole concept. Years and years ago, when Compuserve was owned by H&R Block and this Digest was a regular 'bulletin board' feature there, (known as 'Telephone Topics' and messages were traded with this Digest), the Compuserve people very graciously gave me a comp account at no charge (in the old 73500 series of numbers where all their non-staff yet still comp accounts were kept) as a valued member of the Compuserve Community, with an 800 number access, mind you, so I did not pay five cents to use Compuserve, or call them. And I ran around all over the system in every room, every feature, etc *except* the 'CB Simulator' and associated private chats, etc. When I tried a couple times to use CB Simulator, as they called their user-chat system, I always got locked out of it with a message on the screen saying, "Sorry, but seventy-three-five accounts calling on our toll-free lines are NOT permitted to use Simulator. Use your own paid account/phone line for this feature." They certainly knew the difference between 312 and 800 and how to prevent the one from getting in while permitting the other. And I assume they also knew that chat, which has always paid the rent and payroll at CIS since it was first started and tends to retain users on line longer (for hours and hours at a time in the wee hours) would be eagerly used by dirty old men eager to trade pictures, fantasies, lies and other things all night as long as it was all on someone else's nickle. No fools, those CIS programmers in the old days. They knew how to prevent certain 'nodes' from getting into certain features. That's why I thought it odd many years ago also when the German Secret Police, or whatever they are called, raided the Compuserve offices in Germany and arrested several people, based on the German Police claim that 'certain Usenet newsgroups are obscene/Nazi-oriented and against our laws'. CIS in the USA screamed and said 'well now we have to block access to all of Altnet (as in alt.sex) to our USA customers as well, before the Germans will let us off the hook over there, since there is no way to tell the difference.' Some folks patiently explained to CIS management about how '800' nodes were distinct from the nodes of other area codes and why couldn't they block the (German) nodes from Usenet or Altnet rather than punishing the whole world. Once CIS confirmed that indeed they were doing that here in the USA on 800/others <--> chat/other features, the problem soon went away, leaving the German people to deal with their own hangups/dislikes. That's where Vint Cerf/Worldcom/MCI need to studying now; chop off as much connectivity as legally needed; chop off as little as you can get away with; do not punish the whole country and other netizens also. But just as CIS years ago wanted to make Altnet and the -- well, rather peculiar sex fantasies of many of its denizens to be the bad guys (see, because these guys wanna act out thus and so, now we have to cut it off for everyone; the fact that Usenet does not earn money for CIS and uses a lot of our resources has nothing to do with our decision to pull it off our spools!) is like the present day scenario: The court says they are embarassed by what PA residents like to look at, so we will get even by killing the traffic for everyone, PA or not. It really is a shame when the backbones have to use such blunt instruments to do their work, and when most folks do not know the difference. PAT] ------------------------------ From: mike.crawley@ntlworld.com (Mike) Subject: Motorola Vanguard Router Support Date: Wed, 25 Sep 2002 08:26:31 GMT Organization: ntlworld News Service Individuals requiring support on Motorola / Vanguard routers and FRADS should look at: http://wantech.freeservers.com. We can provide a host of solutions for these products and the integration of Vanguard networking products into CISCO and NORTEL networks. For more infomation, please e-mail us at: wantech.llc@ntlworld.com ------------------------------ From: John David Galt Subject: Re: Turn Your Answering Machine Into a TeleZapper! Date: Tue, 24 Sep 2002 19:40:12 -0700 Organization: Diogenes the Cynic Hot-Tubbing Society > temp6@thewolfden.org wrote: >> Why don't you sell a device like the telezapper that tells the dialers >> to go away and then have your dialers honor it, or license a method of >> doing so to all dialer manufacturers. Then you get the money on both >> ends. John Higdon wrote: > I'd much rather see a national "do not call" list with heavy penalties > for violations. I think it would be more effective. I'll settle for that if it's all we can get, but a national opt-IN list would be more just. And it should apply to nonprofits, pollsters, and news reporters just like everyone else who wants to call for reasons that are his and not mine. Telemarketing is a public nuisance. It should be destroyed. I just wish I knew how to get the buzzards who are currently suing McDonalds to go after the telemarketers instead. ------------------------------ Date: Wed, 25 Sep 2002 00:14:47 -0500 From: temp6@thewolfden.org Subject: Re: Turn Your Answering Machine Into a TeleZapper! John Higdon wrote: >In article , temp6@thewolfden.org wrote: >> Why don't you sell a device like the telezapper that tells the dialers >> to go away and then have your dialers honor it, or license a method of >> doing so to all dialer manufacturers. Then you get the money on both >> ends. > I'd much rather see a national "do not call" list with heavy penalties for > violations. I think it would be more effective. But that would require an entire network of people to verify, enforce, tax and penalize, as well as wasting my time trying to report violations, while a device -- or simply honoring that which already exists -- would begin working immediately and would cost much less for _everyone_ involved. -CW P.S. Even if you can't use the SIT tones on your answering machine, they make an interesting "you've got mail" sound. ------------------------------ Date: Tue, 24 Sep 2002 22:23:44 -0400 From: Monty Solomon Subject: Motorola Automotive Announces Revolutionary Single Chip GPS Device New Device Expands Market for In-Vehicle GPS Systems FARMINGTON HILLS, Mich., Sept. 24 /PRNewswire-FirstCall/ -- Motorola, Inc. working with IBM Microelectronics, today introduced Motorola Instant GPS, a breakthrough technology for adding accurate location sensing to virtually any vehicle at half the cost of current systems. Motorola Instant GPS is a self-contained, single-chip, assisted global positioning system (A-GPS) receiver. The device measures 7mm x 7mm, small enough to fit into almost any automotive application and easily added to existing platforms. Because of its compact size and affordability, the Instant GPS makes the technology available to all classes of cars and trucks. Until now, GPS technology as original equipment has traditionally been limited to high-end vehicles. http://finance.lycos.com/home/news/story.asp?story=28801502 ------------------------------ Date: Tue, 24 Sep 2002 22:24:50 -0400 From: Monty Solomon Subject: Motorola Unveils Latest in Family of Single Chip GPS Devices New Device Based on IBM Leading Edge Silicon-Germanium Technology CHICAGO, Sept. 24 /PRNewswire-FirstCall/ -- Motorola, Inc. (NYSE:MOT), working with IBM Microelectronics, today announced a breakthrough technology for adding accurate location sensing to virtually any portable electronics product. The new technology, called Motorola Instant GPS, is a self-contained, single-chip, assisted global positioning system (A-GPS) receiver small enough to fit into a wristwatch. Because it is the first truly single-chip GPS solution, it is expected to lead to a new generation of portable electronic products such as cameras that time- and location-stamp photos, PDAs with maps and real time navigation and E-911 compliant cellular phones that can find friends, family members, restaurants and nearby shops with goods on sale. Motorola Instant GPS is the first truly single-chip GPS solution in the world, combining Motorola's GPS design with IBM's leading-edge silicon germanium (SiGe) chip-making technology. The companies worked together to integrate IBM's technology to optimize the design. IBM plans to manufacture the new GPS chips for Motorola; samples are available immediately for OEM suppliers of portable electronic devices. http://finance.lycos.com/home/news/story.asp?story=28801561 ------------------------------ Date: Tue, 24 Sep 2002 13:26:09 -0000 From: Jeffrey James Bryan Carpenter Subject: FCC Toll-Free Proceeding I have seen in some industry groups some talk about FCC conducting an inquiry on the future of the toll-free system. Anyone know what this is about or likely outcomes? Judith? jeff ------------------------------ From: Dave Phelps Subject: Re: SpamAssassin: Telemarketers Calling Businesses Date: Tue, 24 Sep 2002 23:58:51 -0500 Organization: Posted via Supernews, http://www.supernews.com In article , nospam@seemessage.com says: > I hit the button for the human, and he proceeded to inform me that in fact > it is legal what they are doing and they even won a lawsuit. Apparently it > is legal to telemarketer to a business with an autodialer as long as they > don't call two of your lines at once. I checked on the FCCs website and > apparently this is correct. > Has anyone heard anything to the contrary about this, or have you heard > anything about this being changed? My understanding, but I don't know the cite, is that it is illegal to place a call and play a recording. It must be a human on the calling end when you answer. -- Dave Phelps Phone Masters Ltd. deadspam=tippenring ------------------------------ From: John Higdon Subject: Re: SpamAssassin: Telemarketers Calling Businesses Organization: Green Hills and Cows Date: Wed, 25 Sep 2002 10:12:23 -0700 In article , Matt Bartlett wrote: > I hit the button for the human, and he proceeded to inform me that in fact > it is legal what they are doing and they even won a lawsuit. Apparently it > is legal to telemarketer to a business with an autodialer as long as they > don't call two of your lines at once. I checked on the FCCs website and > apparently this is correct. > Has anyone heard anything to the contrary about this, or have you heard > anything about this being changed? Telemarketing directed to businesses comes under a different set of rules than that directed at residences. A person's home telephone is considered to be for his private and personal business use; a business phone is assumed to be open for calls from the public at large ... including telemarketers. You would have done well to claim to the caller that he had reached a private residence and spared yourself the lecture on his telemarketing entitlements. When I am manning a multi-line bank and a line in the middle rings out of the blue, I typcally answer, "Wrong number." John Higdon | Email Address Valid | SF: +1 415 428-COWS +1 408 264 4115 | Anytown, USA | FAX: +1 408 264 4407 ------------------------------ From: Spyros Bartsocas Date: Wed, 25 Sep 2002 22:48:48 +0300 Subject: Spam Today I received an e-mail from SiteHoster.net which claims that they are responding to my visiting their web site and it lists some of the web hosting options they offer. The interesting part is that the e- mail was sent to the administrative address of my domain, which is never used. Even though my domain is a .com and is hosted in the US, I am not located in the US so I can not call them at 1-866-858-HOST (4678) to find out what they offer. I am sure one (or more) of the US-based readers of the digest might want to call them up for me and find out more about all the services they offer. [TELECOM Digest Editor's Note: Thanks for the hint, Spyros. I am sure many of the guys will want to investigate this and get back to you with the results of their probes. Anyone not know what happens next? PAT] ------------------------------ From: Overdrive79@hotmail.com (Justin) Subject: Re: Norstar ICS 4.0 and Music on Hold Date: 25 Sep 2002 07:55:36 -0700 Organization: http://groups.google.com/ I probably sound stupid but what is ACD? Is there an inexpensive module that can queue callers or does the whole voice mail module have to be replaced? Dave Phelps wrote in message news:: > In article , Overdrive79@hotmail.com > says: >> Is there any way possible to have the customer hear music instead of >> ringing when being transferred? >> Here is my situation. As of now, if a caller requests technical >> support the operator transfers the caller to a hunt group and it will >> ring up to 12 times before either being answered by a rep or >> transfered back to the operator. >> I am in the process of turning on the automated attendant so that the >> receptionist doesn't have to answer all the calls for tech support. >> If the automated attendant transfers the call to the hunt group, it >> can ring for even longer than 12 rings and then go to voicemail. >> Does anyone have any suggestions to resolve this? I suspect some >> people may hang up if they are left there ringing for too long. I >> would prefer if the music on hold could be used during the transfer, >> but it doesn't look like it can be done unless someone has some tricks >> up their sleeves that I don't know about. > It can't be changed. > If you are getting the NVM, maybe you should look at the small ACD > included with it. > Dave Phelps > Phone Masters Ltd. > deadspam=tippenring [TELECOM Digest Editor's Note: 'ACD' in my parlance refers to 'Auto- matic Call Distributor' which is a device which collects up incoming calls, puts them in a stack then removes them FIFO (first in first out, *more or less, usually*) style and hands them out to agents or phone room clerks for handling as circuits/phones/humans were avail- able. Typically the ACD units in olden times would answer incoming calls saying something like 'all positions are busy, please hold.' At least the one at Amoco said that. The ACD units back in the 1970's were rather large cabinets full of relays the phone man could walk around inside as he did repairs. I dunno now days, they may be a lot smaller like other electronic stuff. I am not sure if that is the same kind of thing Dave Phelps was talking about or not in his message. PAT] ------------------------------ From: Sasa Nowe Subject: Re: Looking For Prepaid Billing Software & IP Minutes Date: Wed, 25 Sep 2002 20:51:09 +0200 Organization: Slovenija OnLine - SiOL Hi, DId you try the portaone billing system? It's quite good and not expensive. Check www.portaone.com S. Nowe Joy Telecom wrote: > Let me know if you can provide or help. > Best regards, > Mahbub Hussain > Joy Telecom Canada Ltd. > 881 Jane Street #204 A (Jane Park Plaza) > Toronto,Ontario > M6N 4Y8/Canada > Tel:416-762-0094 Fax:416-762-9586 > E-mail: mahbub@on.aibn.com or joytelecom@msn.com ------------------------------ From: Dave Phelps Subject: Re: Nortel Voicemail Card Date: Tue, 24 Sep 2002 23:55:11 -0500 Organization: Posted via Supernews, http://www.supernews.com In article , collinr_@_cvnt.net says: > Hey all, > I have a Nortel Meridian Voicemail box on my MICS phone system. I am > wondering if anybody knows what the model of the dialogic cards used > in these is. I would like to try to make my own system. I was hoping > they were Dialogic D42/NS cards but I didn't see any way to check. > Collin Rose They have used several over the years. Connect a monitor and reboot and you'll see which firmware loads. Dave Phelps Phone Masters Ltd. deadspam=tippenring ------------------------------ TELECOM Digest is an electronic journal devoted mostly but not exclusively to telecommunications topics. It is circulated anywhere there is email, in addition to various telecom forums on a variety of networks such as Compuserve and America On Line, 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: 620-870-9697 Fax 1: 775-255-9970 Fax 2: 775-306-8390 Fax 3: 775-642-0603 Fax 4: 530-309-7234 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 second 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) Email <==> FTP: telecom-archives@telecom-digest.org Send a simple, one line note to that automated address for a help file on how to use the automatic retrieval system for archives files. You can get desired files in email. ************************************************************************* * 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. Access to Premium (P) links requires upgrade to a paid subscription. One click a day feeds a person a meal. Go to http://www.thehungersite.com Only subscribers or registered users of ICB Toll Free News web site will be able to access all or some of the full text of URLs provided. LEGAL STUFF: TELECOM Digest (sm) is owned by Patrick Townson. Copyright 2000 ICB, Inc. and TELECOM Digest. All rights reserved. Our attorney is Bill Levant, of Blue Bell, PA. --------------------------------------------------------------- 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 twenty 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 V22 #49 ***************************** From editor@telecom-digest.org Thu Sep 26 20:01:38 2002 Received: from localhost (localhost [[UNIX: localhost]]) by massis.lcs.mit.edu (8.11.3nb1/8.11.3) id g8R01cL12813; Thu, 26 Sep 2002 20:01:38 -0400 (EDT) Date: Thu, 26 Sep 2002 20:01:38 -0400 (EDT) From: editor@telecom-digest.org Message-Id: <200209270001.g8R01cL12813@massis.lcs.mit.edu> X-Authentication-Warning: massis.lcs.mit.edu: ptownson set sender to editor@telecom-digest.org using -f To: ptownson Approved: patsnewlist Subject: TELECOM Digest V22 #50 TELECOM Digest Thu, 26 Sep 2002 20:02:00 EDT Volume 22 : Issue 50 Inside This Issue: Editor: Patrick A. Townson The Future of American IT (Dave) Invitation to SSGRR Conferences in ITALY! (ssgrr2003w@etf.bg.ac.yu) Cable & Wireless Giving LD Customers to Primus (Mike Sandman) News Headlines of Interest 9/26/02 (Monty Solomon) Re: Turn Your Answering Machine Into a TeleZapper! (Scott D Fybush) Re: Turn Your Answering Machine Into a TeleZapper! (John Higdon) Re: Turn Your Answering Machine Into a TeleZapper! (Heywood Jaiblomi) Re: Turn Your Answering Machine Into a TeleZapper! (Thomas A. 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. WE DO NOT PERMIT NAME/EMAIL ADDRESS HARVESTING FROM THIS JOURNAL. 'SALTED' EMAIL ADDRESSES APPEAR HEREIN TO VERIFY THIS. YOU GET SUED IN SMALL CLAIMS COURT IF YOU GET CAUGHT SPAMMING OR SENDING VIRUSES. DON'T DO IT. See the bottom of this issue for subscription and archive details and the name of our lawyer; other stuff of interest. ---------------------------------------------------------------------- From: Dave Subject: Re: The Future of American IT Organization: Prodigy Internet http://www.prodigy.com Date: Thu, 26 Sep 2002 19:49:38 GMT FYI (Believe it or not...) Fred Elbel wrote in message news:j126pukoenjommgib7sjpe2lli4235gb8s@4ax.com: Wed, 25 Sep 2002 From: Prof. Norm Matloff UC Davis Subject: The future To: age discrimination/H-1B e-newsletter This will be one of my longer postings, but I think it is one of the most important. I ask for your patience. I'm enclosing below an editorial in last week's Computerworld. The editor had surveyed some executives who had won awards from Computerworld -- not a very scientific sample, but with results worth looking at. The most relevant passage is the following: Is the IT labor market shrinking? Most said yes...One IT executive said it's too expensive to develop software in the U.S. "Techno nerd" jobs will outright disappear, particularly ones in programming and application development. But database, network and systems administrators are safe. Sadly, this is basically the same advice I have been giving students who ask me. I would differ somewhat from the executives surveyed in certain aspects. Programming and application development jobs will NOT "outright disappear [to overseas]," but I do believe that the lion's share of them will be done by H-1Bs. As John Miano puts it: ...there were 202,000 [H-1B visas granted] last year and if 53% were programmers (the last number I saw from the INS) that means there were 106,000 H-1B programmers for [a net new] 85,000 jobs. How can that be? Well, some of those visas were renewals, some of the existing jobs were cases of Americans being replaced by H-1Bs (see below), and so on. Due to differing fiscal-year definitions, the two numbers above aren't quite for the same time periods, and then there are issues of job titles and definitions. Nevertheless, it should be clear that the percentage of new hires in programming jobs filled by H-1Bs is much, much higher than the 28% figure found by the Dept. of Commerce a few years ago. (That figure itself was already startlingly high to a lot of people who aren't immersed in the situation. And even though I too have been telling students that "database, network and systems administrators are safe" for them (on the grounds that facility with English and American culture is important for these jobs), I'm not so sure of that either. For example, according to the complaint filed by Guy Santiglia against Sun Microsytems (one of the most aggressive lobbyists to get Congress to set high H-1B quotas), Sun laid off large numbers of American SYSTEM ADMINISTRATORS and replaced them by H-1Bs. So that job category doesn't sound so safe after all. That isn't even counting what I call the "blue collar-ization" of the whole systems administrator business. Consider the two main worlds here, Microsoft and UNIX. After Microsoft started the MCSE "certificate" concept a few years ago, large numbers of nontechnical people took MCSE courses, got certificates, and became technicians. A lot of them didn't have college degrees, coming for example from jobs at Home Depot. But in the UNIX world, people doing mostly the same kind of work (granted, sometimes doing a bit of programming) have generally had college degrees in CS or other technical fields. Yet the MCSE people are basically system administrators. There is already a trend for MCSE types to start doing UNIX too, and I believe that that will accelerate. Now all of this is in direct contrast to the screaming articles in the press just four years ago, telling our young university students to study computer science. This was supposed to be the most lucrative, growth-destined profession in America's future. Even those of us who were raising dissenting voices at the time will be surprised by the degree of implosion of this profession in the next few years, I fear. I've always noted that I am one of the few people on either side of the H-1B debate who are not affected by the issue personally. I've got this nice job with tenure, but I do feel for those who are affected, and most of all what it is doing to morale of our young people. There are only so many times that young people will allow the major institutions of society -- the press, Congress, Big Business, and yes, academia -- to lie to them. In that regard, I am also enclosing, following the Computerworld editorial, a letter from a member of this e-mail list, which expresses these concerns quite eloquently. Norm http://www.computerworld.com/managementtopics/management/story/0,10801,74184 ,00.html Mapping IT's Future By PATRICIA KEEFE SEPTEMBER 16, 2002 We received a letter last week from a dispirited worker with 15 years of IT experience. He's been laid off, can't find a job and expects to leave the profession. He says the influx of cheap labor that cost him his job is "the beginning of the dismantling of the American technology worker." Coincidently, some industry pundits are strongly predicting the demise of corporate IT departments. That will happen by 2006 or thereabouts, according to David Foote, president of Foote Partners and a Computerworld columnist. He and many others predict that IT will be dispersed throughout the enterprise as part of the fabric of the company. Business users will be capable of taking on lower-level technical tasks, freeing a smaller core of IT staffers to focus on analytical and strategic issues. Will CIOs and IT departments become obsolete? Are they morphing into new roles? What impact will a computer-literate workforce have on changing those roles? I threw those questions out to Computerworld's Premier 100 award winners and Executive Suite community members, and an impressive 160 of them took the time to send me some thought-provoking feedback. The economy aside, most IT leaders remain optimistic that there will be a role for IT. Reading over their comments, I gleaned this consensus: Is the IT labor market shrinking? Most said yes, thanks to the evolution of the technology itself. As technology becomes easier to user, more efficient, self-healing and ubiquitous, a lot of the heavy lifting can be left to business units and users, or become outsourced. One IT executive said it's too expensive to develop software in the U.S. "Techno nerd" jobs will outright disappear, particularly ones in programming and application development. But database, network and systems administrators are safe. "They are the unsung heroes of IT," another exec said. Most said IT departments are permanent, but shrinking. Forget about the nuts and bolts. Ideally, said one IT vice president, "the emphasis in technology will move away from managing projects to applying information systems effectively." Others said to prepare for a heavy emphasis on standards-setting, infrastructure-tending, process re-engineering and strategizing. Understanding the business side of the equation will become absolutely critical, especially as business units take over some IT functions and development efforts. Adaptability and a lifelong commitment to learning will become essential. What about the impact of a more computer-savvy workforce? Most of those who replied carefully distinguished between what one reader called experienced users of technology and experienced technologists. "They are magnificent users of what others have already created, sort of the race car drivers of the techno world," said one veteran IT pro. To be sure, the younger generations will enter the workforce with higher expectations for performance and service, which in turn will be provided by new waves of IT workers. "As technology becomes easier to use, IT becomes more complex to manage," said one college dean of computing. Although the future of IT seems safe, don't get too comfortable. "The genie is out of the bottle," warns one of your peers. "Stop believing and behaving [like] you are the only resource who can do IT-related tasks!" Another algorithm for success is to "keep reinventing yourself" because traditional IT is about to go by the boards. As our kids become more technically astute and the technology gets better, it will put pressure on traditional IT workers to stay ahead of the needs of end users in order to stay employed. But staying ahead is what you've always done. Patricia Keefe is editorial director at Computerworld. You can contact her at patricia_keefe@computerworld.com. From: *********** Date: Tue, 24 Sep 2002 Subject: Re: Peoria Journal Star article - Letters to Editor Dr. Matloff: Yes, you can post the following article in your newsletter: The public and the media must realize and come to terms with the negative effects engineers' and programmers' job insecurities are having on our teenagers and youngsters. The upcoming American generation is crucial to the United States' technological survival. My two sons are aged fifteen and ten. My high school son is a Science Honors student while my ten year old has been accepted in accelerated math. Due to my previous layoffs along with those of fellow engineers and programmers, my wife is discouraging our sons from majoring in engineering and\or computer science. I'm certain that this same scenario is being played out in thousands of American homes. Why should our children "rack their brains out" in Science, Math and Engineering in good American colleges for four years only to face stagnant wages and layoffs upon graduation? The H-1B and other engineering wage busting issues are symptomatic of something much more sinister and dangerous for America in the long term and this is government's, academia's and corporation's abandoning and forsaking their homegrown technological base. Concurrent with this ominous trend is the draining of our technical prowess to third world and potentially dangerous nations. I'm certain that Iraq's Sadam Hussein and Al Qaeda's Osama Bin Laden would love to have access to our communications' cryptographic secrets. If these trends continue, America will become a second-rate technological nation in ten-to-twenty years. This is the fate that awaits a nation that takes its engineering and scientific talent for granted. My formative youthful years were in the sixties right after the launch of Soviet Sputnik. In those days American culture promoted and nurtured its scientific and engineering career paths for its youth. Companies held on to their engineers and scientists. I know quite a few retirees in their seventies and eighties who retired after 30-to-40 years with one company. It's important to note that their salaries were not that high at their retirement. These retired engineers and scientists were not greedy individuals. All they wanted was a livable wage, good benefits, innovative work environment and job security. Corporations and government being only too happy to give them these small benefits realized the even bigger return they received with long term in-house technical know-how that these individuals provided. Forty years ago companies valued their human technical resources. Companies had long range visions. For example, RCA's David Sarnoff as ruthless as he may have been (I believe that he stole Philo Farnsworth's TV ideas) never believed in laying off his treasured engineers and scientists. (This was relayed to me by a retired former RCA engineer. Sarnoff was bent upon making RCA a world-class electronics power, and he had a long term view of where he wanted his company to be in a ten-to-twenty year time period and beyond. Consequently, RCA programmers, engineers and scientist had long term job security. Unfortunately, Sarnoff died years before RCA's 1986 takeover by GE and "Neutron Jack" Welch, and those once valued RCA engineers and scientists found themselves on the street jobless. GE's long term view of the future ended with the next quarter's earnings and profits. When GE laid off 800 engineers and scientists at its Astrospace Division in East Windsor, NJ, (formerly RCA Astroelectronics) and Valley Forge, PA, locations in 1991-1992, men and women with doctorates and patents in high technology space, communications and electronics specialties were included. To me, this proved that GE had no vision of the future other than to placate the corporate board room's lust and greed for quarterly profit. Incidentally, this layoff resulted in the loss of GE's one billion dollar Mars Observer probe as well as the multimillion dollar failures of GE's Landsat and Telstar satellites in 1993 and 1994. Unfortunately, neither corporate nor public (i.e., government and media) America has learned its lessons from these past fiascoes and mistakes. ------------------------------ Date: Fri, 27 Sep 2002 01:06:36 +0200 From: ssgrr2003w@rti7020.etf.bg.ac.yu Subject: Invitation to SSGRR Conferences in ITALY! CALL FOR PAPERS AND PARTICIPATION AT SSGRR CONFERENCES IN YEAR 2003 The SSGRR (Scuola Superiore G Reiss Romoli) Congress Center, Telecom Italia Learning Services, L'Aquila (near Rome), ITALY (www.ssgrr.it). We are honored to invite you to submit and present your paper(s) at the two SSGRR conferences specified below: INTERNATIONAL CONFERENCES ON ADVANCES IN INFRASTRUCTURE FOR ELECTRONIC BUSINESS, EDUCATION, SCIENCE, MEDICINE, AND MOBILE TECHNOLOGIES ON THE INTERNET WINTER Conference 2003: From Monday January 6 at 5pm till Sunday January 12 at 10am To submit paper or ask questions: ssgrr2003w@rti7020.etf.bg.ac.yu Keynotes: Lyman (Berkeley), Neuhold (Fraunhofer), Neal (Tufts Medical School), ... SUMMER Conference 2003: From Monday July 28 at 5pm till Sunday August 3 at 10am To submit paper or ask questions: ssgrr2003s@rti7020.etf.bg.ac.yu Keynotes: Kroto (Nobel Laureate), Patt (IEEE Eckert-Mauchly Laureate), Carlton (US Air Force Surgeon General), ... For details, see IEEE COMPUTER, Aug 2002 (page 33) and the WWW site www.ssgrr.it (written carefully+precisely, with answers to all FAQ). Check with past participants (their names/emails are on the WWW). Most of them believe this is the most interesting, rewarding, and definitely the most hospitable conference they ever attended! Fast professional and peer review in 15 days. Capacity of the SSGRR congress center is 200 participants. The list of participants will be closed after 200 papers accepted. Consequently, SUBMIT YOUR PAPER(S) AS EARLY AS POSSIBLE! Location (see WWW for details): SSGRR is the DE-LUX congress and education center of the Telecom Italia Learning Services, located about 60 miles from Rome, near Gran Sasso (the highest Appenini peak), with fast access to the major Appenini ski resorts (in winters, 15 minutes by car), and Adriatic sea beaches (in summers, 45 minutes by car). Keynotes (see WWW for details): A Nobel Laureate was the keynote speaker each year in the past (Jerome Friedman of MIT, Robert Richardson of Cornell, etc...), and the major 2003 keynote is also reserved for a Nobel Laureate (Harry Kroto from United Kingdom). Other 2003 keynote speakers are Yale Patt from UofTexas@Austin (an IEEE Eckert-Mauchly Laureate), Paul Carlton (US Air Force Surgeon General), etc. Schedule (see WWW for details): Monday = Arrival day, registration, and cocktail Tuesday = Gran Sasso Nat'l Lab tour, tutorials, and opening ceremony Wednesday/Thursday/Friday = Presentation of research papers Saturday = Tutorials and peripathetic discussions Sunday = Departure day Deadlines (see WWW for details): For title and abstract (about 100 words): October 15, 2002 (for Winter 2003) April 30, 2003 (for Summer 2003) For papers (IEEE Transactions format, min 4 pages, max 1MB): November 15, 2002 (for Winter 2003) May 30, 2003 (for Summer 2003) For payment (stay, and fee if applicable): December 10, 2002 (for Winter 2003) June 30, 2003 (for Summer 2003) Payment (see WWW for details): No conference fee for those with papers to present (others: euro600). No fee for tutorials. All participants must stay inside SSGRR (no outside stays allowed). Full 6-day stay (from Monday evening till Sunday breakfast): euro1200. A 5-day stay (without one tutorial day): euro1000. Minimal 4-day stay (for research papers only): euro 800. Favourable conditions for accompanying persons (see the WWW). For late payment rules see the WWW. Important (see WWW for details): When submitting your paper, insert the 3-letter field code (exact codes on WWW), so the placement of papers per sessions is more efficient. Insert your WWW site URL (if you have one). If you submit a paper, you will get 2 other papers for a fast review (in up to 10 days). Your presentation time is 25 minutes, plus 5 minutes for discussions. Chairman of the session is the presenter of the last paper in that session. Moving of presentation slots is not permitted (in cases of non-show-up). If you like to be reinvited for a future SSGRR conference, let us know. WE HOPE TO SEE YOU AT SSGRR! Professor Veljko Milutinovic, General Chairman ------------------------------ From: Mike Sandman Subject: Cable & Wireless giving LD customers to Primus Date: Thu, 26 Sep 2002 16:48:58 -0500 Organization: Mike Sandman Enterprises Reply-To: mike@sandman.com We've been a long distance customer of Cable & Wireless for a few years, and have had perfect service. This is in stark contrast to the horrible service/customer service we received from LDDS and then Worldcom for many years before. They recently sent us a letter saying they're turning our account over to Primus Telecommunications, since they are getting out of the US long distance market. Interestingly, the letter said "Please note that existing preferred carrier freezes on the service(s) involved in the transfer will be lifted; you will need to contact your local phone company if you wish to arrange a new freeze." How in the hell does that work! I searched around for comments on Primus, and it looks like they offer good phone service, have low rates, but it's hard to reach their customer service. I'm wondering if anyone has had experience with Primus in the US. I have a pretty short fuse for the morons other companys employ in customer service, and I don't need to raise my blood pressure dealing with another bunch of idiots. If you've had good customer service from Primus or another LD company, I'd like to hear that. We haven't needed to call Cable & Wireless customer service since we changed to them, so I don't know for sure it was OK. It sure was nice not having to call customer service! It would be nice to switch to another company that did a good job with both service and customer service, even if we had to spend more money. We currently spend around $350 a month with C&W - and we don't have the cheapest rates possible. That's been a real time/blood pressure saver for us, compared to the idiots at LDDS and Worldcom. Thanks ... Mike [TELECOM Digest Editor's Note: Mike Sandman is the proprietor of http:sandman.com where I suggest everyone *at least look* at his online catalog of telephone peripheral equipment. If he does not have it, then you can't get it. He has also been a valued patron ands friend of this Digest for many years. PAT] ------------------------------ Date: Thu, 26 Sep 2002 00:44:35 -0400 From: Monty Solomon Subject: News Headlines of Interest 9/26/02 Apple 'Open Sources' Rendezvous CUPERTINO, Calif., Sept. 25 /PRNewswire-FirstCall/ -- Apple(R) (NASDAQ:AAPL) today announced it is "open sourcing" the code for its innovative new Rendezvous(TM) networking technology. Rendezvous, based on open Internet Engineering Task Force (IETF) Standard Protocols such as IP, ARP and DNS, uses industry standard networking protocols and zero configuration technology to automatically discover and connect devices over any IP network, such as Ethernet or 802.11-based wireless networks like Apple's Airport(R). Major developers such as Canon, Epson, Hewlett-Packard, Lexmark, Philips, Sybase, World Book and Xerox have announced support for Rendezvous in a broad range of products spanning network printers, consumer electronics, enterprise database management and educational applications. http://finance.lycos.com/home/news/story.asp?story=28823579 Cable TV bills getting cheaper Prices cut as consumers increasingly turn to satellite TV THE WALL STREET JOURNAL Like death and taxes, sharply rising cable rates have been a certainty for tens of millions of Americans. But that may be about to change. WITH GROWING NUMBERS OF people switching to satellite TV, cable companies are under pressure to hold down rates, and one major player has already promised to freeze them in some markets. Several of the nation's largest cable companies are also rolling out cheaper packages that are designed to more effectively compete with the enticing offers from satellite companies. http://www.msnbc.com/news/812734.asp?cp1 DTV's Political Stakes Run High Reuters WASHINGTON -- Broadcasters and cable television system operators squared off in front of Congress Tuesday, angling for advantage in a proposed bill that would require them to switch to digital signals by the end of 2006. Lawmakers, meanwhile, fretted that consumers could ultimately suffer the most if their existing TVs, VCRs and other video devices become obsolete in the next four years. The political costs for a botched transition could be high, suggested New York Democratic Rep. Eliot Engel. http://www.wired.com/news/politics/0,1283,55400,00.html Nokia introduces the world's first handset for WCDMA and GSM networks; The compact Nokia 6650 camera phone marks an important milestone in the evolution to 3G HELSINKI, Finland--(BUSINESS WIRE)--Sept. 26, 2002--Nokia (NYSE:NOK) today announced the world's first 3GPP (Third Generation Partnership Project) compliant mobile phone operating both in the GSM 900/1800 frequencies and on the WCDMA (Wideband Code Division Multiple Access) protocol. One of the benefits of the WCDMA radio interface in the Nokia 6650 phone is it allows running more than one data session simultaneously. This makes it possible, for example, to capture and share what the user sees whilst talking on the phone. The dual-mode functionality makes the Nokia 6650 phone the world's first GSM/WCDMA handset to work in Europe and Asia including Japan. The first deliveries for operator-controlled live network tests of the Nokia 6650 phone will start during fourth quarter, 2002. Depending on the WCDMA networks' opening schedules and the maturity of the interoperability between networks, services and terminals, the first commercial deliveries of the Nokia 6650 are estimated to start during first half of 2003. The Nokia 6650 phone offers robust functionality with pocket size comfort. Encompassing a large color display, integrated camera with picture and video capture, as well as voice, multiple data connectivity options and an advanced user interface, this innovative product is ideally suited to anyone who desires a mobile phone that combines leading-edge functionality with a high quality feel. http://finance.lycos.com/home/news/story.asp?story=28836521 Wildly Optimistic Data Drove Telecoms to Build Fiber Glut Internet traffic grew, but amount of excess capacity remains vast By Yochi J. Dreasen THE WALL STREET JOURNAL Sept. 26 - Of all of the myths that drove the 1990s technology boom - dot-coms made good investments, the New Economy would never experience a recession, small telecom companies could beat the mighty Bells - the most damaging may have been the fallacy that Internet traffic was doubling every three months. THE BELIEF that Internet traffic could grow so quickly - if true, it would have meant annual growth of more than 1,000% - led more than a dozen companies to build expensive networks as they rushed to claim a piece of the next gold rush. The statistic sprouted up in reports by industry analysts, journalists and even government agencies, which repeated it as if it were the gospel truth. "Internet traffic," the Commerce Department said in a 1998 report, "doubles every 100 days." http://www.msnbc.com/news/813117.asp ------------------------------ From: fybush@world.std.com (Scott D Fybush) Subject: Re: Turn Your Answering Machine Into a TeleZapper! Organization: The World Public Access UNIX, Brookline, MA Date: Thu, 26 Sep 2002 04:09:33 GMT I'm puzzled by everyone going to all the trouble to put SIT tones on their answering machines and so on. Right now, I think I'm avoiding 90% of the telemarketers who call simply by refusing to wait for THEM to get around to talking to me. In other words, if answering the phone "This is Scott" instead of "Hello" doesn't make their predictive dialer hang up (and it does, about half the time), I can tell 'em every time by the dead air while the predictive dialer tries to find a live salesdroid to read a script at me. The people I want to talk to don't wait six seconds to begin speaking to me ... and in the unlikely event one does, they'll call back. Plus, I get to enjoy the thought of some telemarketer sitting there listening to me hang up just as he/she/it is about to begin its spiel. (The one call that does seem to get through, probably because they do it in a very low-tech way with humans dialing instead of a predictive dialer, is my alma mater - and the undergraduates who call get my usual "I have a liberal arts degree from your school and I'm UNEMPLOYED" - a half-truth, if you replace "un-" with "self-" - and then generally hang up on ME!) -s ------------------------------ From: John Higdon Subject: Re: Turn Your Answering Machine Into a TeleZapper! Organization: Green Hills and Cows Date: Thu, 26 Sep 2002 00:01:37 -0700 In article , temp6@thewolfden.org wrote: >> I'd much rather see a national "do not call" list with heavy >> penalties for violations. I think it would be more effective. > But that would require an entire network of people to verify, enforce, > tax and penalize, as well as wasting my time trying to report > violations, while a device -- or simply honoring that which already > exists -- would begin working immediately and would cost much less for > _everyone_ involved. Why would anyone honor a "device" if they won't honor a list? A list is easy to administer, and the enforcement mechanism could be civil liability. Wouldn't YOU be willing to bring an action against someone for several thousand dollars? My time is valuable, but I think I could make time for that. The point is that after a few notable cases, I would bet that junk calls would drop to nothing in no time for anyone on that list. -- John Higdon | Email Address Valid | SF: +1 415 428-COWS +1 408 264 4115 | Anytown, USA | FAX: +1 408 264 4407 ------------------------------ From: Heywood Jaiblomi Subject: Re: Turn Your Answering Machine Into a TeleZapper! Date: 26 Sep 2002 20:47:40 GMT Organization: Uncle Heywood's Trousers of Fun John Higdon wrote in news:telecom22.48.4 @telecom-digest.org: > I'd much rather see a national "do not call" list with heavy penalties > for violations. I think it would be more effective. I'm more concerned with violence against telemarketers. I think there should be a stiff $5 fine for anyone who beats the stuffing out of a telemarketer. But to be fair, it should only be $5 per incident per day. In other words if someone beats up two telemarketers at the same place on the same day, the fine should only be $5 in total, not $5 each. I also think the fine should be collected on the spot, and a receipt issued which would close the matter entirely and no further proceedings could be brought against the person who paid the $5 fine. ------------------------------ Subject: Re: Turn Your Answering Machine Into a TeleZapper! From: tom.horsley@att.net (Thomas A. Horsley) Organization: AT&T Worldnet Date: Thu, 26 Sep 2002 21:58:56 GMT > But that would require an entire network of people to verify, enforce, > tax and penalize, as well as wasting my time trying to report > violations, while a device -- or simply honoring that which already > exists -- would begin working immediately and would cost much less for > _everyone_ involved. Actually, we already have such a network. It is called "the phone company". All we really need is to present the do not call proposal in such a way that it will be profit making for the phone companies, then their lobbyists will outbid the telemarketer lobbyists. Heres my try: 1. I register my phone on the national "do not call" list by dialing a magic number and punching in touch tone codes of some kind. 2. If I get a telemarking call after doing that, I punch in some magic # code that means "I just got a call from a telemarketing bum who ignored the list". This immediately charges the last caller on my line an extra $30 and credits my account with $25 of that and the phone company with a $5 processing fee (which also helps pay for the do not call list, so I don't have to pay any fee to put myself on the list). I make money, the phone company makes money, and the telemarketers actually have to pay for ignoring the do not call list. Then the phone company can add yet another profit making service that screens phone numbers for the telemarketers so their outgoing phones can't dial "do not call" numbers (only charging $0.50 each - less than the $30 they would get hit with otherwise). You see - you just have to game the system the right way :-). >>==>> The *Best* political site >>==+ email: Tom.Horsley@worldnet.att.net icbm: Delray Beach, FL | Free Software and Politics <<==+ ------------------------------ TELECOM Digest is an electronic journal devoted mostly but not exclusively to telecommunications topics. It is circulated anywhere there is email, in addition to various telecom forums on a variety of networks such as Compuserve and America On Line, 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: 620-870-9697 Fax 1: 775-255-9970 Fax 2: 775-306-8390 Fax 3: 775-642-0603 Fax 4: 530-309-7234 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 second 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) Email <==> FTP: telecom-archives@telecom-digest.org Send a simple, one line note to that automated address for a help file on how to use the automatic retrieval system for archives files. You can get desired files in email. ************************************************************************* * 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. Access to Premium (P) links requires upgrade to a paid subscription. One click a day feeds a person a meal. Go to http://www.thehungersite.com Only subscribers or registered users of ICB Toll Free News web site will be able to access all or some of the full text of URLs provided. LEGAL STUFF: TELECOM Digest (sm) is owned by Patrick Townson. Copyright 2000 ICB, Inc. and TELECOM Digest. All rights reserved. Our attorney is Bill Levant, of Blue Bell, PA. --------------------------------------------------------------- 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 twenty 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 V22 #50 ***************************** From editor@telecom-digest.org Thu Sep 26 22:22:06 2002 Received: from localhost (localhost [[UNIX: localhost]]) by massis.lcs.mit.edu (8.11.3nb1/8.11.3) id g8R2M6d13821; Thu, 26 Sep 2002 22:22:06 -0400 (EDT) Date: Thu, 26 Sep 2002 22:22:06 -0400 (EDT) From: editor@telecom-digest.org Message-Id: <200209270222.g8R2M6d13821@massis.lcs.mit.edu> X-Authentication-Warning: massis.lcs.mit.edu: ptownson set sender to editor@telecom-digest.org using -f To: ptownson Approved: patsnewlist Subject: TELECOM Digest V22 #51 TELECOM Digest Thu, 26 Sep 2002 22:22:00 EDT Volume 22 : Issue 51 Inside This Issue: Editor: Patrick A. Townson Re: State of Pennsylvania v. WorldCom -- Court Docs (Michael D. Sullivan) Re: State of Pennsylvania v. WorldCom -- Court Docs (Barry Margolin) Re: Anti-Spam Filter Blocks XX and Others (Wesrock@aol.com) Re: SpamAssassin: Telemarketers Calling Businesses (Dave Phelps) Re: SpamAssassin: Telemarketers Calling Businesses (John Higdon) Re: One Area Code to Unify Divided Town (Mark Roberts) Re: Norstar ICS 4.0 and Music on Hold (Dave Phelps) Avaya Cajun P333 (jabriol) American Caller Id Compatibile With European? (Caller id) International Overseas 800 Numbers? (Ted Koppel) Re: Tampering With Payphones? (Dr. Joel M. Hoffman) SS7 ? LEC and CMRS (Phil Smiley) NPA-NXX and LATA (Marise_A_Klapka@NDGSTP.COM) 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. WE DO NOT PERMIT NAME/EMAIL ADDRESS HARVESTING FROM THIS JOURNAL. 'SALTED' EMAIL ADDRESSES APPEAR HEREIN TO VERIFY THIS. YOU GET SUED IN SMALL CLAIMS COURT IF YOU GET CAUGHT SPAMMING OR SENDING VIRUSES. DON'T DO IT. See the bottom of this issue for subscription and archive details and the name of our lawyer; other stuff of interest. ---------------------------------------------------------------------- From: Michael D. Sullivan Subject: Re: State of Pennsylvania v. WorldCom -- Court Documents Now Date: Thu, 26 Sep 2002 04:16:21 GMT On Wed, 25 Sep 2002 09:10:09 -0400, TELECOM Digest Editor noted in response to Monty Solomon: > [TELECOM Digest Editor's Note: As usual, someone is lying about the > inability to block things they don't like, and how everyone, everywhere > has to be blocked. Worldcom/MCI is good at making up stories like that. I believe it's not quite that simple, Pat. > First of all, if it is technically correct that they cannot block one > state without doing the entire country, then Worldcom should have > respectfully suggested to the court that because PA does not micro-manage > the entire United States, the matter was outside the PA court's juris- > diction and get it transferred to federal court. But the thing is, it > is NOT technically impossible. Consider this: the internet is world- > wide. Why wouldn't Worldcom claim the entire world had to be blocked > therefore? Neither does Worldcom handle all internet circuits in the > USA. I am making the assumption the offending web site is located in > PA or some PA resident was offended by the viewing, which would give > PA authorities the right to act against the site (by blocking access > to PA residents). But it is NOT technically correct that it is > 'impossible to block one state without blocking everyone'. MCI knows > or should know that, else they should pension off Vint Cerf and get > someone else to handle internet things. Worldcom made clear that it is not an ISP; it is a backbone operator. It has no way of knowing where the user is located when a user's browser seeks to send packets to a particular IP address. The user's ISP resolves the IP address through DNS and routes the packets to one or another backbone provider, often through a series of regional routes to a major peering point. In the case of Pennsylvania, the packets very likely go to MAE-East, in Herndon, VA, the mother of peering points. MAE-East is operated by Worldcom. The packets seeking to reach xx.xx.xx.xx from a PA subscriber come in to MAE-East mixed with packets from all over the world seeking to reach points accessible from Worldcom's North American backbone. The packets from PA may in some cases be routed to MAE-East via New York City, Ashburn, VA (AOL), Arlington, VA (Verizon), or for that matter Chicago, San Francisco, or Austin. MAE-East has *no* way of knowing whether the originating point of the packets handed off by Qwest, Alternet, or any other national or regional backbone operator is in PA because of the diverse routing of Internet packets. At best, MAE-East could do reverse DNS on the packets to figure out which ISP's network they came from. But even that doesn't tell where on earth the packets originated. An AOL subscriber (to take the largest ISP) could be located literally anywhere on earth. A Verizon, Earthlink, or SBC subscriber could be anywhere in the United States. The geographic address of the IP block's administrative or technical contact would only lead to a centralized location for the large operators such as these. (All AOL subscribers would appear to be from Virginia, by this logic.) A subscriber to an ISP with an administrative address outside the U.S. could actually be sending packets from within the U.S. or even Pennsylvania. A subscriber with a .tv TLD (Tuvalu) is more likely to be located in Philadelphia than in Tuvalu. And, as a practical matter, Worldcom could not do reverse-DNS and geographic checking of the administrative address on each packet when MAE-East gets billions (or maybe even trillions) of packets every second, without tremendous cost and slowing the entire Internet to a halt. Lag times would climb to tens of seconds. > Second, let's make another, admittedly broad assumption; that *most > netizens* use ISPs or DSLs or cable faciltities in their own state > and or region. With this assumption, however valid it is, why didn't > the court bring in representatives for those ISPs/DSLs/cablecos and > order *them* to do the blocking locally? Do not pass traffic from > your customers to those particular IP addresses ... do not hand the > traffic to Worldcom *or any other backbone*. Verbotin, forbidden. > Here is a list of IP addresses we do not want residents of PA to > have access to. Kill the traffic there at your switch. Oh yes, I > know that some of the local ISPs and cablecos, etc 'splash' a little > outside the geographic boundaries of their states, etc (so a few of > their customers would be blocked if they remained with that ISP, > etc) and I know some people in PA would no doubt use a 'national > ISP' such as AOL, etc so not everyone would be 'caught' who made > those viewings and maybe some viewers on state boundary lines might > get imposed on. I'll agree that it would have been better to approach ISPs operating in PA. However, it's probably not a valid assumption that "most netizens use ISPs or DSLs or cable facilites in their own state or region." "Most" Pennsylvanians probably use AOL, Verizon, Comcast, AT&T, or a reseller of these. All of these are located outside Pennsylvania, although they have extensive facilities in PA. The administrative contact address for their IP address will be located outside PA, and blocking only providers with administrative contact addresses in PA would let through the vast majority of traffic originating from PA. If all ISPs providing connectivity accessible from PA were subjected to the ban instead of Worldcom, then AOL, Verizon, Comcast, AT&T, etc. would have had to block all, or virtually all, of their nationwide customers' access to the sites, just as Worldcom had to. If the target of the suit had been ISPs with PA administrative contact addresses, then Adelphia would have to cut off all of its subscribers nationwide. > But I really believe if Worldcom/MCI had explained this to the court, > the court would have been quite happy to wind up with around a 90-95 > percent compliance (those PA netizens who use local ISPs and cables to > do their viewing) instead of millions of the rest of us being imposed > on to satisfy Worldcom's ignorance in the matter. You *can* take a > small subset of the overall traffic (PA residents) and mostly block it > off from some other small subset outbound (viewing of porn sites, > etc). The fact that a few people get around the blockade and a few > others (with no judicial order in effect) cannot get past does not > invalidate the whole concept. No you can't, for the reasons stated above. It is very unlikely that any significant percentage -- certainly not a majority -- of PA netizens use ISPs or cable companies with operations headquartered in PA for their connectivity. The ones who use Adelphia cable, yes. Also the ones who use PA-only mom-and-pop ISPs. But not those who use AOL, Verizon, AT&T, Comcast, SBC, etc., and I'd have to wager that the latter group is a vast majority of PA netizens. > Years and years ago, when Compuserve was owned by H&R Block and this > Digest was a regular 'bulletin board' feature there, (known as > 'Telephone Topics' and messages were traded with this Digest), the > Compuserve people very graciously gave me a comp account at no charge > (in the old 73500 series of numbers where all their non-staff yet > still comp accounts were kept) as a valued member of the Compuserve > Community, with an 800 number access, mind you, so I did not pay five > cents to use Compuserve, or call them. And I ran around all over the > system in every room, every feature, etc *except* the 'CB Simulator' > and associated private chats, etc. > When I tried a couple times to use CB Simulator, as they called their > user-chat system, I always got locked out of it with a message on the > screen saying, "Sorry, but seventy-three-five accounts calling on our > toll-free lines are NOT permitted to use Simulator. Use your own paid > account/phone line for this feature." They certainly knew the > difference between 312 and 800 and how to prevent the one from getting > in while permitting the other. And I assume they also knew that chat, > which has always paid the rent and payroll at CIS since it was first > started and tends to retain users on line longer (for hours and hours > at a time in the wee hours) would be eagerly used by dirty old men > eager to trade pictures, fantasies, lies and other things all night as > long as it was all on someone else's nickle. No fools, those CIS > programmers in the old days. They knew how to prevent certain 'nodes' > from getting into certain features. You are talking about a proprietary network, Pat. Before it was tied into the Internet, CIS was a closed network, centrally managed. Every person on the network was a CIS subscriber, employee, or comped host. Every attempt to access a feature was cross-checked with the billing system to make sure your account qualified. This does not resemble the Internet any more than a pretzel resembles a plate of spaghetti. Topologically they are entirely different. > That's why I thought it odd many years ago also when the German Secret > Police, or whatever they are called, raided the Compuserve offices in > Germany and arrested several people, based on the German Police claim > that 'certain Usenet newsgroups are obscene/Nazi-oriented and against > our laws'. CIS in the USA screamed and said 'well now we have to > block access to all of Altnet (as in alt.sex) to our USA customers as > well, before the Germans will let us off the hook over there, since > there is no way to tell the difference.' Some folks patiently > explained to CIS management about how '800' nodes were distinct from > the nodes of other area codes and why couldn't they block the (German) > nodes from Usenet or Altnet rather than punishing the whole > world. Once CIS confirmed that indeed they were doing that here in the > USA on 800/others <--> chat/other features, the problem soon went > away, leaving the German people to deal with their own hangups/dislikes. This is due to the fact that CIS continued to be a closed, proprietary network tied to its billing system even after opening up some connectivity with the Internet. The German subscribers connected to Usenet and the Internet through centralized facilities in the U.S. CIS's initial reaction was due to the fact that U.S. and German subscribers access Usenet groups through the same U.S. gateways. Then it became apparent that because of the centralized control CIS exercised, it knew who was accessing Usenet and could make determinations based on originating dial-in node through its billing system. > That's where Vint Cerf/Worldcom/MCI need to studying now; chop off as > much connectivity as legally needed; chop off as little as you can get > away with; do not punish the whole country and other netizens also. But > just as CIS years ago wanted to make Altnet and the -- well, rather > peculiar sex fantasies of many of its denizens to be the bad guys > (see, because these guys wanna act out thus and so, now we have to cut > it off for everyone; the fact that Usenet does not earn money for CIS > and uses a lot of our resources has nothing to do with our decision to > pull it off our spools!) is like the present day scenario: The court > says they are embarassed by what PA residents like to look at, so we > will get even by killing the traffic for everyone, PA or not. It really > is a shame when the backbones have to use such blunt instruments to do > their work, and when most folks do not know the difference. PAT] Because the Internet ain't centrally managed, it can't be done the way you want, Pat. Michael D. Sullivan Bethesda, MD, USA (delete NOSPAM from address to mail me) [TELECOM Digest Editor's Note: If what you said in the first paragraph, second sentence is true, 'Worldcom has no way of knowing where user is located or where from when his brouser sends packets to web site' then it would seem I could cheat, steal, and defraud all I wanted on web sites which were reached via Worldcom. As you pointed out, they would have no idea who I was or where I was calling from; perfect ingredients to perpetrate a fraud. But in fact there is a kind of 'caller-id' which tells the receiving site 'this call is from xxx.xx.xxx' so the receiving site can refuse the connection if desired, or at the very least the receiving site can sneer at you saying, 'we know you are calling from xxx.xx.xxxx, so best not try any funny business with OP (other people's) credit cards. Porn sites are especially famous for checking out credit cards they accept and matching their information to sites, etc. Where does the receiving site get the xxx.xx.xxxx if not from Worldcom? Now I know the net is not central, and it is very diverse, but is it *so diverse* that nothing can be made out of those numbers? And in the paragraph where you discuss 'what most PS residents use' you state rightfully that many/most residents use larger national ISPs however the ISP's all have 'extensive facilities' in PA. I would assume the court brought in technical managers from those facilities and instructed them? PAT] ------------------------------ From: Barry Margolin Subject: Re: State of Pennsylvania v. WorldCom -- Court Documents Now Organization: Genuity, Woburn, MA Date: Thu, 26 Sep 2002 14:52:58 GMT In article , TELECOM Digest Editor noted in response to Monty Solomon : > First of all, if it is technically correct that they cannot block one > state without doing the entire country, then Worldcom should have > respectfully suggested to the court that because PA does not micro-manage > the entire United States, the matter was outside the PA court's juris- > diction and get it transferred to federal court. But the thing is, it > is NOT technically impossible. Consider this: the internet is world- > wide. Why wouldn't Worldcom claim the entire world had to be blocked > therefore? Neither does Worldcom handle all internet circuits in the > USA. They didn't say all of North America, they said "all of its North American subscribers", i.e. just Worldcom customers. We've acquiesced to the same order from Pennsylvania, and we have the same problem. In order to block an IP address, we create a black hole route for that IP address. Since our US backbone is a single BGP autonomous system (making heavy use of confederations and route reflectors, to prevent exponential explosion of BGP neighbors), this route is propagated throughout our backbone. We don't advertise it to other ISPs, so it only affects our customers. Barry Margolin, barmar@genuity.net Genuity, Woburn, MA *** DON'T SEND TECHNICAL QUESTIONS DIRECTLY TO ME, post them to newsgroups. Please DON'T copy followups to me -- I'll assume it wasn't posted to the group. ------------------------------ From: Wesrock@aol.com Date: Thu, 26 Sep 2002 09:41:00 EDT Subject: Re: Anti-Spam Filter Blocks XX and Others This was posted by the owner of a list to which I subscribe, one that is the antithesis of spam. I have substituted XX for the name of the list passim. Wes Leatherock wesrock@aol.com wleathus@yahoo.com > ---TECH AND LENGTH ALERT--- > Earthlink, Mindspring, Netcom subscribers of XX ... (BUT of some interest > to all): > This note is being posted to XX .. for FYI of all ... and also being sent > privately to those here with the above ISP addresses. > If I may juxtapose a couple of cliche'ish metaphors: > The inevitable backlash to the spam onslaught now appears to be in full > swing .. with some ISP's implementing policies that are more or less > throwing out the baby with the bathwater. > To be specific, they are throwing out legitimate email. > Earthlink, which is the second largest ISP behind AOL, today began > an anti-spam effort that, among other things, is preventing the > delivery of XX messages. Some sample "bouncebacks" are given below. > Among those apparently affected are some frequent XX contributors .. [names > deleted]. > Since XX is hosted by a major "list server" company handling many other > such lists, Earthlink subscribers .. and those of its other brand names, > Mindspring, Netcom and maybe some others ... are now being spared not only> some spam .. but all material DEEMED spam by Earthlink's technical > criteria... likely meaning hundreds of lists like this and eventually some > private email as well. > The two "mindspring" addresses here .. [name deleted] and one that I > cannot identify ... have already been moved to the digest to cut > down on the bounceback messages I'm getting. The others will also > be moved by tomorrow. In all likelihood, it won't matter. I would > expect the digest version to be blocked too. So might some of my > private emails to these addresses for similar, if technically > unrelated, reasons. When I first discovered this, I contacted the > two "mindspring" subscribers, with a copy to the > earthlink/mindspring complaint address given in the bouncebacks. > That generated an automated response from earthlink with a > moderately technical explanation of what they are doing and what can > be done to appeal it. It's long and fairly complex (having to do > with something called "open relay") and will not be repeated here > except to summarize earthlink's demand that the server host (in this > case "listbox.com") make certain technical changes ... and then > plead with Earthlink to permit its email through. Earthlink makes no > promise to do so ... or to even rapid consideration. So the only > thing I can really do in this situation is to ask the affected > recipients to contact the Earthlink/Mindspring management ... and > scream as loudly as they can. > Failing with that, a change in ISP's might be worth considering. > But I have to note that this issue is not confined to > earthlink/mindspring. Just this week (and for allegedly similar > reasons), Verizon announced some changes that will complicate the > transmission of private email for many of their customers. All will > have to make changes in their software settings .. or change > software. (In my case, I actually had to upgrade my Eudora email > program to accomodate this.) AOL also invisibly blocks much email > .. without bothering to notify either the sender or the recipient > .. based on some technical settings that AOL equates with "spammer." > (For that reason, I cannot send email to anyone on AOL from this > "................com" address and need to switch to one of the other > ten or so addresses that I occasionally use.) Although that's > something of a tangent, all this is related. [Name deleted]'s > "prodigy" account has shown similar quirks. The bottom line is that > the tougher anti-spam filters being put in place by many ISP's are > now beginning to filter legitimate email in significant amounts. > There are national database "blacklists" of email and IP addresses > that are used by ISP's to block email on some fairly arbitrary > criteria. In short, what used to be a fairly dependable system of > communications should be considered that no longer. Every ISP is > free to set its own criteria and filters and just dump email its > automated systems do not like. The customer's option is to scream > or stop paying that ISP. So everyone here should be aware of this > and not assume that something you send will actually reach your > intended recipients. There is also a news story in this .. and > while it has popped up on the radar screen of some local media here > and there, it has not hit the critical mass for a network, newsmag > or NYTimes/WAPost expose ... yet. I suspect at some point that will > happen .. and there will likely be some backlash .. and backtracking > then. For now .. be aware this is happening ... and complain to > those to whom you send your checks if it happens to you. Yes, spam > is a royal pain. I think this is at least equally so. The sample > bouncebacks are below: [list owner's signature deleted] -0- > <...........@earthlink.net>: host mx02.earthlink.net[207.217.120.79] > said: 550 Dialups/open relays blocked. Contact > . <............@ix.netcom.com>: host > mx02.earthlink.net[207.217.120.79] said: 550 Dialups/open relays > blocked. Contact . > <............@earthlink.net>: host > mx02.earthlink.net[207.217.120.79] said: 550 Dialups/open relays > blocked. Contact < openrelay@abuse.earthlink.net>. > <............@earthlink.net>: host > mx02.earthlink.net[207.217.120.79] said: 550 Dialups/open relays > blocked. Contact . > <............@earthlink.net>: host > mx02.earthlink.net[207.217.120.79] said: 550 Dialups/open relays > blocked. Contact . > <............@mindspring.com>: host > mx10.mindspring.com[207.69.200.38] said: 550 Dialups/open relays > blocked. Contact > <............@mindspring.com>: host > mx10.mindspring.com[207.69.200.38] said: 550 Dialups/open relays > blocked. Contact < openrelay@abuse.earthlink.net> Reporting-MTA: > dns; admin.listbox.com [TELECOM Digest Editor's Note: I get that problem a little also with outgoing issues of the Digest. But I get more trouble with *incoming* mail from spam factories which SpamAssassin doesn't always catch. The point scoring system SpamAssassin uses meets the right criteria to allow the mail past, yet when actually reading the incoming mail you could easily see that it was either written by a spammer or an idiot, or maybe the idiot has a part time job as a spammer. I do not think any filtering scheme will ever replace the *human brain and eyes*. Like it or not, I really think the spam-meisters will outlast the rest of us. Gradually we will all get burned out and give up on this thing called 'email' and 'news'? I mean, does *anyone* bother to read Usenet news to the extent most of us did years ago? I'll grant I am not the best example of this: following my brain aneurysm and the fact that after a couple months in a coma I came out of it still alive, I guess I should not have many complaints, but I can tell you wading through the huge amount of spam in the newsgroups is almost impossible for me these days. I find myself 'skimming' many news items; years ago I would eagerly read and devour the news. Now I just get too tired doing it for the hours each day it would take to do it right. How many of you remember CB Radio in the sixties and seventies? By the end of the 1970's it had pretty much gone to hell; in the early 1980's as Usenet got started and 'CB Simulator' we were thrilled . Here were *good* methods to commnicate without all the BS Citizen's Band radio had become. We were totally outraged when (the 1970's CB radio equivilent of) spam totally polluted the people's airwaves. Now thirty year's later, it appears we are about to lose the people's computer network for the same reasons. How much longer do you *really think* we will have our various Digests, newsgroups, email, etc before it is all lost to spammers? It is going fast, for sure. PAT] ------------------------------ From: Dave Phelps Subject: Re: SpamAssassin: Telemarketers Calling Businesses Date: Wed, 25 Sep 2002 22:09:07 -0500 Organization: Posted via Supernews, http://www.supernews.com In article , no-spam@amadeus.kome.com says: > When I am manning a multi-line bank and a line in the > middle rings out of the blue, I typically answer, "Wrong number." A risky thing to do with CID so prevalent, unless you are sending your pilot number as CID on all of your hunt group lines. And trying to get the LEC to program the lines that way can be an experience. Most of the droids deny it's possible, even when I tell them I have it working elsewhere, and give them the phone number of a working configuration. Dave Phelps Phone Masters Ltd. deadspam=tippenring ------------------------------ From: John Higdon Subject: Re: SpamAssassin: Telemarketers Calling Businesses Organization: Green Hills and Cows Date: Wed, 25 Sep 2002 23:56:07 -0700 In article , Dave Phelps wrote: > My understanding, but I don't know the cite, is that it is illegal to > place a call and play a recording. It must be a human on the calling > end when you answer. The rule now states that the machine has to disconnect within five seconds of the called party hanging up. I don't think anyone pays any more attention to that rule than any of the others. There is a lot of junk out there that certainly won't disconnect within five seconds after removal of called supervision. John Higdon | Email Address Valid | SF: +1 415 428-COWS +1 408 264 4115 | Anytown, USA | FAX: +1 408 264 4407 ------------------------------ From: markrobt@hotmail.com (Mark Roberts) Subject: Re: One Area Code to Unify Divided Town Date: Thu, 26 Sep 2002 00:17:01 -0000 Organization: 1.94 meters Wes Leatherock had written: [I had written:] >> ... In California, the county takes precedence over all other >> bodies of local government, e.g., cities do not cross county >> boundaries and new counties and districts cannot be formed without >> approval of a special county commission known as a LAFCO. > That seems curiously restrictive on cities, and would seem to > lead to the kind of bizarre balkanization that is perhaps most > exteme | in St. Louis County, Mo., with about 98 separate municipalities. | These grew because St. Louis city became an independent city (not in | any county) and this fixed the boundary so it could not grow into the | county. St. Louis' legal status in Missouri is actually as a combined city and county (quite similar to San Francisco's status in California). The California prohibition on cities' crossing county lines is a somewhat different situation. There are a few cases of populous areas that are in different cities because they are in different counties: Kensington/Berkeley, San Ramon/Dublin (first one of each pair in Contra Costa, the second in Alameda county). >> For example, I recall that three exchanges in central Missouri were >> moved from ac 816 to ac 314 (now 573) sometime in the mid-1960s. They >> were Centralia (formerly 816-362 a/k/a EMpire 2, became 314/573-682), >> Sturgeon (now 573-687) and Clark (now 573-641). But I don't remember >> exactly when. I also don't remember the specific rationale, but it did >> move the 314-816 line out of relatively populous Boone County into >> more rural Randolph and Audrain counties. > In those years some of them were moved to better coincide with > their toll centers and other electromechanical offices further up the > hierarchy. This sounds consistent with what I know of the situation. General Telephone bought up several local companies in Boone county in the late 1950s and created two clusters of exchanges. One cluster was the one I had described above. The other was centered on the county seat of Columbia. Columbia had DDD by 1959. I remember my parents' putting the big black Automatic Electric phone atop the refrigerator so, as my dad stated, "he [I] wouldn't be calling Hawaii". But the Centralia cluster didn't have true DDD. For a while, it had a limited form of "long distance" where local users would dial "441" plus the seven-digit phone number to reach a number in the Columbia cluster. All other LD calls went to the operator. That ended by the late 1960s when both clusters went 1+ (the Columbia DDD code was "112"). International direct-dialing didn't come to the area until 1986. Columbia has grown tremendously; from about 30 thousand people when I was a little kid there to upwards of 80 thousand with more in the immediately adjacent areas of "the county". Centralia started out the 1960s about a tenth the size of Columbia. It has had slow but steady growth and there are quite a few commuters to Columbia. The fact that a phone call from Centralia to Columbia is still long-distance is the source of *considerable* local resentment...as is the lack of competition in cellular services. Columbia, befitting its position astride I-70 and US 63 (*and* being the home of three college campuses), has Cingular, US Cellular, AT&T Wireless, Sprint PCS, T-Mobile, and Nextel. All except US Cellular don't cover the northeast corner of the county, where Centralia is located. Even so, I know more than a few people in Centralia who keep a US Cellular cell phone in preference to having a GTE^WVerizon^WCenturyTel landline phone because they so resent the LD situation and they need to call/get calls from Columbia often. You don't get the deals on intra-LATA calls that you can get with inter-LATA calls, not in a town of 3600 people, and the cellular service often works out to be the better deal. Also feeding into local opinion is the feeling that GTE, for much of its time serving Boone county, was a third-rate phone company with inferior service that was *especially* slow in getting rid of multi-party lines. GTE really cleaned up its act starting in 1986, no doubt keenly aware of Columbia's rapid growth, and even installed DSL relatively early on. The Verizon acquisition erased some of that hard-won goodwill and there have been concerns expressed to me that CenturyTel may be too small a company to serve the area well. We shall see. Mark Roberts | "How do you like following the goat story?" -- Oakland, Cal.| Dennis Richmond to meteorologist Bill Martin on NO HTML MAIL | KTVU's "Ten O'Clock News", 9-13-2002 ------------------------------ From: Dave Phelps Subject: Re: Norstar ICS 4.0 and Music on Hold Date: Wed, 25 Sep 2002 22:06:26 -0500 Organization: Posted via Supernews, http://www.supernews.com In article , Overdrive79@hotmail.com says: > I probably sound stupid but what is ACD? Is there an inexpensive > module that can queue callers or does the whole voice mail module have > to be replaced? As Pat said, ACD is Automatic Call Distribution. Now, ACD is software, just like AA/VM. If you got the NVM, then it should have come with Nortel's smallest ACD package, the Minuet. It's actually a 3rd party product from a company that has been working with Nortel for years--Cintech. www.cintechsolutions.com. Dave Phelps Phone Masters Ltd. deadspam=tippenring ------------------------------ From: jabriol@navegalia.com (jabriol) Subject: Avaya Cajun P333 Date: 26 Sep 2002 05:09:21 -0700 Organization: http://groups.google.com/ All, I'm trying to connect a Cajun p333-LB through a fiber module x330s2 to a P882 avaya chasis into a fiber module M8004r-1000GB. Can not get a link light.The module show up on the p333lb but when I use the port status comand the ports show up as no link. Is there a configuration to make the module see each other. Don't reply to my e-mail address.. it is spam trap, irrevellant groups added to see reply from different server.. me being a bonafide resident SAP :-) reply to the group headers and I see the reply ... thanks in advance.. note to arjw: Y a see I work for a living ... why can't you do that? ------------------------------ From: Caller id Subject: American Caller Id Compatibile With European? Date: Thu, 26 Sep 2002 16:37:51 GMT Hi, I just bought a General Electric 29096GE1 caller id/call waiting device. I'm planning to give it my parents for use in Europe. I was wondering whether there are any compatibility issues between the American and European telecoms regarding caller id systems. Thank you for your assistance. C ------------------------------ Date: Thu, 26 Sep 2002 12:23:33 -0400 From: Ted Koppel Subject: International Overseas 800 Numbers? I was looking at net2phone's list of access numbers this morning for dialing from a particular country to the US. On the list of countries that allow net2phone service (from there to the US), a few have their own (seemingly local to that country) phone numbers. Almost all of the countries also gave the phone number "00 800 8728 3525"; a few had the international prefix of 0011 or 001 or whatever. See the following URL for the list: http://web.net2phone.com/products/net2phonedirect/accessintl.asp My question -- is this sort of international 800 (toll free) service new? Widespread? Prevalent? Of course, I have seen toll free numbers in the US (and internal to other countries) but never on an international scale. Thanks. [TELECOM Digest Editor's Note: I have seen many example of European numbers of the style '0800' for use as toll-free numbers. I do not know exactly how/when that originated several years ago. Maybe Judith will have an answer for us. PAT] ------------------------------ Subject: Re: Tampering With Payphones? Organization: Excelsior Computer Services From: joel@exc.com (Dr. Joel M. Hoffman) Date: Thu, 26 Sep 2002 18:09:14 GMT > situation persists. There are two ways it might happen (that the > lines stay active). Perhaps the person doing it lives nearby and > dials up the one payphone from his home, then drives over to the I can think of a third. Someone dials two calls, one from each payphone, and thereby connects his home computer to a computer that he's trying to hack. Then he goes home, and has a connection that's not easy to trace. And, if it the calls are traced, the hacker could reasonably claim that he was hacked! -Joel ------------------------------ From: Phil Smiley Subject: SS7 ? LEC and CMRS Date: Thu, 26 Sep 2002 19:26:29 GMT What are a LECs obligations with respect to providing SS7 signaling to CMRS providers interconnecting via Type 2A connection? TIA ------------------------------ Subject: NPA-NXX and LATA From: Marise_A_Klapka@NDGSTP.COM Date: Thu, 26 Sep 2002 15:44:48 -0500 TO: Patrick Townson I just sent in my request to subscribe to your digest. However, I was hoping you might be able to answer a question for me. I read a TELECOM Digest article/memo regarding NPA-NXX and LATA, where they were listed in this format: NPA NXX LATA LATA NAME 410 741 236 WASHINGTON DC 410 741 238 BALTIMORE MARYLAND I am looking for a web site that will give me NPA-NXX numbers by state in this type format, or even using a regional map format, and was hoping you could tell me if such a database even exists. Thank you for any attention. Marise A. Klapka Next Day Gourmet dba Superior Products 510 West County Road D St. Paul, MN 55112 651-638-8947 ------------------------------ TELECOM Digest is an electronic journal devoted mostly but not exclusively to telecommunications topics. It is circulated anywhere there is email, in addition to various telecom forums on a variety of networks such as Compuserve and America On Line, 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: 620-870-9697 Fax 1: 775-255-9970 Fax 2: 775-306-8390 Fax 3: 775-642-0603 Fax 4: 530-309-7234 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 second 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) Email <==> FTP: telecom-archives@telecom-digest.org Send a simple, one line note to that automated address for a help file on how to use the automatic retrieval system for archives files. You can get desired files in email. ************************************************************************* * 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. Access to Premium (P) links requires upgrade to a paid subscription. One click a day feeds a person a meal. Go to http://www.thehungersite.com Only subscribers or registered users of ICB Toll Free News web site will be able to access all or some of the full text of URLs provided. LEGAL STUFF: TELECOM Digest (sm) is owned by Patrick Townson. Copyright 2000 ICB, Inc. and TELECOM Digest. All rights reserved. Our attorney is Bill Levant, of Blue Bell, PA. --------------------------------------------------------------- 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 twenty 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 V22 #51 ***************************** From editor@telecom-digest.org Fri Sep 27 13:16:31 2002 Received: from localhost (localhost [[UNIX: localhost]]) by massis.lcs.mit.edu (8.11.3nb1/8.11.3) id g8RHGVZ17708; Fri, 27 Sep 2002 13:16:31 -0400 (EDT) Date: Fri, 27 Sep 2002 13:16:31 -0400 (EDT) From: editor@telecom-digest.org Message-Id: <200209271716.g8RHGVZ17708@massis.lcs.mit.edu> X-Authentication-Warning: massis.lcs.mit.edu: ptownson set sender to editor@telecom-digest.org using -f To: ptownson Approved: patsnewlist Subject: TELECOM Digest V22 #52 TELECOM Digest Fri, 27 Sep 2002 13:16:00 EDT Volume 22 : Issue 52 Inside This Issue: Editor: Patrick A. Townson Re: Turn Your Answering Machine Into a TeleZapper! (Al Gillis) Re: Turn Your Answering Machine Into a Telezapper! (temp6@thewolfden.org) Re: State of Pennsylvania v. WorldCom -- Court Documents Now (Ed Ellers) Re: State of Pennsylvania v. WorldCom -- Court Documents Now (D. Phelps) Re: State of Pennsylvania v. WorldCom -- Court Documents Now (M Sullivan) Re: State of Pennsylvania v. WorldCom -- Court Documents Now (B Margolin) Emergency Number 112 (Mark Brader) Re: Cable & Wireless Giving LD Customers to Primus (Jonathan Morris) Re: Avaya Cajun P333 (Jay Tarbox) Re: American Caller Id Compatibile With European? (Owain) 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. WE DO NOT PERMIT NAME/EMAIL ADDRESS HARVESTING FROM THIS JOURNAL. 'SALTED' EMAIL ADDRESSES APPEAR HEREIN TO VERIFY THIS. YOU GET SUED IN SMALL CLAIMS COURT IF YOU GET CAUGHT SPAMMING OR SENDING VIRUSES. DON'T DO IT. See the bottom of this issue for subscription and archive details and the name of our lawyer; other stuff of interest. ---------------------------------------------------------------------- From: Al Gillis Subject: Re: Turn Your Answering Machine Into a TeleZapper! Date: Thu, 26 Sep 2002 19:42:25 -0700 Organization: http://extra.newsguy.com Scott answers differently than the machine expects him to in order to foil its plan (see below, of course). Sometimes, when the mood strikes, me I'll answer differently as well. The conversation goes like this: ME: Hello?" (a pause while the machine wakes up one of the mutants) THEM: "I'd like to talk to the man of the house about life insurance" ME: "Great! Say... could you hold on a second?" With that, I put the handset down and go about the business this call interrupted. After a minute or two I hang up the phone, knowing I wasted a little bit of the mutants time that evening. Thinking they get paid by the sale or by the number of contacts they collect I figure wasting 30 seconds of their time knocks down their income just a little AND is an annoyance to them! I think of it as doing my part to keep America strong! As the commercial said years ago "Try it - You'll like it!" Al Scott D Fybush wrote in message news:telecom22.50.5@telecom-digest.org: > I'm puzzled by everyone going to all the trouble to put SIT tones on > their answering machines and so on. Right now, I think I'm avoiding > 90% of the telemarketers who call simply by refusing to wait for THEM > to get around to talking to me. > In other words, if answering the phone "This is Scott" instead of > "Hello" doesn't make their predictive dialer hang up (and it does, > about half the time), I can tell 'em every time by the dead air while > the predictive dialer tries to find a live salesdroid to read a script > at me. > The people I want to talk to don't wait six seconds to begin speaking > to me ... and in the unlikely event one does, they'll call back. > Plus, I get to enjoy the thought of some telemarketer sitting there > listening to me hang up just as he/she/it is about to begin its spiel. > (The one call that does seem to get through, probably because they do > it in a very low-tech way with humans dialing instead of a predictive > dialer, is my alma mater - and the undergraduates who call get my > usual "I have a liberal arts degree from your school and I'm UNEMPLOYED" - > a half-truth, if you replace "un-" with "self-" - and then generally hang > up on ME!) > -s ------------------------------ Date: Thu, 26 Sep 2002 21:07:05 -0500 From: temp6@thewolfden.org Subject: Re: Turn Your Answering Machine Into a TeleZapper! John Higdon wrote: > In article , temp6@thewolfden.org wrote: >>> I'd much rather see a national "do not call" list with heavy >>> penalties for violations. I think it would be more effective. >> But that would require an entire network of people to verify, enforce, >> tax and penalize, as well as wasting my time trying to report >> violations, while a device -- or simply honoring that which already >> exists -- would begin working immediately and would cost much less for >> _everyone_ involved. > Why would anyone honor a "device" if they won't honor a list? A list is > easy to administer, and the enforcement mechanism could be civil > liability. Wouldn't YOU be willing to bring an action against someone for > several thousand dollars? My time is valuable, but I think I could make > time for that. > The point is that after a few notable cases, I would bet that junk calls > would drop to nothing in no time for anyone on that list. While I can't argue against what you've written above, I do want to point out where this all started: specifically programming dialers to ignore an existing mechanism that would do the same thing. In comparison, just stopping the extra work of ignoring the recorded tones seems a much simpler solution. Is it really a feature that dialer customers are asking for? (If so, back to my question about a "go away" sign.) -W ------------------------------ From: Ed Ellers Subject: Re: State of Pennsylvania v. WorldCom -- Court Documents Now Date: Thu, 26 Sep 2002 23:13:55 -0400 Michael D. Sullivan wrote: > However, it's probably not a valid assumption that "most netizens > use ISPs or DSLs or cable facilites in their own state or region." > "Most" Pennsylvanians probably use AOL, Verizon, Comcast, AT&T, or a > reseller of these. All of these are located outside Pennsylvania, > although they have extensive facilities in PA. Not to mention that, in a number of metro areas that straddle a state line, many people in one state may be dialing into POPs in a neighboring state. ------------------------------ From: Dave Phelps Subject: Re: State of Pennsylvania v. WorldCom -- Court Documents Now Date: Thu, 26 Sep 2002 22:43:53 -0500 Organization: Posted via Supernews, http://www.supernews.com Here's an argument. Assume I am using Worldcom circuits, I'm outside PA, and would like to see this site, but the PA ruling is blocking my access. Point 1. The courts decision is reaching outside its jurisdiction. This in some way seems illegal to me. Point 2. Isn't this a free-speech issue? I have a problem with government censorship anyway. Should I, as a Worldcom customer, sue Worldcom to allow me access to this IP address? Should I sue the court (can I do that?)? Who is responsible for blocking my access, and to whom do I file my objection? In article , barmar@genuity.net says: > In article , TELECOM Digest Editor > noted in response to Monty Solomon : >> First of all, if it is technically correct that they cannot block one >> state without doing the entire country, then Worldcom should have >> respectfully suggested to the court that because PA does not micro-manage >> the entire United States, the matter was outside the PA court's juris- >> diction and get it transferred to federal court. But the thing is, it >> is NOT technically impossible. Consider this: the internet is world- >> wide. Why wouldn't Worldcom claim the entire world had to be blocked >> therefore? Neither does Worldcom handle all internet circuits in the >> USA. > They didn't say all of North America, they said "all of its North American > subscribers", i.e. just Worldcom customers. > We've acquiesced to the same order from Pennsylvania, and we have the > same problem. In order to block an IP address, we create a black hole > route for that IP address. Since our US backbone is a single BGP > autonomous system (making heavy use of confederations and route > reflectors, to prevent exponential explosion of BGP neighbors), this > route is propagated throughout our backbone. We don't advertise it to > other ISPs, so it only affects our customers. Dave Phelps Phone Masters Ltd. deadspam=tippenring ------------------------------ From: Michael D. Sullivan Subject: Re: State of Pennsylvania v. WorldCom -- Court Documents Now Date: Fri, 27 Sep 2002 05:25:51 GMT On Thu, 26 Sep 2002 04:16:21 GMT, Michael D. Sullivan posted the following to comp.dcom.telecom: > [TELECOM Digest Editor's Note: If what you said in the first > paragraph, second sentence is true, 'Worldcom has no way of knowing > where user is located or where from when his brouser sends packets to > web site' then it would seem I could cheat, steal, and defraud all I > wanted on web sites which were reached via Worldcom. As you pointed > out, they would have no idea who I was or where I was calling from; > perfect ingredients to perpetrate a fraud. But in fact there is a > kind of 'caller-id' which tells the receiving site 'this call is from > xxx.xx.xxx' so the receiving site can refuse the connection if > desired, or at the very least the receiving site can sneer at you > saying, 'we know you are calling from xxx.xx.xxxx, so best not try any > funny business with OP (other people's) credit cards. Porn sites are > especially famous for checking out credit cards they accept and > matching their information to sites, etc. Where does the receiving > site get the xxx.xx.xxxx if not from Worldcom? Now I know the net is > not central, and it is very diverse, but is it *so diverse* that > nothing can be made out of those numbers? Both the backbone provider (e.g., Worldcom) and the site you connect to get your IP address. I assume this is what you are talking about when you refer to "kind of 'caller-id'". This does not necessarily reveal where you are located, however. Reverse DNS on this IP address will provide a domain name for the IP address, usually. In some cases, this may have a geographical code embedded in it. For example, it may be something like dialupxxx-NYC.isp.net or resdslxx.sfo.isp.net. This may or may not actually get your geographic location right, however. In the case of DSL, it probably does, more or less. But if the IP address corresponds to a dial-up connection, it may be in your state, and adjacent state, or somewhere else entirely (for example, you might use an 800 number or use your local dialup even though you are traveling). And the meaning of any such geographical designator can only be guessed, with all the reliability that entails. How does one know that the "SFO" embedded in an IP address's domain name actually corresponds to San Francisco, California, as opposed to Southern Florida Online or something totally random, like the ISP's predecessor's initials? I seriously doubt that there is any way to automate the geographic identification of nonstandard naming of domains. And Worldcom can't identify and screen domains automatically on that basis at its backbone, due to the processing time and database lookups required, even if it could be automated. It would have to do it on a packet-by-packet basis, since that is how stuff arrives at the backbone. The only way to handle a ban at the backbone is to trash all packets addressed to a particular IP address, because that can be coded into the routers. This all assumes that the user in PA is actually using an ISP, anyway. Many users don't. They are on corporate networks that are interconnected with one or more internet backbones, often at multiple points. A Microsoft employee located in a sales office in Philadelphia might seek to access one of the prohibited sites, for example. That employee's computer would be on a corporate intranet probably connected to the Internet in Seattle. The IP address revealed to Worldcom and the child porn site he's browsing to would be in a block of Microsoft corporate addresses associated with a Redmond address. If its domain name was something like uugatexxx.sea. microsoft.com, how would Worldcom know that the user is physically located in PA and not WA? To make matters worse, what if the user is dialing in, or browsing in, to a terminal server (or tunneling in via VPN) on the corporate network from Philadelphia or Pittsburgh? For example, if I'm traveling to Pittsburgh, I can use a laptop on the hotel's phone line to call a local number for a PPP session, then open a Win2K terminal server session to connect to my D.C. law firm's network via our IT contractor's gateway in Virginia. Once the session opens up, I can open a virtual browser on the terminal server session and surf to any site I want. That site, and Worldcom's backbone, sees that a computer with an IP address associated with a Virginia suburb of Washington, DC has passed packets. Neither the site nor the backbone has any way to know that I am actually in a hotel in Pittsburgh. The only way Worldcom can block me from accessing a porn site from my Pittsburgh hotel room is to block all access to that site from anywhere on its entire U.S. backbone network. > And in the paragraph where you discuss 'what most PS residents use' > you state rightfully that many/most residents use larger national ISPs > however the ISP's all have 'extensive facilities' in PA. I would > assume the court brought in technical managers from those facilities > and instructed them? PAT] I think that the whole issue raised by this case is that the plaintiffs persuaded the court to go after the backbone providers instead of the ISPs, since all traffic eventually goes through the backbone. As Barry Margolin has noted, the court also went after Genuity. If the backbone won't pass the traffic, there's no need to figure out who all of the ISPs are, serve them, and get them to block the traffic. Going after the ISPs doing business in the state would have been a better way to restrict the blockage to users likely to be located in PA -- indeed, Worldcom argued that the court should have proceeded on the basis of ISPs -- but the court didn't do that. Michael D. Sullivan Bethesda, MD, USA (delete NOSPAM from address to mail me) ------------------------------ From: Barry Margolin Subject: Re: State of Pennsylvania v. WorldCom -- Court Documents Now Organization: Genuity, Woburn, MA Date: Fri, 27 Sep 2002 15:04:04 GMT In article , Michael D. Sullivan wrote: > [TELECOM Digest Editor's Note: If what you said in the first > paragraph, second sentence is true, 'Worldcom has no way of knowing > where user is located or where from when his brouser sends packets to > web site' then it would seem I could cheat, steal, and defraud all I > wanted on web sites which were reached via Worldcom. As you pointed You're making an extreme leap there. > out, they would have no idea who I was or where I was calling from; > perfect ingredients to perpetrate a fraud. But in fact there is a > kind of 'caller-id' which tells the receiving site 'this call is from > xxx.xx.xxx' so the receiving site can refuse the connection if What is xxx.xx.xxx supposed to be, an IP address? There's very little geographic information in them; there are some heuristics that can sometimes be used to guess the country they're in, but not enough to pin it down to a particular state reliably. And determining a responsible person can generally only be done by the ISP that they dial into (or have their cable modem or DSL connected to). None of these techniques for determining where a connection is coming from would be at all useful for router filters that ISPs can deploy to implement Pennsylvania's demands. I don't think Pennsylvania is singling out Worldcom in these demands, they're making them to all ISPs, but some may be ignoring them since they don't believe they have jurisdiction to require it. Here's how I think we got involved: we operate Verizon Online's DSL network, and Verizon Online provides service in Pennsylvania. Verizon is also trying to get all the former Bell Atlantic states to grant them Section 529 relief (I think that's the section number), so that they can get into the long distance business (this would also have allowed them to reacquire Genuity, but they announced in July that they've decided not to do that, which sent our stock into a nosedive). Since Pennsylvania is one of the states they're courting, they didn't fight them over it. So because Verizon agreed to do this, and their network is actually our network, we had to do it. We don't have a separate routing system for the DSL portion of our network, so it affects all our customers in the continental US. Barry Margolin, barmar@genuity.net Genuity, Woburn, MA *** DON'T SEND TECHNICAL QUESTIONS DIRECTLY TO ME, post them to newsgroups. Please DON'T copy followups to me -- I'll assume it wasn't posted to the group. ------------------------------ Subject: Emergency Number 112 Date: Fri, 27 Sep 2002 00:32:20 EDT From: msb@vex.net (Mark Brader) Which organization was it that promulgated the emergency number 112 as a common replacement or alternative for the various emergency numbers in different countries? Does its use or recommended use extend anywhere outside Europe? What countries now have it? Have any of them actually eliminated their old emergency numbers? Just wondering. Mark Brader | "Nitwit ideas are for emergencies. The rest of the Toronto | time you go by the Book, which is mostly a collection msb@vex.net | of nitwit ideas that worked. -- Niven & Pournelle My text in this article is in the public domain. ------------------------------ From: Jonathan Morris Subject: Re: Cable & Wireless Giving LD Customers to Primus Date: Fri, 27 Sep 2002 00:54:22 -0400 Mike Sandman wrote: > Interestingly, the letter said "Please note that existing preferred > carrier freezes on the service(s) involved in the transfer will be > lifted; you will need to contact your local phone company if you wish > to arrange a new freeze." How in the hell does that work! > I searched around for comments on Primus, and it looks like they offer > good phone service, have low rates, but it's hard to reach their > customer service. > I'm wondering if anyone has had experience with Primus in the US. I > have a pretty short fuse for the morons other companys employ in > customer service, and I don't need to raise my blood pressure dealing > with another bunch of idiots. > If you've had good customer service from Primus or another LD company, > I'd like to hear that. We haven't needed to call Cable & Wireless > customer service since we changed to them, so I don't know for sure it > was OK. It sure was nice not having to call customer service! I've had a good experience so far with Primus, and their operating subsidiary, Isterra. They use a number of underlying carriers (they have me setup with Worldcom, although I have no direct contact with Worldcom or their cust service.) They offer excellent dial up internet (from a reseller, just like most national ISP's) access at very reasonable rates. BTW: I signed on with primus from everdial, which offers 4.9c/min state-to-state, no fees. Regarding the PIC freeze, they will probably contact you or do a three-way call with your LEC to remove the PIC freeze. I would expect them to pay any local carrier code change fees as well. ------------------------------ From: Jay Tarbox Subject: Re: Avaya Cajun P333 Date: Fri, 27 Sep 2002 14:05:28 GMT Organization: Road Runner - Portland, Maine Might want to check out your fiber and make sure the fiber/ends are good. Have you tried the obvious and made sure the tx is connected to rx and vice versa? jabriol wrote in message news:telecom22.51.8@telecom-digest.org: > I'm trying to connect a Cajun p333-LB through a fiber module x330s2 to > a P882 avaya chasis into a fiber module M8004r-1000GB. Can not get a > link light.The module show up on the p333lb but when I use the port > status comand the ports show up as no link. Is there a configuration > to make the module see each other. ------------------------------ From: spuorgelgoog@gowanhill.com (Owain) Subject: Re: American Caller Id Compatibile With European? Date: 27 Sep 2002 06:30:53 -0700 Organization: http://groups.google.com/ Caller id wrote: > I just bought a General Electric 29096GE1 caller id/call waiting device. > I'm planning to give it my parents for use in Europe. I was wondering > whether there are any compatibility issues between the American and > European telecoms regarding caller id systems. Where in Europe? BT in Britain use their own system, which sends the caller id data before the first ring, not during the ringing, and it's a completely different system to the US. The cable company NTL bought up lots of small companies each with their own kit, some using British (BT) style, others using US style. The BT specs for caller ID are probably somewhere in their technical standards website at: http://www.sinet.bt.com/ You probably need 242v2p1.pdf. If you use the "Search Sinet" page and set the keywords to CLI (leave the other fields blank) you'll get a list including that file. For further info on British CLI (calling line identification) and Caller Display, google the uk.telecom newsgroup I don't know what other European countries use. However, as the device probably won't have the relevant CE approvals it's probably illegal to plug it in anyway, quite apart from not working. Owain ------------------------------ TELECOM Digest is an electronic journal devoted mostly but not exclusively to telecommunications topics. It is circulated anywhere there is email, in addition to various telecom forums on a variety of networks such as Compuserve and America On Line, 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: 620-870-9697 Fax 1: 775-255-9970 Fax 2: 775-306-8390 Fax 3: 775-642-0603 Fax 4: 530-309-7234 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 second 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) Email <==> FTP: telecom-archives@telecom-digest.org Send a simple, one line note to that automated address for a help file on how to use the automatic retrieval system for archives files. You can get desired files in email. ************************************************************************* * 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. Access to Premium (P) links requires upgrade to a paid subscription. One click a day feeds a person a meal. Go to http://www.thehungersite.com Only subscribers or registered users of ICB Toll Free News web site will be able to access all or some of the full text of URLs provided. LEGAL STUFF: TELECOM Digest (sm) is owned by Patrick Townson. Copyright 2000 ICB, Inc. and TELECOM Digest. All rights reserved. Our attorney is Bill Levant, of Blue Bell, PA. --------------------------------------------------------------- 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 twenty 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 V22 #52 ***************************** From editor@telecom-digest.org Fri Sep 27 15:30:15 2002 Received: from localhost (localhost [[UNIX: localhost]]) by massis.lcs.mit.edu (8.11.3nb1/8.11.3) id g8RJUFZ18543; Fri, 27 Sep 2002 15:30:15 -0400 (EDT) Date: Fri, 27 Sep 2002 15:30:15 -0400 (EDT) From: editor@telecom-digest.org Message-Id: <200209271930.g8RJUFZ18543@massis.lcs.mit.edu> X-Authentication-Warning: massis.lcs.mit.edu: ptownson set sender to editor@telecom-digest.org using -f To: ptownson Approved: patsnewlist Subject: TELECOM Digest V22 #53 TELECOM Digest Fri, 27 Sep 2002 15:30:00 EDT Volume 22 : Issue 53 Inside This Issue: Editor: Patrick A. Townson Re: Invitation to SSGRR Conferences in ITALY! (Wlevant@aol.com) Re: Anti-Spam Filter Blocks XX and Others (Danny Burstein) Re: Anti-Spam Filter Blocks XX and Others (Dave Phelps) Re: Spamming, etc (Dr. Joel M. Hoffman) Re: International Overseas 800 Numbers? (Burkitt-Gray Alan) Re: International Overseas 800 Numbers? (Richard D G Cox) Re: International Overseas 800 Numbers? (Linc Madison) Re: International Overseas 800 Numbers? (Joseph Singer) 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. WE DO NOT PERMIT NAME/EMAIL ADDRESS HARVESTING FROM THIS JOURNAL. 'SALTED' EMAIL ADDRESSES APPEAR HEREIN TO VERIFY THIS. YOU GET SUED IN SMALL CLAIMS COURT IF YOU GET CAUGHT SPAMMING OR SENDING VIRUSES. DON'T DO IT. See the bottom of this issue for subscription and archive details and the name of our lawyer; other stuff of interest. ---------------------------------------------------------------------- From: Wlevant@aol.com Date: Thu, 26 Sep 2002 22:20:39 EDT Subject: Re: Invitation to SSGRR Conferences in ITALY! [TELECOM Digest Editor's Note: What follows is a conversation in print on Thursday between Bill Levant (the patent attorney in Pennsylvania who handled the paperwork on the name 'Telecom Digest' which I hold in trust) and myself about some probable spam which was printed here in the Digest/newsgroup earlier this week. He believes the announcement pertaining to the SSGRR conference was spam, and he explains his reasoning. He wonders if other readers got the same 'spam'. What do you think? PAT] Bill wrote originally to me: > I got this same message directly from the sender. They obviously > harvested my E-Mail address from the Digest. > Shame on them. > Bill I then responded to Bill: > How do you know they got your address from Digest? They had a cc > a mile long on the copy I got. I did not investigate those addresses > that closely before cleaning it up for use in the Digest. > PAT Bill then answered me: > I can't imagine they got it anywhere else ... I don't do chat from > this account, I don't post to any other newsgroups, and until I saw > their message, I'd never heard of 'em. > And while I appreciate being addressed as "Dr. Levant", I've **NEVER** > referred to myself that way. > Maybe you can post my message and see if anyone else was similarly > spammed. > Bill [TELECOM Digest Editor's Note: So guys, here is Bill Levant's note for you to evaluate. I have essentially said in the past, that where I am concerned, the IEEE and associated groups/conferences can do no wrong. We need more, not less educated netters. Most of these conferences do serve that purpose. I will agree the cc: on that announcement *was* very long, and it did address me as 'Dear Doctor' (no last name given) so it may have been spam. I dunno. But I don't think they had time to 'harvest' from the Digest AND mail to others that soon. (Bill got his copy from them the same day as the Digest made the general announcement.) What's the consensus of our group? PAT] ------------------------------ From: danny burstein Subject: Re: Anti-Spam Filter Blocks XX and Others Date: Fri, 27 Sep 2002 03:23:15 +0000 (UTC) Organization: PANIX Public Access Internet and UNIX, NYC [ snipping of the complete message ] Synopsis: as near as I could understand, the original poster was upset that his legitimate mailing list was being blocked by various ISPs who were cutting off all e-mail from the server he was using. Sorry fella. Your list managing ISP is the one to complain to. The recipient ISPs are under NO legal or moral requirement whatsoever to accept your material, no matter how high qality it is. Your argument is with *your* ISP. *They* are the ones who allow spam to go through, and *they* are the ones being blocked. Let's make this clear. *You* do NOT "own" that IP space. You are *contracting* with a third party to lease you their services. To give my favorite analogy: you're trying to sell chocolate bars, good quality, melt in your mouth, chocolate bars. But the supermarket you're using leaves their meat rotting in the aisles. So no one is coming into the market anymore, and no one is buying your chocolate bars. So you've got a couple of choices: a) get your ISP to clean up its act or b) recognize that they're a sleazy outfit about to get shut down by the health department, and move out of there. (continuing with this analogy, many of the Big Backbone ISPs who are spam friendly are the ones in the biggest financial trouble.) c) you should probably demand a refund from your ISP. After all, they promised you internet connectivity, and *they* are *not* delivering. Oh, by the way, there's a well known list managing company which seems to be quite spam friendly, but also makes a point of encouraging "legitimate" lists as well, in the hopes that the recipient ISPs won't block them. Guess what. They, too, are rapidly finding themselves cut off from more and more of the internet, and finding themselves in an ever shrinking intranet. Knowledge may be power, but communications is the key dannyb@panix.com [to foil spammers, my address has been double rot-13 encoded] ------------------------------ From: Dave Phelps Subject: Re: Anti-Spam Filter Blocks XX and Others Date: Thu, 26 Sep 2002 23:05:34 -0500 Organization: Posted via Supernews, http://www.supernews.com In article , Wesrock@aol.com says: > (having to do with something called "open relay") Just a note on this "open relay". If you run a mail server that is an open relay, I block all email that passes thru your mail server. My ISP doesn't. I do myself. If you have legitimate people sending email thru your open relay, unfortunately their email to me will be blocked also. I do not want any mail that passes thru an open relay. The reason is because 99% of it is spam. It's amazing to me the fact that the people running these open relays don't notice the bandwidth consumption. When you fix your mail server, then I will again allow email that comes thru your mail server. If you run a mail server and don't know what an open relay is, I would suggest you go to www.ordb.org (a wonderful service)and do some research. Dave Phelps Phone Masters Ltd. deadspam=tippenring ------------------------------ Subject: Re: Spamming, etc Organization: Excelsior Computer Services From: joel@exc.com (Dr. Joel M. Hoffman) Date: Fri, 27 Sep 2002 14:35:39 GMT > Bravo. Clap clap. But you've missed my point Pat, and that is this: > most spam comes with a fake return address. The fact that spammers > are now also using .info and .biz fake return addresses is immaterial > when it comes to the validity of those domains. I get a lot of spam > from .jp addresses: does that make all email from Japan automatically > spam until proven otherwise? No Pat, it doesn't. VERY VERY FEW > SPAMMERS USE A REAL RETURN ADDRESS: NEARLY ALL USE A FAKE ONE. So why > punish those who happen also to be VICTIMS of spammers? Which raises an interesting point. Why doesn't local SMTP delivery software insert the real return address? The username isn't available, but the remote host is. I'd love to see exactly the following fields when I read e-mail: Subject: [user sets this] From: [user sets this] Via: [SMTP host that delivered this e-mail] Additionally: Reply-to: [user sets this, but I only see it when I reply] Easy to do technically, no? And very useful. If I see a message from a friend in NY "Via" a host in Russia, I'll start to wonder. > One of the reasons many of us abandoned Smail years ago was that the > code maintainer was insistent that forward/inverse lookup matching be > a non-optional feature of that MTA. The short time I used one of those > versions, legitimate email was being rejected right and left. There > are many SMTP servers (including some in major providers) that have > forward/reverse DNS discrepancies. Even simple forward DNS checking > can be a problem if a host has access to multiple IPs. In current versions of smail this "feature" can be turned off. [TELECOM Digest Editor's Note: I use sendmail to get this Digest out every day. Sendmail always prints an X-Authentication-Warning saying that 'massis.lcs.mit.edu: ptownson set user to editor@telecom- digest.org using -f'. According to the sendmail man page, only 'trusted users' or root are allowed to use -f. I am trusted (in the text file naming such people), but not root so it prints that statement about 'ptownson set -f' in each header. In each issue it prints it; my personal SpamAssassin score (which S.A. does when it evaluates the spam score on inbound copies of the Digest sent back to me in the header) always considers it also and holds it against me, since there is no such user as telecom-digest, so therefore I must be a spammer. So even though SpamAssassin counts it against me that I am using a false name (sendmail told him so!) the over-all, averaged out final score keeps my work from going to the bit bucket I guess. I shouldn't be surprised if someday one of SpamAssassin's relatives at another site in combination with an open-relay site handling mail decided to toss me in the bit-bucket. You see, each issue of the Digest is mailed to me, not YOU. You others appear in the bcc as ':include: (my names list)' so therefore none of you know about the others; do not have to wade through thousands of lines of cc: names before getting into the Digest itself; and further- more, someone driving the sendmail VRFY truck can't accidentally or on purpose back up into my list and spill it out all over. I had to learn that lesson the hard way back in 1989 when that bozo-clown@some.edu in Minnesota ripped off my list and then had the audacity and brazeness to brag about it in alt.something.no-good.obscene where I found his posting. That very day I repaired it so that sendmail's attempts to find out what to :include: had to take a very convoluted path to find my list; a path that VRFY was unable to get back to. It has worked quite well since. Lauren Weinstein later said here that VRFY was one instruction 'not very well documented at that time' in sendmail. No kidding! But things on the net have changed a lot since 1989. But back to the point: why not a spam check on that X-warning-user set -f thing, then write rules on it like SpamAssassin does, noting the few good items you want to allow anyway? PAT] ------------------------------ From: Alan Burkitt-Gray Subject: RE: International Overseas 800 Numbers? Date: Fri, 27 Sep 2002 10:19:10 +0100 Ted Koppel asked: > My question -- is this sort of international 800 (toll free) service > new? Widespread? Prevalent? Of course, I have seen toll free > numbers in the US (and internal to other countries) but never on an > international scale. Many countries have toll-free services, and many of them have numbers including 800, recognizing the strength of the 1-800 "brand" first established in the US by AT&T. In the UK, for example, 0800 services began around 1983. Other countries using 800-like codes include China (10-800), Australia (1800) and Argentina (0800). Some countries which started toll-free using other codes have recently converted to 800-style numbers as part of renumbering -- France, about 10 years ago, made 08 00 the prefix for toll-free numbers, and Germany dropped the old 0180 code in favour of 0800 a couple of years ago. Italy's gone through the same process -- the prefix used to be something like 172 and now it's 800. Some have stuck with their old codes: Sweden still uses 020 for toll-free prefixes, as the area code for Stockholm, the capital, is 08 and a change would, I guess, require too much re-engineering. The use of +800 as an international toll free "country code" was authorised by the International Telecommunication Union around five or six years ago. From each country you have to prefix this with your regular international access code (00 from most of the world, 011 from North America, 0011 I think from Australia), and all numbers following the +800 have eight digits. There don't appear to be very many users so far -- a few hotel chains and airlines, mainly. The Four Seasons hotel chain uses +800 4688 4688, for example. Among the factors that are probably holding it back include the existence of different international access codes across the world (not everyone knows what the + means and many people wouldn't then know to substitute it with 00, 011 or whatever, though this is simplified with GSM mobile phones, which allow you to dial the + directly) and the fact that not all phone networks have set up connections to the operators running +800 services so they block access to these numbers. Alan B-G Alan Burkitt-Gray Editor, Global Telecoms Business Euromoney Institutional Investor plc, Nestor House, Playhouse Yard, London EC4V 5EX, UK tel +44 20 7779 8518 fax +44 20 7779 8492 e-mail aburkitt@euromoneyplc.com www.globaltelecomsbusiness.com ------------------------------ Date: Fri, 27 Sep 2002 11:39:41 +0100 From: Richard D G Cox Subject: Re: International Overseas 800 Numbers? Reply-To: nospam@numbering.com Organization: Mandarin Technology Limited On 26 Sep 2002 16:23 UT, Ted Koppel asked: > My question -- is this sort of international 800 (toll free) service new? > Widespread? Prevalent? Of course, I have seen toll free numbers in the > US (and internal to other countries) but never on an international scale. And Pat replied: > [TELECOM Digest Editor's Note: I have seen many example of European > numbers of the style '0800' for use as toll-free numbers. I do not > know exactly how/when that originated several years ago. These are very different cases. There is an international Toll-Free service, but there is no "International FCC" to enforce and regulate its availability and pricing. Think of it therefore more as an umbrella scheme under which various telcos can agree to pass traffic between each other using the numbers allocated for this purpose by the ITU. They are known as UIFNs (Universal International Freefone Numbers) and begin with +800 (which, since the most common international prefix outside the USA is "00", means they are often shown as 00800 numbers. Given the lack of regulation, and the fact that in most cases the same Telcos that have signed up to this deal had previous deals to exchange the same or similar traffic using standard freefone numbers within the country of origination, there is no incentive to keep the costs of the service low (as there is with domestic 800 or equivalents) and, perhaps unsurprisingly, the "00800" services are commonly tariffed at almost prohibitive rates. The only advantage in using the service is that the same number can be advertised universally and - hopefully - used in all jurisdictions without having to look up a local number. Other issues arise, predominantly that hotel systems will surcharge the calls anyway, and business switchboards and payphones recognise the international prefix but fail to spot the 800 following it, and so regard the call as international (with the obvious consequences). A similar scheme for "shared cost" calls is proposed for +808, but so far I have not become aware of any instances where that has been implemented! For completeness I should add that there is also to be an international form of 900 number, using the prefix +979, so y'all can go block that prefix on your networks right away! 0800, on the other hand, is most commonly the "domestic" freefone code because in most parts of the world the standard escape digit (or trunk access prefix) is "0"; only in the North American Numbering Plan and those areas influenced by it, is "1" used for long-distance breakout. 800 was first introduced when most phone switching was still mechanical, and in most cases had to "fit in" to the existing routing by appearing to be calls to a different area code (but with zero tariff): this would force local switches to hand the call off to their long-distance routing centre. The alternative, of modifying every single local exchange, would have been substantially more expensive with that technology, and indeed in most cases prohibitively so. Some countries - particularly those without long-distances prefixes, have assigned local numbers beginning 80 or 800 for freefone. Some countries, like the USA have (or appeared to have) exhausted the numbers available using 800 - and therefore introduced further freefone prefixes - often sounding similar to 800, such as the UK's 500 and 808. A few countries where the trunk access digit is "0" have still stipulated their freefone access code must be 1-800; there are varying reasons for this, which may include copying the well-recognised NANP format, or just wanting to differ from an adjacent country so that if numbers advertised (say, on television) are dialled from the wrong side of a national border, they will not route to the "wrong" advertiser - television signals being, of course, no recogniser of national boundaries! Richard Cox Penarth, UK ------------------------------ From: Linc Madison Subject: Re: International Overseas 800 Numbers? Date: Fri, 27 Sep 2002 04:11:45 -0700 Organization: LincMad.com Consulting Reply-To: Telecom@LincMad.com In article , Ted Koppel wrote: > Almost all of the countries also gave the phone number "00 800 8728 > 3525"; a few had the international prefix of 0011 or 001 or whatever. > See the following URL for the list: > http://web.net2phone.com/products/net2phonedirect/accessintl.asp > My question -- is this sort of international 800 (toll free) service > new? Widespread? Prevalent? Of course, I have seen toll free > numbers in the US (and internal to other countries) but never on an > international scale. > [TELECOM Digest Editor's Note: I have seen many example of European > numbers of the style '0800' for use as toll-free numbers. I do not > know exactly how/when that originated several years ago. Maybe > Judith will have an answer for us. PAT] The "00 800" numbers are quite different from the internal 0800 numbers in many countries. They are truly international in scope. The acronym is UIFN, for Universal International Freephone Number, and it really is *COUNTRY CODE* 800, followed by an 8-digit subscriber number. There are a few dozen countries that support UIFN, including the United States and Canada. Of course, the subscriber can choose the countries that can dial a particular number in much the same way that a domestic toll-free number can be tailored to a specific geographic area. UIFN has been around for at least 4 or 5 years now (May 1998 is about as far back as I can find references to actual working +800 numbers, although Stentor in Canada was advertising their availability at least a year before that), but is still moving fairly slowly in adoption and general use. There are a number of applications for which it is very well suited -- things like international airlines, credit card companies, and other major global companies -- but there's a bit of a chicken-and-egg problem: few people are advertising +800 numbers because public awareness is still pretty low, and vice-versa. There's also the problem of explaining that, although you dial 800 plus 8 digits, the prefix varies from country to country, but it's not the same as the national 1-800 or 0800 numbers. On top of that, how many COCOTs do you suppose recognize 011-800 as a free call? Of course, there are other questions, like why does net2phone use different national toll-free numbers for the US and Canada? Incidentally, +808 is (or at least was) reserved for international shared-cost numbers, similar to the 0845 prefix in the UK. I would expect that, in the course of time, we will start to see Visa, MasterCard, American Express, AT&T, whichever airlines survive, and various other companies, joining with +800-TRAVEL-25. Where I would look to see the cutting edge of advertising for them would be on satellite channels like CNN's and MTV's international feeds, and in upscale magazines targeting international travelers. www dot LincMad dot com / Telecom at LincMad dot com Linc Madison * San Francisco, California ------------------------------ From: Joseph Singer Subject: Re: International Overseas 800 Numbers? Date: Fri, 27 Sep 2002 07:23:24 -0700 Organization: Drizzle Reply-To: joeofseattle@yahoo.com On Thu, 26 Sep 2002 12:23:33 -0400, Ted Koppel wrote: > My question -- is this sort of international 800 (toll free) service > new? Widespread? Prevalent? Of course, I have seen toll free > numbers in the US (and internal to other countries) but never on an > international scale. Internatiional "freephone" has been available for at least a couple of years. Usually written as +800 XXXX XXXXX (8 figures after "country code" 800.) I've only seen a couple in as many years as I've known about the service. Besides the number you saw the other number that I know is an international freephone number is Hong Kong Direct. Personal replies most likely will not be read. Please reply in the newsgroup. ------------------------------ TELECOM Digest is an electronic journal devoted mostly but not exclusively to telecommunications topics. It is circulated anywhere there is email, in addition to various telecom forums on a variety of networks such as Compuserve and America On Line, 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: 620-870-9697 Fax 1: 775-255-9970 Fax 2: 775-306-8390 Fax 3: 775-642-0603 Fax 4: 530-309-7234 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 second 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) Email <==> FTP: telecom-archives@telecom-digest.org Send a simple, one line note to that automated address for a help file on how to use the automatic retrieval system for archives files. You can get desired files in email. ************************************************************************* * 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. Access to Premium (P) links requires upgrade to a paid subscription. One click a day feeds a person a meal. Go to http://www.thehungersite.com Only subscribers or registered users of ICB Toll Free News web site will be able to access all or some of the full text of URLs provided. LEGAL STUFF: TELECOM Digest (sm) is owned by Patrick Townson. Copyright 2000 ICB, Inc. and TELECOM Digest. All rights reserved. Our attorney is Bill Levant, of Blue Bell, PA. --------------------------------------------------------------- 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 twenty 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 V22 #53 ***************************** From editor@telecom-digest.org Fri Sep 27 17:32:32 2002 Received: from localhost (localhost [[UNIX: localhost]]) by massis.lcs.mit.edu (8.11.3nb1/8.11.3) id g8RLWWT19452; Fri, 27 Sep 2002 17:32:32 -0400 (EDT) Date: Fri, 27 Sep 2002 17:32:32 -0400 (EDT) From: editor@telecom-digest.org Message-Id: <200209272132.g8RLWWT19452@massis.lcs.mit.edu> X-Authentication-Warning: massis.lcs.mit.edu: ptownson set sender to editor@telecom-digest.org using -f To: ptownson Approved: patsnewlist Subject: TELECOM Digest V22 #54 TELECOM Digest Fri, 27 Sep 2002 17:32:00 EDT Volume 22 : Issue 54 Inside This Issue: Editor: Patrick A. Townson Re: Spamming, etc (Barry Margolin) Re: Spamming, etc (John Higdon) Re: Anti-Spam Filter Blocks XX and Others (Zed**3) Re: International Overseas 800 Numbers? (MuJo) Re: Turn Your Answering Machine Into a TeleZapper! (John Mianowski) Re: Turn Your Answering Machine Into a TeleZapper! (John Higdon) Re: Turn Your Answering Machine Into a TeleZapper! ({denis}@pickaxe.net) Re: State of Pennsylvania v. WorldCom -- Court Documents (Barry Margolin) Re: American Caller Id Compatibile With European? (Goran Larsson) VeriLousy (Joey Lindstrom) Re: The Future of American IT (Dave Mausner) Re: Emergency Number 112 (Mark Brader) 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. WE DO NOT PERMIT NAME/EMAIL ADDRESS HARVESTING FROM THIS JOURNAL. 'SALTED' EMAIL ADDRESSES APPEAR HEREIN TO VERIFY THIS. YOU GET SUED IN SMALL CLAIMS COURT IF YOU GET CAUGHT SPAMMING OR SENDING VIRUSES. DON'T DO IT. See the bottom of this issue for subscription and archive details and the name of our lawyer; other stuff of interest. ---------------------------------------------------------------------- From: Barry Margolin Subject: Re: Spamming, etc Organization: Genuity, Woburn, MA Date: Fri, 27 Sep 2002 20:06:22 GMT In article , Dr. Joel M. Hoffman wrote: > Which raises an interesting point. Why doesn't local SMTP delivery > software insert the real return address? The username isn't available, > but the remote host is. I'd love to see exactly the following fields > when I read e-mail: > Subject: [user sets this] > From: [user sets this] > Via: [SMTP host that delivered this e-mail] This information is in the Received: header lines, isn't it? Barry Margolin, barmar@genuity.net Genuity, Woburn, MA *** DON'T SEND TECHNICAL QUESTIONS DIRECTLY TO ME, post them to newsgroups. Please DON'T copy followups to me -- I'll assume it wasn't posted to the group. ------------------------------ From: John Higdon Subject: Re: Spamming, etc Organization: Green Hills and Cows Date: Fri, 27 Sep 2002 13:19:01 -0700 In article , joel@exc.com (Dr. Joel M. Hoffman) wrote: > Which raises an interesting point. Why doesn't local SMTP delivery > software insert the real return address? The username isn't available, > but the remote host is. I'd love to see exactly the following fields > when I read e-mail: > Subject: [user sets this] > From: [user sets this] > Via: [SMTP host that delivered this e-mail] For anyone who can read headers, that information is already available, as plain as day. The host that actually connects to my SMTP server is clearly defined in the header. The canonical name (from inverse lookup), the name the host claims to be (from the HELO), and its IP address are all right there. > Additionally: > Reply-to: [user sets this, but I only see it when I reply] > Easy to do technically, no? And very useful. If I see a message from > a friend in NY "Via" a host in Russia, I'll start to wonder. The Reply-to: already works that way. Most of us don't want separate and conflicting From: and Reply-to: headers. One of my few major complaints about Eudora is its inclusion of an X-Sender: header that is based upon the sender's POP account ... which is no one's damned business, and has nothing to do with any return address. You used to be able to turn that off. > In current versions of smail this "feature" can be turned off. Most of us smail folks have since moved on to Exim, however. John Higdon | Email Address Valid | SF: +1 415 428-COWS +1 408 264 4115 | Anytown, USA | FAX: +1 408 264 4407 ------------------------------ From: gc@radix.net (Zed**3) Subject: Re: Anti-Spam Filter Blocks XX and Others Date: 27 Sep 2002 17:42:16 GMT Organization: Spontaneous >> Earthlink, which is the second largest ISP behind AOL, today began >> an anti-spam effort that, among other things, is preventing the >> delivery of XX messages. Some sample "bouncebacks" are given below. If Earthlink doesn't like spam they should stop sending it. My employer uses Earthlink for employee email. After getting the account I was surprised to find that my mailbox would get an occasional UCE from them. More respectable products than most spam, but not something I would expect from an ISP to do. They did provide a way to opt out, but made it difficult. You had to send an email from the address getting the spam. But the spam didn't have any indication of what address it was sent to. Since it was being sent to an address that was forwarded to the company address it took a couple of tries and I had to reconfigure my mail client to change the From: address. It's been a few weeks since the last one, so it may have worked. z ------------------------------ From: MuJo Subject: Re: International Overseas 800 Numbers? Date: Fri, 27 Sep 2002 16:25:43 -0400 I've started to notice some parsing differences typical of NANP dialing. For example, to reach the Royal Bank of Canada within Canada / US, you would call 1-800-769-2555. However, from 21 countries http://www.royalbank.com/online/faqindex.html#Countries you call +8000-769-2555. Since the first digit after the +800 can be any number between 0 and 9, it is being taken advantage of and actually false information is being given as to how these #'s are dialed. I've seen this more then once and can expect to see it more often as UIFN #'s start to catch on in Canada and the US. If we see this methed more often, then people would think that +8000 is the UIFN country code and not +800. Can you spell 'relief?' Joel Toronto, ON On Fri, 27 Sep 2002 07:23:24 -0700, Joseph Singer wrote: > Internatiional "freephone" has been available for at least a couple of > years. Usually written as +800 XXXX XXXXX (8 figures after "country > code" 800.) I've only seen a couple in as many years as I've known > about the service. Besides the number you saw the other number that I > know is an international freephone number is Hong Kong Direct. ------------------------------ From: John Mianowski Subject: Re: Turn Your Answering Machine Into a TeleZapper! Date: Fri, 27 Sep 2002 14:44:22 -0500 Organization: Nortel That's too good - it'll never happen! JM Thomas A. Horsley wrote in message news:telecom22.50.8@telecom-digest.org: >> But that would require an entire network of people to verify, enforce, >> tax and penalize, as well as wasting my time trying to report >> violations, while a device -- or simply honoring that which already >> exists -- would begin working immediately and would cost much less for >> _everyone_ involved. > Actually, we already have such a network. It is called "the phone > company". All we really need is to present the do not call proposal in > such a way that it will be profit making for the phone companies, then > their lobbyists will outbid the telemarketer lobbyists. Heres my try: > 1. I register my phone on the national "do not call" list by dialing a > magic number and punching in touch tone codes of some kind. > 2. If I get a telemarking call after doing that, I punch in some magic > # code that means "I just got a call from a telemarketing > bum who ignored the list". > This immediately charges the last caller on my line an extra $30 and > credits my account with $25 of that and the phone company with a $5 > processing fee (which also helps pay for the do not call list, so I > don't have to pay any fee to put myself on the list). > I make money, the phone company makes money, and the telemarketers > actually have to pay for ignoring the do not call list. > Then the phone company can add yet another profit making service that > screens phone numbers for the telemarketers so their outgoing phones > can't dial "do not call" numbers (only charging $0.50 each - less than > the $30 they would get hit with otherwise). > You see - you just have to game the system the right way :-). > >>==>> The *Best* political site >>==+ > email: Tom.Horsley@worldnet.att.net icbm: Delray Beach, FL | > Free Software and Politics <<==+ ------------------------------ From: John Higdon Subject: Re: Turn Your Answering Machine Into a TeleZapper! Organization: Green Hills and Cows Date: Fri, 27 Sep 2002 10:54:11 -0700 In article , temp6@thewolfden.org wrote: > While I can't argue against what you've written above, I do want to > point out where this all started: specifically programming dialers to > ignore an existing mechanism that would do the same thing. In > comparison, just stopping the extra work of ignoring the recorded > tones seems a much simpler solution. Is it really a feature that > dialer customers are asking for? (If so, back to my question about a > "go away" sign.) The SIT was designed for network administration, not as some sort of "don't bother me" for telemarketers. Which particular SIT code would you suggest transmitting? ATB? Improper number? Out of service number? Yes, you could even create a new one. The "do not call" list stops calls before they are even made. It requires no hardware to be acquired on the part of the customer. Why should I have to buy an answering machine (which I don't own) just to tell telemarketers that I don't want their calls? And don't forget, telemarketers come and go all the time, so the answering machine would have to answer all my calls in perpetuity. Yours is NOT a much simpler solution. It requires a telephone user to have an apparatus always answer his phone. At least one junk call from each telemarketer has to be made. There is no enforcement mechanism, and without that, it would not fly. The "do not call" list could be maintained and administered by automation. The cost of implementation is down in the noise. Stiff civil and criminal penalties for violation could be imposed, since there would be no wiggling out by claiming it was "the first call". The telecom industry is rife with databases that updated and checked all the time. Try calling me collect sometime. Your call won't even reach me. Why? I'm on a database, which all the carriers check, that says that I don't accept collect calls. That mechanism has been around for years and years. No muss; no fuss. The same thing could easily be applied to telemarketing. John Higdon | Email Address Valid | SF: +1 415 428-COWS +1 408 264 4115 | Anytown, USA | FAX: +1 408 264 4407 ------------------------------ From: {denis}@pickaxe.net Subject: Re: Turn Your Answering Machine Into a TeleZapper!! Date: Fri, 27 Sep 2002 18:21:48 +0100 Organization: pickaxe.net is my personal domain Reply-To: {denisrt}@pickaxe.net On Wed, 18 Sep 2002 12:06:58 -0700, John Higdon wrote: > That would be the telemarketer's choice. I only design the machines; I > don't dictate their use. You're on a par with those who write software to harvest email addresses for spamming then. Rgds, Denis McMahon / +44 7802 468949 / denis@pickaxe.net / www.pickaxe.net Top-posters, posters of adverts & binaries are scum. Killfile! If you get an email that says "send this to lots of people", it's probably some sort of hoax. Check www.hoaxbusters.org ------------------------------ From: Barry Margolin Subject: Re: State of Pennsylvania v. WorldCom -- Court Documents Now Organization: Genuity, Woburn, MA Date: Fri, 27 Sep 2002 18:00:36 GMT In article , Michael D. Sullivan wrote: > I think that the whole issue raised by this case is that the > plaintiffs persuaded the court to go after the backbone providers > instead of the ISPs, since all traffic eventually goes through the > backbone. As Barry Margolin has noted, the court also went after > Genuity. Worldcom and Genuity are *not* just a backbone provider, we're also ISP's. Worldcom operates the nationwide UUNET dialup ISP network, and Genuity operates the DSL networks used by Verizon and Earthlink. And many enterprises connect directly to tier-1 ISPs, they don't go through local ISPs. In particular, this is quite common for school districts and libraries, and PA is presumably demanding the blocking in order to prevent children from accessing the porn sites. Barry Margolin, barmar@genuity.net Genuity, Woburn, MA *** DON'T SEND TECHNICAL QUESTIONS DIRECTLY TO ME, post them to newsgroups. Please DON'T copy followups to me -- I'll assume it wasn't posted to the group. ------------------------------ From: hoh@invalid.invalid (Goran Larsson) Subject: Re: American Caller Id Compatibile With European? Date: Fri, 27 Sep 2002 18:08:32 GMT In article , Caller id wrote: > I was wondering whether there are any compatibility issues between > the American and European telecoms regarding caller id systems. Different systems, that may or may not be compatible with the US system, are in use European countries. Example: US system sends caller id as a modem signal after first ring signal. Swedish system sends caller id as a DTMF signal before first ring signal. Göran Larsson http://www.mitt-eget.com ------------------------------ From: Joey Lindstrom Date: Fri, 27 Sep 2002 12:19:39 -0600 Reply-To: Joey Lindstrom Subject: VeriLousy On Wed, 18 Sep 2002 15:01:43 -0400 (EDT), John Higdon wrote: > Recently, I had to change those same nameservers' IP numbers again. > Remembering my previous experience, I went to great pains to have both > old and new IPs running and sent the request in early. A week later, I > got a response that reminded me that the domain names for those name > servers were now handled by Dotster. That was correct; I had forgotten > that I had moved the domains. And it only took them a week to figure > that out and send me the reply. > In any event, I went to the Dotster domain maintenance page and filled > out the web page form to change the IPs of those nameservers. No muss; > no fuss. And the new numbers were in the root servers by the following > morning. > Why ANYONE would continue to pay VeriSign (or whatever they call > themselves this week) ultra-high prices for lousy service is beyond me. For once we're in agreement on something, John. :-) I've had many similar experiences with NetSol/Verisign/Whoever and so I've transfered nearly every domain that I either control or host over to Tucows resellers. Like Dotster (I take your word for it), making changes is a no-muss-no-fuss situation: quick and easy, and changes take effect nearly immediately. Recently I acquired a new client whose domain was registered with Verisign and she'd paid them in advance for three years, so she wasn't interested in paying for another year in order to transfer to a Tucows' reseller. Her domain was up and running already, with her website being hosted by the local telco (Telus ... blech!). So my job was to change the nameservers from Telus' nameservers (with the tacky domain name "meganameservers.com") over to my own. Good freakin' luck -- this operation in total took just about a full month to complete. Here's why: the nameservers in question, dns1 through dns4 @ interocitor.net, are with Tucows. Verisign's crappy email/response system just wouldn't accept them. Eventually, after phoning there once a day for over a week, I found a guy who actually understood the problem. He said that he was going to bump this upstairs to "Engineering", and they would create a "mirror" for these nameservers so that they could be used with this domain. Great, I said. How long will this take? 7 to 10 business days, unless I was willing to pay $30USD per nameserver to "expedite" things down to 1 business day. What a crock. And what a stupid way to run things: why doesn't their system just AUTOMATICALLY CREATE a mirror when a request like this comes in? These people, at least the folks in charge of their registration system, must still think it's 1992, not 2002. As much as Pat has issues with the world wide web (grin!), I for one am REALLY happy I can just surf over to http://manage.tucows.com and make changes to my domains, even en-masse changes to all domains in my profile, with one mouse click. Joey Lindstrom - Laird's Flooring joey@lairdsflooring.com ------------------------------ Reply-To: Dave Mausner From: Dave Mausner Subject: Re: The Future of American IT Organization: Prodigy Internet http://www.prodigy.com Date: Fri, 27 Sep 2002 18:25:57 GMT I am as sad to experience the implosion of IT and telecom jobs as anyone else. but as IT becomes more manageable with less experience, we just have to expect the extinction of the priesthood. All readers of this NG know what happened to switchboard operators in the 1960's as the country moved to automated, then digital switching. Implosion of employment due to technological advances is ancient history. it's hard to believe, but we may just have to get over it. Dave Mausner / v.+1-708-848-2775 / f.+1-708-848-2569 / c.+1-312-wake-my-i Dave wrote in message news:telecom22.50.1@telecom-digest.org... > FYI (Believe it or not...) > Fred Elbel wrote in message > news:j126pukoenjommgib7sjpe2lli4235gb8s@4ax.com: > Is the IT labor market shrinking? Most said yes...One IT > executive said it's too expensive to develop software in the U.S. > "Techno nerd" jobs will outright disappear, particularly ones in > programming and application development. But database, network and > systems administrators are safe. > [ snipped ] > Unfortunately, neither corporate nor public (i.e., government and > media) America has learned its lessons from these past fiascoes and > mistakes. [TELECOM Digest Editor's Note: You mentioned what happened with tele- phone operators during the 1960's ... actually it was a lot earlier than that. In Chicago, for example, the conversion from manual service to dial started in 1939. The conversion was suspended in 1942 as part of the war effort (Western Electric got nationalized by the feds during the war and could not work on 'public' stuff any longer.) Then the conversion to dial resumed in 1946 and the final office to get converted was in 1950 when the AVEnue-Chicago (773-283) and HUMboldt- Chicago (773-486) offices were cut. Six months after Avenue (which serves Ohare) was cut, Orchard Field was opened to the general public and renamed 'Ohare International Airport' and Avenue CO had more emnployees/operators working there than ever previously. During the four years of the war effort (1942-46), Chicago had a hodge-podge of equipment in service, where dial offices called each other automatically, dial offices reached manual offices with three digit codes, then waited for an operator to respond (ditto with calling long distance), and manual offices asked the operators for everyone. The towns here in s.e. Kansas for example, were largely cut in the middle 1950; Coffeyville, in 1954; Independence about 1956. So by the 1960's the telecom implosion (at least for the traffic depart- ment) was over and done with. It used to be (in the 1930-40's, etc) a labor strike by the operators put the fear in management. It meant long, hard hours of work for them until the operators resolved their issues. Not anymore ... :( PAT] ------------------------------ Subject: Re: Emergency Number 112 Date: Fri, 27 Sep 2002 15:20:28 EDT From: msb@vex.net (Mark Brader) Earlier, I wrote: > Which organization was it that promulgated the emergency number 112 > as a common replacement or alternative for the various emergency > numbers in different countries? Does its use or recommended use > extend anywhere outside Europe? What countries now have it? > Have any of them actually eliminated their old emergency numbers? Bernd Jendrissek replied in email as follows. Thanks, Bernd. [Postings don't propagate out here - feel free to post, quote, eat, etc. In fact, please do post to the group on my behalf.] In South Africa, the cellular network operators use 112 as the emergency number. IIRC our Telecommunications Act specifies "112" somewhere. But no, AFAIK our traditional POTS emergency number, 10111, still works. Still listed in the directory, anyway. bernd -- berndfoobar@users.sourceforge.net is probably better to bookmark than any employer-specific email address I may have appearing in the headers. Vanity page: http://www.tsct.co.za/~berndj/ Forwarded by Mark Brader, Toronto, msb@vex.net | "Fast, cheap, good: choose any two." ------------------------------ TELECOM Digest is an electronic journal devoted mostly but not exclusively to telecommunications topics. It is circulated anywhere there is email, in addition to various telecom forums on a variety of networks such as Compuserve and America On Line, 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: 620-870-9697 Fax 1: 775-255-9970 Fax 2: 775-306-8390 Fax 3: 775-642-0603 Fax 4: 530-309-7234 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 second 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) Email <==> FTP: telecom-archives@telecom-digest.org Send a simple, one line note to that automated address for a help file on how to use the automatic retrieval system for archives files. You can get desired files in email. ************************************************************************* * 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. Access to Premium (P) links requires upgrade to a paid subscription. One click a day feeds a person a meal. Go to http://www.thehungersite.com Only subscribers or registered users of ICB Toll Free News web site will be able to access all or some of the full text of URLs provided. LEGAL STUFF: TELECOM Digest (sm) is owned by Patrick Townson. Copyright 2000 ICB, Inc. and TELECOM Digest. All rights reserved. Our attorney is Bill Levant, of Blue Bell, PA. --------------------------------------------------------------- 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 twenty 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 V22 #54 ***************************** From editor@telecom-digest.org Sat Sep 28 23:09:32 2002 Received: from localhost (localhost [[UNIX: localhost]]) by massis.lcs.mit.edu (8.11.3nb1/8.11.3) id g8T39WE25494; Sat, 28 Sep 2002 23:09:32 -0400 (EDT) Date: Sat, 28 Sep 2002 23:09:32 -0400 (EDT) From: editor@telecom-digest.org Message-Id: <200209290309.g8T39WE25494@massis.lcs.mit.edu> X-Authentication-Warning: massis.lcs.mit.edu: ptownson set sender to editor@telecom-digest.org using -f To: ptownson Approved: patsnewlist Subject: TELECOM Digest V22 #55 TELECOM Digest Sat, 28 Sep 2002 23:09:00 EDT Volume 22 : Issue 55 Inside This Issue: Editor: Patrick A. Townson Re: Emergency Number 112 (Joseph Singer) Re: Emergency Number 112 (Mike Hartley) Re: Emergency Number 112 (Linc Madison) Re: Emergency Number 112 (Shaun Ewing) Re: Spamming, etc (Geoffrey Welsh) Cable & Wireless Customer Service (Geoffrey Welsh) Re: Turn Your Answering Machine Into a TeleZapper!! (John Higdon) Re: International Overseas 800 Numbers? (Shaun Ewing) Re: International Overseas 800 Numbers? (Paul Coxwell) Re: One Area Code to Unify Divided Town (Wes Leatherock) Re: The Future of American IT (BV124@aol.com) New Motorola Products at CEDIA Expo 2002 (Monty Solomon) Wi-Fi Stretches its Boundaries (Monty Solomon) Sprint Open Relay (John Pearce) Can Someone Help Me With a Billing Problem? (RickD) New Telecoms Site (Casper) 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. WE DO NOT PERMIT NAME/EMAIL ADDRESS HARVESTING FROM THIS JOURNAL. 'SALTED' EMAIL ADDRESSES APPEAR HEREIN TO VERIFY THIS. YOU GET SUED IN SMALL CLAIMS COURT IF YOU GET CAUGHT SPAMMING OR SENDING VIRUSES. DON'T DO IT. See the bottom of this issue for subscription and archive details and the name of our lawyer; other stuff of interest. ---------------------------------------------------------------------- From: Joseph Singer Subject: Re: Emergency Number 112 Date: Fri, 27 Sep 2002 14:48:01 -0700 Organization: Drizzle Reply-To: joeofseattle@yahoo.com On Fri, 27 Sep 2002 00:32:20 EDT, msb@vex.net (Mark Brader) wrote: > Which organization was it that promulgated the emergency number 112 > as a common replacement or alternative for the various emergency > numbers in different countries? Does its use or recommended use > extend anywhere outside Europe? What countries now have it? > Have any of them actually eliminated their old emergency numbers? http://www.911dispatch.com/web_graphic/graphic1.html http://www.sccfd.org/travel.html It should also be noted that all GSM (mobile) operators (to my knowlege) program 112 as an available keypress to reach the emergency operator. It remaps to the emergency number in the country where you are. Personal replies most likely will not be read. Please reply in the newsgroup. ------------------------------ From: Mike Hartley Subject: Re: Emergency Number 112 Date: Fri, 27 Sep 2002 22:53:21 +0100 > Which organization was it that promulgated the emergency number 112 as > a common replacement or alternative for the various emergency numbers > in different countries? AFAIK it was ETSI. > Does its use or recommended use extend anywhere outside Europe? What > countries now have it? I *think*- but not sure- that it's part of the GSM standard, so potentially any GSM network. > Have any of them actually eliminated their old emergency numbers? Tanznia, for one, according to http://www.wtng.info/wtng-tv.html Big list at http://ambulance.eire.org/Numbers/Index.htm Euro list at http://www.911dispatch.com/911_file/eto_numbers.html Regards, Mike ------------------------------ From: Linc Madison Subject: Re: Emergency Number 112 Date: Fri, 27 Sep 2002 15:22:28 -0700 Organization: LincMad.com Consulting Reply-To: Telecom@LincMad.com In article , Mark Brader wrote: > Which organization was it that promulgated the emergency number 112 > as a common replacement or alternative for the various emergency > numbers in different countries? The European Union. > Does its use or recommended use extend anywhere outside Europe? I believe that GSM networks are encouraged (required?) to recognize 112 even in countries that don't use that as the landline emergency number. > What countries now have it? All of the EU, plus several other countries in Europe (especially countries hoping to join the EU in the near future), and perhaps a sprinkling of countries elsewhere. > Have any of them actually eliminated their old emergency numbers? No. In fact, the UK still seems to have 999 as the primary emergency number, with 112 also recognized for pan-European consistency. If any of those countries ever eliminate their other emergency numbers, it will be only after many, many years of emphasizing the new over the old. I'm sure you can imagine the headlines: "Pensioner dies dialling 999!" www dot LincMad dot com / Telecom at LincMad dot com Linc Madison * San Francisco, California ------------------------------ From: Shaun Ewing Subject: Re: Emergency Number 112 Date: Sat, 28 Sep 2002 17:41:58 +1000 Mark Brader wrote in message news:telecom22.52.7@telecom-digest.org: > Which organization was it that promulgated the emergency number 112 > as a common replacement or alternative for the various emergency > numbers in different countries? Does its use or recommended use > extend anywhere outside Europe? What countries now have it? > Have any of them actually eliminated their old emergency numbers? > Just wondering. First of all, I'm in Australia. From what I've read, the widespread use of the 112 emergency number started on the GSM mobile phone network. As part of the GSM standard, GSM handsets are required to be able to dial 112 anywhere there is GSM coverage. 112 must work regardless of the phone having a sim card and regardless of phone security settings. Australia only has 112 access on the GSM mobile phone network. On landlines and on the CDMA network, people are required to dial '000' for emergencies. '000' will also work on GSM, but only on your home network whereas 112 will go with the network with the strongest signal. A brief excerpt from http://www.911dispatch.com/web_graphic/graphic1.html says: "The European Union (EU) has selected 112 as the Union's official emergency number, and required member nations to implement it by Dec. 1992. However, several countries, including England (999), already had three-digit numbers and, since the EU directive, have continued to operate them in parallel with the required 112 number. As yet, the EU has not required nations to use only 112." There are also a list of emergency numbers from around the world at http://www.sccfd.org/travel.html I hope that helps. --Shaun ------------------------------ From: Geoffrey Welsh Subject: Re: Spamming, etc Date: Fri, 27 Sep 2002 16:48:55 -0400 Dr. Joel M. Hoffman wrote: > Why doesn't local SMTP delivery software insert the real return address? More often than not, the "SMTP delivery software" is specially-written spamming software completely under the control of the spammer and designed not to help you detect spam. > I'd love to see exactly the following fields when I read e-mail: > Subject: [user sets this] > From: [user sets this] > Via: [SMTP host that delivered this e-mail] Unless your mail system strips off the information, you can usually access the 'full headers' of the message and see one or more lines like this: Received: from [{what the sending server called itself during its SMTP "HELO" command}] ({the reverse DNS name of the sending server's IP address}[{the sending server's IP address}]) by {what your mail server calls itself}(Postfix) with SMTP for <{the address specified in the SMTP "RCPT TO" command}>; {the date & time} The exact format will vary from one server to another, and not all servers will report all information. Some mail servers, referredd to as "anonymizing relays" (not to be confused with mail anonymizing services) won't say from where the mail came, essentially ending the trail back towards the sender. However, it doesn't help - if you follow the trace back far enough, it usually ends up at the address of an insecure proxy server or a dial-up port which the ISP may be able to track back to an account that was used once and discarded, opened with false information. > Additionally: Reply-to: [user sets this, but I only see it when I reply] Once again, see if your mail agent will show you 'full headers.' > [TELECOM Digest Editor's Note: [...] > But back to the point: why not a spam check on that X-warning-user set > -f thing, then write rules on it like SpamAssassin does, noting the > few good items you want to allow anyway? PAT] That's great if the spammer is a prankster at college sending through the local mail server; if the sending agent is purpose-written spamware, and the relay is an insecure mail server or proxy installed by a clueless home user or inexperienced admin, you can't expect niceties like that to be implemented. ------------------------------ From: Geoffrey Welsh Subject: Cable & Wireless customer service Date: Fri, 27 Sep 2002 17:05:48 -0400 Having just read the discussion about Primus vs. Cable & Wireless and the positive experiences with Cable & Wireless customer service, I thought I'd report my experience. Today I received a notice dated September 20th from C&W USA informing us that our account is past due, and we'd better pay it up within ten days of sending to avoid any possibility of disconnection. Today is Friday the 27th, and the chances of getting payment to C&W by Monday the 30th are not good. The note was addressed to an ex-employee at a site that has no accounting or MIS presence. It would appear that our August invoice has been misplaced, possibly because it was addressed to another ex-employee at the same site in question and didn't get forwarded on to finance. We tried to call the toll-free customer service number provided and were told that, sorry, no one can take your call right now so please try again later. No wait on hold, no voice mail, just that message and click. I'll have to suggest we do the same to calling customers next time someone asks me where we can squeeze even more savings on our telecom costs and see what the reaction is ... We tried to call the person who sent the notice, but he's out of the office and his message says to press 0 to speak to a someone else. Pressing 0 got us to another message saying that the person we've [not] reached is out of the office so press 0 to speak to someone else, which gets us back to the voice mail of the original person we tried to call! We tried calling the telephone number on the letterhead, and got a message saying that, if this call is about billing, we've got the wrong number and our call will not be returned. If C&W does disconnect us, I think we'll find an alternative provider who only makes us wait on hold. ------------------------------ From: John Higdon Subject: Re: Turn Your Answering Machine Into a TeleZapper!! Organization: Green Hills and Cows Date: Fri, 27 Sep 2002 14:44:45 -0700 In article , {denis}@pickaxe.net wrote: > On Wed, 18 Sep 2002 12:06:58 -0700, John Higdon > wrote: >> That would be the telemarketer's choice. I only design the machines; I >> don't dictate their use. > You're on a par with those who write software to harvest email > addresses for spamming then. Really! Most of my products are sold to places like airports (for employee notification), county governments (for targeted hazard notification), and private high-volume emergency notification uses. And believe me, the code for a predictive dialing and interactive voice response system and its subsystems is FAR more complex than "address harvesting" software, and it has many important applications. Neither I nor my company set ourselves up as nannies to dictate who can and who cannot buy the product, nor do we dictate its use. We'll leave that to others. John Higdon | Email Address Valid | SF: +1 415 428-COWS +1 408 264 4115 | Anytown, USA | FAX: +1 408 264 4407 ------------------------------ From: Shaun Ewing Subject: Re: International Overseas 800 Numbers? Date: Sat, 28 Sep 2002 17:55:36 +1000 Alan Burkitt-Gray wrote in message news:telecom22.53.5@telecom-digest.org: > Other countries using 800-like codes include China > (10-800), Australia (1800) and Argentina (0800). Here in Australia, 1800 is actually our freecall number. Toll free numbers are 1300 xxx xxx or 13 xx xx. > Some countries which started toll-free using other codes have recently > converted to 800-style numbers as part of renumbering 1800 here only started widespread use a few years ago. Before that it was 008 xxx xxx. > From each country you have to prefix this with your > regular international access code (00 from most of the world, 011 from > North America, 0011 I think from Australia), and all numbers following > the +800 have eight digits. Yes, 0011 is the international access code here in Australia. An interesting thing. From my cellphone, many +800 numbers get a message "The number you have called is not in service" where they work fine from my landline. The mobile service is through Vodafone and the landlines are through Optus. --Shaun ------------------------------ From: PaulCoxwell@aol.com Date: Sat, 28 Sep 2002 11:47:16 EDT Subject: Re: International Overseas 800 Numbers? > A few countries where the trunk access digit is "0" have still > stipulated their freefone access code must be 1-800; there are varying > reasons for this, which may include copying the well-recognised NANP > format, or just wanting to differ from an adjacent country so that if > numbers advertised (say, on television) are dialled from the wrong > side of a national border, they will not route to the "wrong" > advertiser - television signals being, of course, no recogniser of > national boundaries! The Republic of Ireland is one such example. Regular STD trunk codes have a 0 prefix, but toll free is 1800 (advertised as "1800" rather than "1-800"). Other special codes follow suit, e.g. 1850 for local (shared cost) calls, and 15xx for premium-rate.) The cross-border advertising may have played a part in opting for 1800 toll-free numbers, but it was no doubt also influenced by the fact that 080 was already in use as a kludge for direct-dialing into Northern Ireland. ------------------------------ From: wesrock@aol.com (Wes Leatherock) Date: 27 Sep 2002 23:36:07 GMT Organization: AOL http://www.aol.com Subject: Re: One Area Code to Unify Divided Town On Thu, 26 Sep 2002 00:17:01 -0000 markrobt@hotmail.com (Mark Roberts) wrote: > All other LD calls went to the operator. That ended by the > late 1960s when both clusters went 1+ (the Columbia DDD code was > "112"). International direct-dialing didn't come to the area until > 1986. Interesting. General Telephone also used 112 as the DDD access code in Sherman, Texas, when local pressure demanded they provide DDD because it had been introduced in the Bell exchange in Denison, Texas. Denison and Sherman are more or less twin cities and a single market area. Wes Leatherock wesrock@aol.com wleathus@yahoo.com ------------------------------ From: BV124@aol.com Date: Fri, 27 Sep 2002 21:02:28 EDT Subject: Re: The Future of American IT Maybe my memory is failing me. Pat, if anyone knows, you should! I have a very distinct memory of my aunt and uncle (who lived in the Chicago West Side Lawndale neighborhood-LAwndale1-xxxx) having a telephone WITHOUT a dial in it, during the mid to late 1950s. This amazed me (as a child) as my family had dial service (Berwyn, IL - GUnderson4-xxxx) during the same time frame, and, as I recall, WE could dial THEM, but they had to use an operator to call us! I had another aunt and uncle in the same neighborhood (CRawford7-xxxx) who had the same situation (no dial service in the 1950s) Was this all a dream? [TELECOM Digest Editor's Note: No, it was not a dream, but it would have been all over by the early 1950's, not the middle 50's. Just a side note, but by 1955 the Chicago neighborhood known as Lawndale was entirely black. Formerly a weathly Jewish neighborhood in the 1920's and 30's, the Jews moved out, mostly to the Rogers Park neighborhood in the late 1940's. The remaining white people there all had split by the early 1950's as Lawndale got more minority residents. Then came the riots in 1968, and what was left out there was destroyed. For many, many years after that there was not a single store, restaurant, bank or other business place in the area except for cut-rate liquor stores and combination high-priced 'convenience' grocery stores/ 1Illinois State Lottery agents every couple blocks. Then the Koreans came in and tried to make a go of the discount liquor/grocery/lottery businesses, but without a lot of success, and some personal danger as well. Like yourself I have distant memories of Lawndale from those days in the early 1950's. I remember as a very young child going with my mother and grandmother to a book review/lecture by a very prominent rabbi at the prominent one remaining synagogue in the neighborhood. The last time I was in the neighborhood -- middle 1990's -- the synagogue sign in front announced the building was now the Missionary Baptist Church and 'we call Police to prevent loitering and drinking on the premises. Good Bible preaching every Sunday at 1:00 PM.' It is always amusing hearing the good folks in South-Central El Lay talk hopefully about how the city will repair/rebuild the area of the riots in the 1990's. The hell you say! Chicago hasn't rebuilt anything since the riots 35 years ago ... except Lake Shore Drive and Michigan Avenue, where the tour busses go. They *have* to keep that looking nice. But like all things-Chicago, I digress too easily and too often. I am sure the last cutover on phones in Chicago occurred by 1952-53, when AVEnue-3, HUMboldt-6, and LAwndale-? were converted to dial. It was long since done by the middle fifties, certainly not in the 1960's as our correspondent thought. Illinois Bell came up with the scheme of letting dial phones dial into (still) manual phones around 1950 sometime. Prior to that, dialers had to dial a three digit code (211 for long distance, 411 for information, 511, 711, or 911 for the north/south/suburban areas still manual, 811 during the war for priority [miltary related] long distance calls, and later for hotel phone operators who needed to get quotes [time and charges] on calls. 611 was for 'repair service' and the Business Office was always reached on OFFicial-3-9100 by dialers and by manuals asking the operator for 'Business Office'.) Around 1948, the various exchanges were 'prepared for dial service' by assuring all the manuals had appropriate names and numbers, by taking the first three letters of the exchange name and making them the object of your dialing. For example the near north side Whitehall exchange began being emphasized in print as WHItehall [944]. In cases where that did not work, (for example, Lawndale [529] conflicted with something else J/K/L, A/B/C, W/X/Y then they just arbitrarily gave it another third pull, as in the case of LAwndale-1, and care had to be taken, since we also had LAFayette [523], LAKeview [525 and 528] and a couple others assigned and in some cases already being dialed. And they tried to maintain the original geographic place names whenever there was no conflict because of the arrangment on the dial of letters/numbers. The oldest and first exchange in Chicago (from 1878) was simply (the) Central (office) and it has been through many metamorphises, from Central in the earliest days to CENtral (when there was more than one office) to CENtral-6 when automation came around (in that case I think 1941) to CE-6 when they stopped saying the entire name, to 236 when it went ANC around 1963 or so. It presently is 312-236. The second oldest office in Chicago was WABash [now 312-922] (a street in the downtown area when there was not much to the city), the third oldest was DEArborn [now 312-332] (and also the name of a famous landmark at one time, Fort Dearborn.) By the time residents of the city were moving out to (in those days) the 'suburbs' around GRAceland Cemetery [773-472] and other parts of the village of LAKeview [773-525] or south to the village of KENwood (773-536) or ENGlewood [773-364] or the town of HYDepark (773-493) or along DORchester Avenue (773-363) or even way out west around Pulaski Road (formerly CRAwford Avenue [773-382] and it still is CRAwford Avenue north and south of the Chicago City Limits) or KEDzie Avenue (773-533) things were getting more complicated in the phone exchange naming business. So by the 1950's and 'preparing the public for full conversion to dial', they couldn't exactly go with the FIRst three letters of the neighborhood name in all cases. So they dropped the third letter and went with a 2L-5D system, keeping the existing digit (equaling the third letter) if it was possible, otherwise just grabbing other available third-digit while keeping at least the first two letters of the neighborhood or street name. That was, I think, in 1955-56, by then fully dial in Chicago. Around 1960-62 the exchange-namers had all been committed to insane asylums following their nervous breakdowns and Ma Bell decided to throw in the towel and go with ANC (all number calling). In the conversion of manual to automatic, in addition to retaining where possible the exchange name, they also retained the suffix or last 1,2,3 or 4 digits of the number, filling with zeroes in the front to get 7 digits as needed. For example, Central 1 in 1878 was the number of City Hall. Until sometime in the middle 1960's or maybe 1970, the same number 312-236-0001 was a private line in (the original) Mayor Daley's fifth floor office, although City Hall had long since (sometime in the 1920's) installed a switchboard with the lead number RANdolph-6-8000. RANdolph is another main street downtown, where City Hall is located. In addition to using zeroes as filler on short (less than four digit) manual numbers, party line manual subscribers with '-B', '-K', '-L', and '-R' endings, (as in 'Calumet-1351-R' for example had their final ending letters swapped out for a different seventh digit. It might have been changed to 'CALumet 5-1352' as the new number. None of that of course bothers to explain how Coffeyville, KS (620-251) started life as 'CLinton' in 1956 or how Independence, KS (620-331) started life as 'EDison' in 1955. Thomas Alva was a famous person of course, but Hillary Rodham was just a small girl. PAT] ------------------------------ Date: Fri, 27 Sep 2002 22:03:23 -0400 From: Monty Solomon Subject: New Motorola Products at CEDIA Expo 2002 Motorola Showcases the Latest Broadband Home-Entertainment and Networking Products at CEDIA Expo 2002 Motorola Portfolio Designed to Deliver Latest Broadband Entertainment and Info Services to Consumers in Their Homes, in the Most Convenient Ways Possible MINNEAPOLIS, Sept. 27 /PRNewswire-FirstCall/ -- Motorola, Inc. (NYSE:MOT) Broadband Communications Sector is exhibiting the latest broadband home- entertainment and networking products at the Custom Electronic Design & Installation Association (CEDIA) EXPO 2002 (Minneapolis Convention Center, Sept. 25-29, booth #SR-13). Motorola has built a robust broadband portfolio -- spanning video, data, and networking products -- designed to deliver the latest "in-demand" broadband services to consumers in their homes, in the most convenient ways possible. By utilizing consumer feedback in the design stage and by leveraging its digital-cable and cable-modem industry leadership, Motorola has developed an offering that can help designers and installers increase sales and customer satisfaction. -- Motorola Digital Convergence Platform (DCP) 501 -- Motorola DCT5100 HD digital set-top -- Motorola DSR922 4DTV(R) digital satellite receiver -- Motorola SB4200 cable modem (DOCSIS 1.1 certified) -- Motorola SBG1000 wireless cable modem gateway http://finance.lycos.com/home/news/story.asp?story=28867187 ------------------------------ Date: Sat, 28 Sep 2002 00:00:08 -0400 From: Monty Solomon Subject: Wi-Fi Stretches its Boundaries By Ben Charny Staff Writer, CNET News.com September 27, 2002, 11:17 AM PT Communications equipment maker Proxim became the latest company to sell high-powered Wi-Fi networks that travel long distances, essentially providing buyers with an "ISP in a box," the company's Chief Executive, Jonathan Zakin, said this week. These versions of wireless networks using the Wi-Fi, or 802.11b, standard create a wireless zone of up to 12 miles long, far beyond the usual 300-foot-radius range that Wi-Fi typically achieves, Zakin said. Overkill for use inside a home, where most Wi-Fi networks are now found, the long-range Wi-Fi gear from Proxim and others is meant for small Web service providers. It lets them beam long-range signals outside, particularly to sell broadband access in rural areas where DSL (digital subscriber lines) or cable broadband service haven't reached, Zakin said. http://news.com.com/2100-1033-959924.html ------------------------------ Date: Sat, 28 Sep 2002 12:58:48 -0600 From: John Pearce Subject: Sprint Open Relay Pat, I questioned Earthlink about certain messages that were rejected by them as having originated from an open relay. I've received the same message as below for each of the messages I submitted to Earthlink. I'd think quoting the first two paragraphs would not be out of line. John From: openrelay@abuse.earthlink.net Date: Fri, 27 Sep 2002 20:33:50 -0400 (EDT) To: jpearce@ba.org Subject: Blocked error information (020926-22894620) Hello, This email is in reply to a message you've sent to the address openrelay@abuse.earthlink.net regarding bounce(s) received on September 25th or September 26th. During a brief time on the evening on September 25, the Earthlink mail servers erroneously refused mail connections from many hosts across the Internet. This problem happened due to a glitch in the transmission of server configuration data used to block spam between our various mail servers. The error message you received: 550 Dialups/open relays blocked. Contact ... is normally intended for mail hosts that Earthlink has blocked in order to protect our members from unwanted commercial email. However on the evening in question, this error was passed to many mail servers not intentionally blocked by Earthlink. If you received this error, during this time frame, it's very likely that you are not being blocked, and have been able to successfully route mail to the Earthlink network as of the late evening hours of 9/25. If you find yourself still running into this error as of the time you receive this message, then your host has been blocked and you should reply to this mail or contact openrelay@abuse.earthlink.net for assitance in being unblocked. We apologize for the inconvenience this problem created. We strive for uninterrupted service for all of our customers (and those trying to communicate with them), and we realize the disturbance that such an outage creates impacts people in important ways. This is why we've already implemented, and placed into production new means to prevent these errors from happening again. We do not expect any issues of this nature to affect our network again. Now that we have applied a fix, if you are no longer having this problem, and are no longer receiving the specific error message included above, it is not necessary to respond to this message. Thank you for contacting Earthlink. Regards, Kate Trower |---- | EarthLink AUP Abuse Investigator |---- | |---- | |- ------------------------------ From: RickD Subject: Can Someone Help Me With a Billing Problem? Date: Sat, 28 Sep 2002 16:01:16 -0400 Organization: Storm Internet Services I know what OFF-NET and what is ON-NET, and such is. When I look at my invoice (in electronic format), I can't seem to figure out if line items are ON-Net or Off-Net. This is the age of "Truth-In-Billing" legislation right? Am I just blind or do I need the invoice to actually indicate that a particular line item is, in the case of VPN's, On-Net or Off-Net. TIA. ------------------------------ From: Casper Subject: New Telecoms Site Date: Sat, 28 Sep 2002 22:43:46 GMT Organization: blueyonder (post doesn't reflect views of blueyonder) Hi all, I have set up a telecoms help site. Any feedback would be greatly appreciated. Best Regards, Casper www.thefirstuk.com For Telecoms advice, News & Free Manuals, ------------------------------ TELECOM Digest is an electronic journal devoted mostly but not exclusively to telecommunications topics. It is circulated anywhere there is email, in addition to various telecom forums on a variety of networks such as Compuserve and America On Line, 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: 620-870-9697 Fax 1: 775-255-9970 Fax 2: 775-306-8390 Fax 3: 775-642-0603 Fax 4: 530-309-7234 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 second 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) Email <==> FTP: telecom-archives@telecom-digest.org Send a simple, one line note to that automated address for a help file on how to use the automatic retrieval system for archives files. You can get desired files in email. ************************************************************************* * 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. Access to Premium (P) links requires upgrade to a paid subscription. One click a day feeds a person a meal. Go to http://www.thehungersite.com Only subscribers or registered users of ICB Toll Free News web site will be able to access all or some of the full text of URLs provided. LEGAL STUFF: TELECOM Digest (sm) is owned by Patrick Townson. Copyright 2000 ICB, Inc. and TELECOM Digest. All rights reserved. Our attorney is Bill Levant, of Blue Bell, PA. --------------------------------------------------------------- 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 twenty 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 V22 #55 ***************************** From editor@telecom-digest.org Mon Sep 30 16:18:03 2002 Received: from localhost (localhost [[UNIX: localhost]]) by massis.lcs.mit.edu (8.11.3nb1/8.11.3) id g8UKI3I04531; Mon, 30 Sep 2002 16:18:03 -0400 (EDT) Date: Mon, 30 Sep 2002 16:18:03 -0400 (EDT) From: editor@telecom-digest.org Message-Id: <200209302018.g8UKI3I04531@massis.lcs.mit.edu> X-Authentication-Warning: massis.lcs.mit.edu: ptownson set sender to editor@telecom-digest.org using -f To: ptownson Approved: patsnewlist Subject: TELECOM Digest V22 #56 TELECOM Digest Mon, 30 Sep 2002 16:16:00 EDT Volume 22 : Issue 56 Inside This Issue: Editor: Patrick A. Townson Telecom Update (Canada) #351, September 30, 2002 (Angus TeleManagement) Re: One Area Code to Unify Divided Town (LAalone@aol.com) Re: One Area Code to Unify Divided Town (Joseph Singer) Re: One Area Code to Unify Divided Town (Rob) Ordinary Phone With Good Sound? (James Boyk) Re: Anti-Spam Filter Blocks XX and Others (Henry E. Schaffer) Re: Emergency Number 112 ({denis}@pickaxe.net) Re: Emergency Number 112 (Tim Hogard) Re: Emergency Number 112 (Mark Brader) 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. WE DO NOT PERMIT NAME/EMAIL ADDRESS HARVESTING FROM THIS JOURNAL. 'SALTED' EMAIL ADDRESSES APPEAR HEREIN TO VERIFY THIS. YOU GET SUED IN SMALL CLAIMS COURT IF YOU GET CAUGHT SPAMMING OR SENDING VIRUSES. DON'T DO IT. See the bottom of this issue for subscription and archive details and the name of our lawyer; other stuff of interest. ---------------------------------------------------------------------- Date: Mon, 30 Sep 2002 10:34:20 -0400 From: Angus TeleManagement Subject: Telecom Update (Canada) #351, September 30, 2002 ************************************************************ TELECOM UPDATE ************************************************************ published weekly by Angus TeleManagement Group http://www.angustel.ca Number 351: September 30, 2002 Publication of Telecom Update is made possible by generous financial support from: ** BELL CANADA: http://www.bell.ca ** CISCO SYSTEMS CANADA: http://www.cisco.com/ca/letstalk ** CYGCOM INTEGRATED TECHNOLOGIES: http://www.cygcom.com ** ERICSSON CANADA: http://www.ericsson.ca ** JUNIPER NETWORKS: http://www.juniper.net ** PRIMUS CANADA: http://www.primustel.ca ** Q9 NETWORKS: http://www.Q9.com ** TELUS: http://www.telus.com ************************************************************ IN THIS ISSUE: ** Nortel Projects Lower Sales, Stock Consolidation ** CRTC Cuts Rates for Competitor Services ** Call-Net Wants Interim CDNA Tariff Adjustment ** AT&T to Repay Banks, Retire Bonds ** Call-Net Buys Back Senior Notes ** CTEA Members Ratify Equity Deal ** BCE Faces Class Action Suit ** JDS Predicts Lower Sales ** ExpressVu Sues Dish Dealers ** New CFO at Bell ** GT Protection Extended ** CRTC Approves New Contribution Fund Administrator ** Rogers Intros "Wireless Desktop" ** Aliant Offers Mobile Dispatch ** Shaw to Trim Capital Spending ** SBC to Cut Jobs, Spending ** Mitec Plans Cost Reduction ** Special Telemanagement Discount ============================================================ NORTEL PROJECTS LOWER SALES, STOCK CONSOLIDATION: Nortel Networks says third-quarter sales will be 15% lower than the previous quarter, rather than 10% lower as projected a month ago. Nortel plans a reverse stock split next spring to bring its share price up to US$10-$20. (See Telecom Update #347) CRTC CUTS RATES FOR COMPETITOR SERVICES: In Telecom Order 2002-384, the CRTC reduces the rates that competitors pay for Direct Connect and Access Tandem services, retroactive to June 1. The Commission says that the underlying costs of these services have fallen so significantly that an interim adjustment is justified. Final rates will be set next year. http://www.crtc.gc.ca/archive/ENG/Orders/2002/o2002-384.htm ** Call-Net President Bill Linton says the change will save Sprint Canada $1 million a month. CALL-NET WANTS INTERIM CDNA TARIFF ADJUSTMENT: Based on cost information filed by the incumbent telcos on September 13, Call-Net wants the CRTC to order interim reductions in Competitor Digital Network Access (CDNA) rates, retroactive to June 1. It also wants the existing tariffs amended to permit competitors to combine CDNA services with retail DNA services. AT&T TO REPAY BANKS, RETIRE BONDS: AT&T Canada says it will repay the $200 million drawn against its bank line of credit out of the $240 million it will receive from the exercise of employee stock options when AT&T Corp buys all outstanding shares in October. AT&T Canada has also unwound its remaining currency swaps, canceling $85 million in bonds. CALL-NET BUYS BACK SENIOR NOTES: On Sept. 26, Call-Net redeemed US$77.5 million of its 10.625% Senior Secured Notes due December 2008, for a total cost of US$18.8 million. The purchase will reduce Call-Net's annual interest payments by US$8.2 million. CTEA MEMBERS RATIFY EQUITY DEAL: Members of the Canadian Telecommunications Employees Association have voted to approve the pay equity settlement announced September 4. 77.4% of eligible members voted, and of those, 75.9% voted in favour. BCE FACES CLASS ACTION SUIT: A shareholder in Bell Canada International (BCI) has filed a proposed class action suit against BCE Inc. and BCI. The suit seeks $1 billion in damages related to BCI's reorganization in July. BCE says the allegations are "frivolous and entirely without merit." JDS PREDICTS LOWER SALES: JDS Uniphase says its July-September sales will be US$190 million-$200 million, 5% below its previous projection and about 12% below the previous quarter. EXPRESSVU SUES DISH DEALERS: Bell ExpressVu has launched a $45 million lawsuit against three southern Ontario satellite dish retailers and their principals, charging them with deliberately conducting a "defamatory campaign of disinformation." NEW CFO AT BELL: Patrick Pichette, formerly an EVP of BCE, has been named Chief Financial Officer of Bell Canada. He replaces David McLennan, who has held the post since May. GT PROTECTION EXTENDED: Canadian and U.S. courts have extended Group Telecom's bankruptcy protection to November 4. GT has also received approval to initiate a merger and acquisition process and for a revised compensation plan for its Directors. ** GT has again delayed publishing its financial results, previously promised by September 30. If it does not publish them by October 30, its shares may be subject to a cease trading order. CRTC APPROVES NEW CONTRIBUTION FUND ADMINISTRATOR: Telecom Decision 2002-59 designates Welch Fund Administration Services Inc. as administrator of the national contribution fund, replacing Progestic International Inc, effective January 1. http://www.crtc.gc.ca/archive/ENG/Decisions/2002/dt2002-59.htm ROGERS INTROS "WIRELESS DESKTOP": Rogers AT&T now offers Wireless Desktop, which enables data-enabled handsets to access corporate e-mail, calendar, and contacts. Price for data customers: $5/month. ALIANT OFFERS MOBILE DISPATCH: Aliant Telecom has introduced Wirefree Dispatch, from Nextair, which provides mobile data communications between dispatchers and field service workers. SHAW TO TRIM CAPITAL SPENDING: Shaw Communications has reduced its capital spending program for the year ending August 2003 to $335 million, 20% less than previously announced. SBC TO CUT JOBS, SPENDING: SBC Communications, North America's second-largest telephone company, says it will lay off 11,000 employees by early 2003 and cut next year's capital spending to US$5 billion-$6 billion, compared to $8 billion this year. ** SBC, which lost three million access lines between January and August, blames its difficulties on "unrealistic and outmoded regulation" and a weak economy. MITEC PLANS COST REDUCTION: Montreal-based wireless equipment maker Mitec Telecom reports May-June sales of $24 million, 35% less than last year. Mitec is responding with "aggressive cash generation and cost reduction." SPECIAL TELEMANAGEMENT DISCOUNT: You could spend thousands of dollars on research. You could buy single issues for $75 each. But the best way to get the best information service in Canadian telecom is to subscribe. And now is the best time to subscribe because we're offering $50 off the regular rate -- your one-year subscription will cost less than half the single-issue price. ** Download full details today. Offer expires October 30. http://www.angustel.ca/teleman/Telemanagement_Special_Offer.pdf ============================================================ HOW TO SUBMIT ITEMS FOR TELECOM UPDATE E-MAIL: editors@angustel.ca FAX: 905-686-2655 MAIL: TELECOM UPDATE Angus TeleManagement Group 8 Old Kingston Road Ajax, Ontario Canada L1T 2Z7 =========================================================== HOW TO SUBSCRIBE (OR UNSUBSCRIBE) TELECOM UPDATE is provided in electronic form only. There are two formats available: 1. The fully-formatted edition is posted on the World Wide Web on the first business day of the week at http://www.angustel.ca 2. The e-mail edition is distributed free of charge. To subscribe, send an e-mail message to: TelecomUpdate@add.postmastergeneral.com To stop receiving the e-mail edition, send an e-mail message to: TelecomUpdate@remove.postmastergeneral.com Sending e-mail to these addresses will automatically add or remove the sender's e-mail address from the list. Leave subject line and message area blank. We do not give Telecom Update subscribers' e-mail addresses to any third party. For more information, see http://www.angustel.ca/update/privacy.html. =========================================================== COPYRIGHT AND CONDITIONS OF USE: All contents copyright 2002 Angus TeleManagement Group Inc. All rights reserved. For further information, including permission to reprint or reproduce, please e-mail rosita@angustel.ca or phone 905-686-5050 ext 500. The information and data included has been obtained from sources which we believe to be reliable, but Angus TeleManagement makes no warranties or representations whatsoever regarding accuracy, completeness, or adequacy. Opinions expressed are based on interpretation of available information, and are subject to change. If expert advice on the subject matter is required, the services of a competent professional should be obtained. ------------------------------ From: LAalone@aol.com Date: Sun, 29 Sep 2002 01:44:55 EDT Subject: Re: One Area Code to Unify Divided Town I recall in the late 1960's in Carbondale, IL (General Telephone) that we had to dial "150" as access for Long distance. Then, after dialing the number, the operator always came on the line and asked for the "billing" number! Shortly thereafter, the code scheme changed to just "1+", usually without an operator intercept. Directory Assistance was "113", Repair was "114". "112" was used for something else, but I don't recall for what. Oddly enough, these were the codes used in Carbondale, where the operator services office was located. In Murphysboro, IL & DeSoto, IL, which were local calls to Carbondale, and used the Carbondale operator services, Directory Assistance was "13" and repair was "14". I didn't understand it at all! ------------------------------ From: Joseph Singer Subject: Re: One Area Code to Unify Divided Town Date: Sun, 29 Sep 2002 09:57:24 -0700 Organization: Drizzle Reply-To: joeofseattle@yahoo.com On 27 Sep 2002 23:36:07 GMT, wesrock@aol.com (Wes Leatherock) wrote: > On Thu, 26 Sep 2002 00:17:01 -0000 markrobt@hotmail.com (Mark Roberts) > wrote: >> All other LD calls went to the operator. That ended by the >> late 1960s when both clusters went 1+ (the Columbia DDD code was >> "112"). International direct-dialing didn't come to the area until >> 1986. > Interesting. General Telephone also used 112 as the DDD access > code in Sherman, Texas, when local pressure demanded they provide DDD > because it had been introduced in the Bell exchange in Denison, Texas. > Denison and Sherman are more or less twin cities and a single market > area. Often when DDD was implemented in areas with step-by-step offices the 112 access code was used instead of 1. Generally they were areas that still used the service codes with 11 such as 113 for information (now directory assistance) and 114 for repair service. It's interesting that I grew up in Portland, Maine and even before DDD came to our area we had the standard service codes of 411 for information and 611 for repair service. At one time Portland did have 113 and 114 codes. We also had 119X codes for revertive call ring back which later became 69X for revertive call ring back. OTOH my relatives in Worcester, Mass. had 112 as the DDD prefix for years before changing to 1. Worcester got DDD before Portland did (only a couple years actually.) Personal replies most likely will not be read. Please reply in the newsgroup. ------------------------------ From: rob51166@yahoo.com (Rob) Subject: Re: One Area Code to Unify Divided Town Date: 29 Sep 2002 12:19:51 -0700 Organization: http://groups.google.com/ David Massey wrote in message news:: > When I read this it made that Simpsons cartoon about the split area > code come to mind! > We here in Kennesaw, Georgia, USA (a city near Atlanta) have two > postal zip codes and I think the area codes we can call toll-free are > 404, 770, 678, 470 and 906 of which the first four overlay the metro > Atlanta area. Such is life near a big city! At least I can brag that > we have the LARGEST local calling area in the USA and possibly the > world. I think you'll find that London in the Uk has the largest local calling area in the world, with calls within 020, 01372, 01689, 01708, 01737, 01784, 01923, 01932, 01992, 01322, 01707, 01784, 01895 and 01959 all reagrded as being local from the 020 London area code. Rob ------------------------------ From: James Boyk Subject: Ordinary Phone With Good Sound? Date: Sat, 28 Sep 2002 17:26:05 -0700 Organization: California Institute of Technology, Pasadena I find the sound quality of ordinary consumer phones very annoying. The old carbon-mike phones were much better. The best current models I've found are by Sony, but they're not great and don't last long enough. I want one that sounds good to me and the person I'm talking to, whose handset doesn't resonate my voice back hollowly to me, and which will last a reasonable time, which none so far do. Single-line is fine. People at rec.audio.pro mentioned B&O & VTech; I haven't had a chance yet to try either. Other suggestions welcome. The lack of decent-sounding phones & answering machines is a perfect response to those who think that competition automatically produces something for every niche. I know Lots of people who would like these products and be willing to pay a premium for them; but that doesn't create the products. Thanks, James Boyk http://www.cco.caltech.edu/~boyk ------------------------------ From: hes@hes01.unity.ncsu.edu (Henry E Schaffer) Subject: Re: Anti-Spam Filter Blocks XX and Others Date: Sun, 29 Sep 2002 00:41:19 UTC Organization: North Carolina State University In article , Dave Phelps wrote: > In article , Wesrock@aol.com says: > ... > Just a note on this "open relay". If you run a mail server that is an > open relay, I block all email that passes thru your mail server. How can you tell it is an open relay? Do you test it yourself, or do you use one of the many black lists? Some of the ISP's use such black lists - and I believe it is possible to be incorrectly listed. Here is some mail from the systems admin of an organization I'm in which runs its own mail server: > I have followed all the spam links to get off the > http://relays.osirusoft.com black list. Their own test as does all > other independent mail relay tests shows that do NOT have an OPEN relay. > I have e-mailed them the proper way numerous times and nothing has > changed. They do not return regular e-mail please either. ... > However, we continue to be listed with them and their list says that > they still confirm us as open but again their test shows that we are not > (see the transcript of their test follows) ... We've also found another black list which relists based on osirusoft. The end result is that some of our members can't receive mail from the organization (including a discussion list) because their ISP's block it. This is a very frustrating situation. Organization: North Carolina State University In article , Dr. Joel M. Hoffman wrote: > Which raises an interesting point. Why doesn't local SMTP delivery > software insert the real return address? The username isn't available, > but the remote host is. I'd love to see exactly the following fields > when I read e-mail: > Subject: [user sets this] > From: [user sets this] > Via: [SMTP host that delivered this e-mail] > Additionally: > Reply-to: [user sets this, but I only see it when I > reply] > Easy to do technically, no? Maybe. It is easy to give the mail headers which give the sequence of hosts traversed on the way to your mailbox - but sometime that information can be incomplete and/or difficult to interpret. Here's one that starts the sequence -- taken from a legitimate piece of mail to me. Received: from user-2ivf4vu.dialup.mindspring.com ([165.247.147.254] helo=FPE) by epic.mail.pas.earthlink.net with smtp (Exim 3.33 #1) id 17ulF8-0005F3-00 for hes@ncsu.edu; Thu, 26 Sep 2002 19:52:40 -0700 Note that the originating host (dialup) wasn't verified by epic as coming from the IP address shown for dialup. This appears to be because epic doesn't check via reverse DNS. But in the UCE which I check, it generally is because the host name is forged, and so doesn't and can't correspond to the IP number (which is much harder to forge.) > And very useful. If I see a message from > a friend in NY "Via" a host in Russia, I'll start to wonder. You are more likely to see a message via a host identified only by an IP address. To find out where the IP address is located is requires more work and some guessing. You can check with the IP address groups (e.g. ARIN) and finally track down the organization which registred it. Then read the geographic location of the postal address of the organization -- and then *guess* that it's the same as of the IP address. To be sure, you need to contact the organization and ask them. The mail software I use (elm) lets me see either just a leader, or a letter with the headers at the top - with just one extra keystroke. (Except that some MIME formats make the headers scroll by so fast as to be unreadable. So then, if I *really* want to see them - I just save the full letter to a file and look at it with a text editor - and see everything.) But I find this to be unnecessary - I can recognize nearly all of the UCE I receive by the sender/subject - and delete it without checking further. henry schaffer hes@ncsu.edu ------------------------------ From: {denis}@pickaxe.net Subject: Re: Emergency Number 112 Date: Sun, 29 Sep 2002 00:10:19 +0100 Organization: pickaxe.net is my personal domain Reply-To: {denisrt}@pickaxe.net On Fri, 27 Sep 2002 00:32:20 EDT, msb@vex.net (Mark Brader) wrote: > Which organization was it that promulgated the emergency number 112 > as a common replacement or alternative for the various emergency > numbers in different countries? Does its use or recommended use > extend anywhere outside Europe? What countries now have it? > Have any of them actually eliminated their old emergency numbers? Probably ETSI, possibly related to 112 being part of the GSM standard, and I believe all GSM networks support it. Rgds Denis McMahon / +44 7802 468949 / denis@pickaxe.net / www.pickaxe.net Top-posters, posters of adverts & binaries are scum. Killfile! If you get an email that says "send this to lots of people", it's probably some sort of hoax. Check www.hoaxbusters.org ------------------------------ From: thogard@abnormal.com (Tim Hogard) Subject: Re: Emergency Number 112 Date: Sun, 29 Sep 2002 12:14:51 UTC Organization: Abnormal.com Shaun Ewing (news5@shaunewing.com) wrote: > Australia only has 112 access on the GSM mobile phone network. On > landlines and on the CDMA network, people are required to dial '000' > for emergencies. '000' will also work on GSM, but only on your home > network whereas 112 will go with the network with the strongest > signal. I've got a newish Nokia phone that has a feature to lock the keyboard so you don't accidently make a call while its in a bag. That locking allows calls to 112. Pressing the top row of buttons while the locked can result in a call. The local Emeregncy call center gets a large number of false calls. They get far more false calls than in US and Canada. It appears that a major source of these calls is the phones making calls while its "locked" how ever there are other causes. Many PABX's here are programmed to require a 0 to get an outside line. The code to dial NYC info is 0011-1-212-555-1212. Now put those together and get someone to dial them often. Then they go home and make an international call. 4 seconds latter they are talking to an emergency operator. The major source of children's TV programming in Australia is the US. There have been cases where small children know to call 911 in an Emergency but it won't work and they should dial 000. I remember hearing about a survey that indicated this was a real problem but I've never heard anything else about it. My web research shows a "Sesame Street Fire Safety Project" so are Ernie, Bert and Big Bird inadvertantly teaching Aussie Kids about 911? -tim http://web.abnormal.com ------------------------------ Subject: Re: Emergency Number 112 Date: Sun, 29 Sep 2002 14:52:55 EDT From: msb@vex.net (Mark Brader) Thanks to the various people who answered my questions about 112. Mark Brader, Toronto | "You often seem quite gracious, in your way." msb@vex.net | --Steve Summit ------------------------------ TELECOM Digest is an electronic journal devoted mostly but not exclusively to telecommunications topics. It is circulated anywhere there is email, in addition to various telecom forums on a variety of networks such as Compuserve and America On Line, 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: 620-870-9697 Fax 1: 775-255-9970 Fax 2: 775-306-8390 Fax 3: 775-642-0603 Fax 4: 530-309-7234 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 second 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) Email <==> FTP: telecom-archives@telecom-digest.org Send a simple, one line note to that automated address for a help file on how to use the automatic retrieval system for archives files. You can get desired files in email. ************************************************************************* * 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. Access to Premium (P) links requires upgrade to a paid subscription. One click a day feeds a person a meal. Go to http://www.thehungersite.com Only subscribers or registered users of ICB Toll Free News web site will be able to access all or some of the full text of URLs provided. LEGAL STUFF: TELECOM Digest (sm) is owned by Patrick Townson. Copyright 2000 ICB, Inc. and TELECOM Digest. All rights reserved. Our attorney is Bill Levant, of Blue Bell, PA. --------------------------------------------------------------- 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 twenty 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 V22 #56 ***************************** From editor@telecom-digest.org Mon Sep 30 18:24:16 2002 Received: from localhost (localhost [[UNIX: localhost]]) by massis.lcs.mit.edu (8.11.3nb1/8.11.3) id g8UMOGT06452; Mon, 30 Sep 2002 18:24:16 -0400 (EDT) Date: Mon, 30 Sep 2002 18:24:16 -0400 (EDT) From: editor@telecom-digest.org Message-Id: <200209302224.g8UMOGT06452@massis.lcs.mit.edu> X-Authentication-Warning: massis.lcs.mit.edu: ptownson set sender to editor@telecom-digest.org using -f To: ptownson Approved: patsnewlist Subject: TELECOM Digest V22 #57 TELECOM Digest Mon, 30 Sep 2002 18:22:00 EDT Volume 22 : Issue 57 Inside This Issue: Editor: Patrick A. Townson Boycott The Body Shop !!! (bsoulm@britshit.org) News Headlines of Interest 9/30/02 (Monty Solomon) Cellphone Location Data via E-911 Feature (sanjay) Re: Turn Your Answering Machine Into a TeleZapper! (News Reader) Re: International Overseas 800 Numbers? (Chuck Till) Re: Spamming, etc (Dr. Joel M. Hoffman) Re: Wi-Fi Stretches its Boundaries (Henry E Schaffer) Greek Dialing Plan Change Phase 3 (Spyros Bartsocas) Re: International Overseas 800 Numbers? (Daniel Odegov) Looking For Buyers! (Zeb) Last Laugh! Can You Use These Services? (David B. Horvath, CCP) My Monthly Reminder Notice (editor@telecom-digest.org) 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. WE DO NOT PERMIT NAME/EMAIL ADDRESS HARVESTING FROM THIS JOURNAL. 'SALTED' EMAIL ADDRESSES APPEAR HEREIN TO VERIFY THIS. YOU GET SUED IN SMALL CLAIMS COURT IF YOU GET CAUGHT SPAMMING OR SENDING VIRUSES. DON'T DO IT. See the bottom of this issue for subscription and archive details and the name of our lawyer; other stuff of interest. ---------------------------------------------------------------------- From: bsoulm@britshit.org Subject: Boycott The Body Shop !!! Date: 29 Sep 2002 23:44:09 GMT Organization: TDC Internet Description: Anita Roddick (founder and CEO of The Body Shop) commentary for the London Independent regarding American civil liberties since 9/11/2001 How has the world changed since Sept. 11? For one thing, Europeans no longer aspire to *be* Americans. Who would, given how that country moves steadily and inexorably toward dictatorship? The American people, in a scant 12 months, have had their once-enviable civil liberties outrageously eroded in the name of patriotism. The ideals of freedom and democracy which America pledges to export across the globe have been perverted so spectacularly at home that America's admirers hardly recognise her anymore. Where once Americans reveled in their uniquely American right and willingness to criticize their government, they are now told that those who dissent are no better than terrorists, or terrorists themselves. They have had their pride of country, their patriotism, hijacked by a self-interested and short-sighted government which steals freedoms from its own people and gives riches to corporations and "security" infrastructures such as the military, FBI, and CIA, all of which which have proven, in the past 12 months, to be either fatally incompetent and totally corrupt. Those Americans who would question their government are told to "watch what they say." The FBI has been given broad reign to spy on citizens with phone taps and email snoops. Long-held ideals of fair and speedy trials are thrown out the window as suspected terrorists and sympathizers are "disappeared" like the enemies of Pinochet 20 years ago in Chile. In exchange for their freedoms, Americans are not safer now than they were a year ago; in fact, they are probably less so. Their government is a rogue state, rejecting international consensus on every front and threatening first-strike nuclear attacks and politically expedient invasions of sovereign nations. America has more nuclear, biological, and chemical weapons that any other country, and it is the only nation to have used such a weapon against another. And still it stubbornly refuses any international effort or treaty to regulate, minimise, or eliminate such weapons, even as it uses Iraq's suspected possession of (or mere desire for) them as reason for wholesale attack. America's us-against-the-world mentality has managed to wear away almost all of the remarkable international sympathy it built up just after Sept. 11. Bush & Co. has slapped the international community in the face as the it tried to embrace and console the United States. Now the enmity has left America alone, more reviled and isolated internationally than before. The scars of Ground Zero will heal, the grief at the loss of so many innocents will ease, but the damage the United States has inflicted on itself will last far longer. To hell with George Bush; God save America. A version of this article appeared in the London Independent on Sept. 11, 2002 ------------------------------ Date: Mon, 30 Sep 2002 02:10:27 -0400 From: Monty Solomon Subject: News Headlines of Interest 9/30/02 Defunct ISP Sues Comcast, Cox - Sep 27, 2002 07:46 PM (AP Online) By BILL BERGSTROM AP Business Writer PHILADELPHIA (AP) - Bondholders in the soon-to-be-dissolved ExciteAtHome Corp. are trying to recoup some of their losses through a lawsuit accusing the Comcast and Cox Communications cable companies of ``convoluted'' transactions that weakened the high-speed Internet service provider. ExciteAtHome bondholders seek at least $600 million plus undetermined damages for actions taken by Comcast and Cox executives who had seats on the ExciteAtHome board. The transactions came about a year before the cable companies ended their contracts with ExciteAtHome. - http://finance.lycos.com/home/news/story.asp?story=28869579 Nokia Launches the Nokia Mediamaster 230 S; Unique Image Viewer Creates Fusion Between TV and Imaging Phones -- Enhancing the Pure Entertainment Experience of Digital TV - Sep 30, 2002 04:23 AM (BusinessWire) HELSINKI, Finland--(BUSINESS WIRE)--Sept. 30, 2002--The Nokia Mediamaster 230 S, Nokia's latest innovation for the home, is a satellite digital television receiver that provides access to the highest quality digital television. For the first time, Nokia's new 230 S Mediamaster provides consumers the possibility to transfer digital images from any Bluetooth version 1.1 (object push profile) enabled camera phone, like Nokia's 7650, to the receiver and view them on the TV screen. With the new Nokia Mediamaster 230 S image viewer, consumers can enjoy the images from their camera phones in a larger format, view them with family and friends and store the most favored in their Navi(TM) Bars image folder. Storage is available for more than 30 images at one time. By also providing all the benefits of a digital satellite receiver, it is truly a fusion that enhances the pure entertainment experience of digital TV. - http://finance.lycos.com/home/news/story.asp?story=28880813 Apple Releases iSync Public Beta CUPERTINO, Calif., Sept. 30 /PRNewswire-FirstCall/ -- Apple(R) (NASDAQ:AAPL) today announced the availability of iSync Public Beta, a preview version of Apple's breakthrough software application that automatically synchronizes address books and calendars between Macs and the new generation of Bluetooth-enabled GPRS mobile phones, Apple's iPod(TM) and Palm OS-compatible handheld organizers. In addition, users with a .Mac account can use iSync to seamlessly synchronize their calendars and address books across multiple Macs connected to the Internet. http://finance.lycos.com/home/news/story.asp?story=28883681 ------------------------------ From: assamese@hotmail.com (sanjay) Subject: Cellphone Location Data via E-911 Feature Date: 30 Sep 2002 11:32:16 -0700 Organization: http://groups.google.com/ Hi all, I am checking to see if there is a 'standard' API via which a client application (either J2ME or PocketPC based) can get the geographical location of the cellphone. From what I understand, if a PDA/cell-phone is hooked up with a GPS device, there are a number of ways, a client app can get the location data, however, I have NOT seen similar software that'd get me the data if the cell-phone is NOT equipped with a GPS add-on. With the gradual rollout of E-911 services, I believe that the wireless providers will have access to this data ... so, the question is: How will an independent software developer (like myself) can get to this data?? Thanks in advance. Sanjay ------------------------------ From: News Reader Subject: Re: Turn Your Answering Machine Into a TeleZapper! Date: Mon, 30 Sep 2002 15:31:35 -0400 Organization: http://www.TeraNews.com - FREE NNTP Access John Higdon wrote in message news:telecom22.54.6@telecom-digest.org: > The telecom industry is rife with databases that updated and checked > all the time. Try calling me collect sometime. Your call won't even > reach me. Why? I'm on a database, which all the carriers check, that > says that I don't accept collect calls. That mechanism has been around > for years and years. No muss; no fuss. The same thing could easily be > applied to telemarketing. How did you get into that database? I knew such a thing existed, I just didn't know that individual consumers could ask to be added. Aren't there certain call types (like calls from prisons, collect calls, etc.) that certain numbers can elect to block? What's to stop some small carrier from "failing" to check this database and completing the call and then trying to collect money on it? [TELECOM Digest Editor's Note: You get into the database by calling the telephone business office and asking to be added. It is known variously as 'billed number screening database' and other places as 'collect call screening'. Calls from jails and prisons are automat- ically placed on a collect basis from prisoner phones. Since persons in jail are guarenteed one phone call of their choice, when the place they are calling has a collect block on the line (getting quite common) then someone like the social worker or chaplain, etc has to take the prisoner to an office and let him use the phone there instead. When telco adds the collect-call block to your line they are usually pretty quick to advise you that it is not guarenteed. Most carriers do 'dip the database' and discover you there, but some unscrupulous carriers may not. You can either request collect call blocking from your local telco or any major LD carrier (such as AT&T, Sprint, MCI, etc) where you have an account. Even Integratel now honors it. The database is common to all carriers, just like the database which blocks and honors 900-call blocking. But they all advise you there are no guarentees; sometimes calls slip through because an operator fails to verify (which is usually an automatic process when the operator punches in 'collect' or 'third-number' as the billing code.) The TSPS equipment just won't release the call, operator or not. When such a call slips through AND you can prove you were in fact in the data- base, the charges are credited back. Even if you are not in the list, most telcos will make a one-time goodwill write off especially if you agree to be listed in the database; that's how secure it is. PAT] ------------------------------ From: ctill@nc.rr.com (Chuck Till) Subject: Re: International Overseas 800 Numbers? Date: Sun, 29 Sep 2002 19:34:16 GMT Organization: Road Runner - NC The one time I ordered a UIFN, there was a four month interval from when we first called our carrier until the number became active in a few jurisdictions, and it took even longer for the number to be trustworthy worldwide. Hope they've improved the order and fulfillment process since then. ------------------------------ Subject: Re: Spamming, etc Organization: Excelsior Computer Services From: joel@exc.com (Dr. Joel M. Hoffman) Date: Sun, 29 Sep 2002 23:54:32 GMT > [TELECOM Digest Editor's Note: I use sendmail to get this Digest out > every day. Sendmail always prints an X-Authentication-Warning saying > that 'massis.lcs.mit.edu: ptownson set user to editor@telecom- > digest.org using -f'. According to the sendmail man page, only > 'trusted users' or root are allowed to use -f. I am trusted (in the > text file naming such people), but not root so it prints that > statement about 'ptownson set -f' in each header. In each issue it > [...] > But back to the point: why not a spam check on that X-warning-user set > -f thing, then write rules on it like SpamAssassin does, noting the > few good items you want to allow anyway? PAT] This is the old model of security, which assumes that root can always be trusted. Back when very few people had root access, because almost everyone was using an account on a mainframe, this made sense. But nowadays everyone who puts a host on the Internet is effectively root, so trusting root does no good. >> Which raises an interesting point. Why doesn't local SMTP delivery >> software insert the real return address? The username isn't available, >> but the remote host is. I'd love to see exactly the following fields >> when I read e-mail: >> Subject: [user sets this] >> From: [user sets this] >> Via: [SMTP host that delivered this e-mail] > This information is in the Received: header lines, isn't it? Yes, but most people never see those. (And spamcheckers don't check them to see who to sent warning messages to. I frequently receive warnings from spamcheckers about mail that I never sent.) -Joel ------------------------------ From: hes@hes01.unity.ncsu.edu (Henry E Schaffer) Subject: Re: Wi-Fi Stretches its Boundaries Date: Mon, 30 Sep 2002 00:45:11 UTC Organization: North Carolina State University In article , Monty Solomon wrote: > These versions of wireless networks using the Wi-Fi, or 802.11b, > standard create a wireless zone of up to 12 miles long, far beyond > the usual 300-foot-radius range that Wi-Fi typically achieves, Zakin > said. Wow - what an opportunity for people to crack in to these networks. (See http://alan.clegg.com/802/index.html for one example of people looking into other peoples' 802.11b networks.) I hope that these huge spreadout nets use some good encryption. Is there a problem with interference with other 2.4GHz users because of the high power used? henry schaffer hes@ncsu.edu ------------------------------ From: Spyros Bartsocas Date: Mon, 30 Sep 2002 11:48:34 +0300 Subject: Greek Dialing Plan Change Phase 3 The third and final stage of the change of the Greek dialing plan will begin November 3. The following changes will take place: 1.Geographic Numbers: When calling from within Greece the initial 0 will be replaced by a 2 (e.g. 010-211-0499 will become 210-211-0499) When calling from abroad a 2 will be added after the country code (e.g. +30-10-211-0499 will become +30-210-211-0499) 2.Toll Free, Shared Cost and card access numbers: The initiala 0 will be dropped: (i.e. 0800-xxxxxxx becomes 800-xxxxxxx, 0801-xxxxxxx becomes 801-xxxxxxx, 0807-xxxx becomes 807-xxxx) 3.Valued added: The initial 0 is dropped: 090-11a-xxxxx become 90-11a-xxxxx 4.Data Services: The initial 0 is replaced by an 8: Internet Services from 096-25x-xxxx and 096-24x-xxxx become 896- 25x-xxxx and 896-24x-xxxx. Hellaspac from 096-21x-xxxx becomes 896-21x-xxxx Ermis from 096-27x-xxxx becomes 896-27x-xxxx Mail Fax from 096-29x-xxxx becomes 896-29x-xxxx Beeper and Mobile services will change on January 19, 2003. The initial 0 will be replaced by 6. At the same time when calling from abroad a 6 will be added after the country code. ------------------------------ From: Daniel Odegov Subject: Re: International Overseas 800 Numbers? Date: Mon, 30 Sep 2002 14:09:33 +0100 > Almost all of the countries also gave the phone number "00 800 8728 > 3525"; a few had the international prefix of 0011 or 001 or whatever. > See the following URL for the list: > http://web.net2phone.com/products/net2phonedirect/accessintl.asp > My question -- is this sort of international 800 (toll free) service > new? Widespread? Prevalent? Of course, I have seen toll free > numbers in the US (and internal to other countries) but never on an > international scale. Russia also gives toll free 8-800-xxx-xxxx for in-country use. We have only few numbers routed to international locations. That's probably why we aren't included in net2phone list. The major problem for international freephone is obviously cultural difficulties: different countries require customized marketing. Vanity numbers also fail in here, some phones do not have letters, on some of them letters are translated into different numbers. Daniel Odegov odegov at hq.rt.ru ------------------------------ From: john@telexpressinc.com (Zeb) Subject: Looking For Buyers Date: 30 Sep 2002 05:31:22 -0700 Organization: http://groups.google.com/ We currently have coppercom units sitting in our warehouse, removed from service. I wanted to check if anyone was interested in purchasing them. I can email pictures and a card inventory. Please reply if you are interested. We currently have ADSL1000 units sitting in our warehouse, removed from service. I wanted to check if anyone was interested in purchasing them. I can email pictures and a card inventory. Please reply if you are interested. We currently have FLM105 units sitting in our warehouse, removed from service. I wanted to check if anyone was interested in purchasing them. I can email pictures and a card inventory. Please reply if you are interested. Sincerely, Jay Dumoulin Telexpress, Inc. 336-431-4000 ext 233 jay@telexpressinc.com ------------------------------ Date: Sat, 28 Sep 2002 21:55:37 -0400 From: dhorvath@cobs.com (David B. Horvath, CCP) Subject: Last Laugh! Can You Use These Services? Do you have clients/customers that won't pay their bills? You might be interested in the service offered by this individual (who didn't bother to include their name but did note that no one will ignore a lawyer's letter): > CALL ME AT 1-888-200-7176 FAX 1-425-675-2036 > Service area: Louisiana, New Jersey, New York, Pennsylvania and Ontario > Minimum debt $1,500.00 If you are outside of the service area, you might want to find out when that will change ... And if you are a property security professional (what's that?), you might be interested in the "Pros for Home" directory (note that any spelling mistakes were in the original email): > If your target audience are those searching to buy, sell or rent > real estate then you should be interested in what Pros For Home has > to offer. Pros For Home is a directory that has EXCLUSIVE rights > to promote/advertise all good and services related to real estate > on the Virtual-Agent Network, which is currently recieving over > 8 million hits per month. I hope your company is now in a postion > to be accepting new clients that are currently seeking your > services. Or call us toll free at 1-866-960-4730 !!! - David [TELECOM Digest Editor's Note: Yeah, we all need a good collection agency to handle debts for us, and home security services. I can now see folks rushing to their phones to call these companies, but before you do that, I hope you read the last message in this issue and deal with that first. PAT] ------------------------------ From: ptownson Date: Mon, 30 Sep 2002 17:04:30 Subject: Three Things to Remember As September ends and October gets underway there are three things to remember: (1) with this coming weekend, be certain to set your clocks back one hour in most areas of the United States. Remember the adage, 'spring ahead, fall behind'. If you forget about setting your clock then you will be behind an hour. If you inadvertently reverse the process and do 'fall ahead' then you will really be out of whack. (2) check the batteries on your smoke/carbon monoxide detector. It does not matter if you or your friends are smokers or not. Smoke and carbon monoxide detectors are to insure that you live to see another day. (3) Consider making a donation to help TELECOM Digest -- *and* this time I have a special gift for you as well! I'll tell you more about it in the next issue of the Digest but here is little taste: I have a CD Rom prepared of the Archives complete through early September, going back to the beginning in 1981. In addition to the Archives, included is a search mechanism (you must have an internet connection) to research past issues. Included also are a few GIF files (such as the old-fashioned phone and the telephone operator for you to use. Last, there are also included several oldtimeradiovault.com files pertaining to telephones which you might enjoy. More details in the next issue of the Digest, but in the meantime, remember about (1) and (2) above. Give (3) some thought also. PAT ------------------------------ TELECOM Digest is an electronic journal devoted mostly but not exclusively to telecommunications topics. It is circulated anywhere there is email, in addition to various telecom forums on a variety of networks such as Compuserve and America On Line, 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: 620-870-9697 Fax 1: 775-255-9970 Fax 2: 775-306-8390 Fax 3: 775-642-0603 Fax 4: 530-309-7234 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 second 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) Email <==> FTP: telecom-archives@telecom-digest.org Send a simple, one line note to that automated address for a help file on how to use the automatic retrieval system for archives files. You can get desired files in email. ************************************************************************* * 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. Access to Premium (P) links requires upgrade to a paid subscription. One click a day feeds a person a meal. Go to http://www.thehungersite.com Only subscribers or registered users of ICB Toll Free News web site will be able to access all or some of the full text of URLs provided. LEGAL STUFF: TELECOM Digest (sm) is owned by Patrick Townson. Copyright 2002 ICB, Inc. and TELECOM Digest. All rights reserved. Our attorney is Bill Levant, of Blue Bell, PA. --------------------------------------------------------------- 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 twenty 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 V22 #57 ***************************** From editor@telecom-digest.org Mon Sep 30 23:40:42 2002 Received: from localhost (localhost [[UNIX: localhost]]) by massis.lcs.mit.edu (8.11.3nb1/8.11.3) id g913egE07920; Mon, 30 Sep 2002 23:40:42 -0400 (EDT) Date: Mon, 30 Sep 2002 23:40:42 -0400 (EDT) From: editor@telecom-digest.org Message-Id: <200210010340.g913egE07920@massis.lcs.mit.edu> X-Authentication-Warning: massis.lcs.mit.edu: ptownson set sender to editor@telecom-digest.org using -f To: ptownson Approved: patsnewlist Subject: TELECOM Digest V22 #58 TELECOM Digest Mon, 30 Sep 2002 23:40:00 EDT Volume 22 : Issue 58 Inside This Issue: Editor: Patrick A. Townson New CD Rom of Archives is Available Now (TELECOM Digest Editor) Re: Emergency Number 112 (Shaun Ewing) Differences Between Mobile and Handheld (tball) Re: Boycott The Body Shop !!! (Jim Thompson) Re: Cable & Wireless Giving LD Customers to Primus (Charles P.) Re: Ordinary Phone With Good Sound? (Joseph Singer) Re: One Area Code to Unify Divided Town (Mark Roberts) Re: Three Things to Remember (Doug) Re: Three Things to Remember (John Higdon) Re: Three Things to Remember (Ari Ollikainen) 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. WE DO NOT PERMIT NAME/EMAIL ADDRESS HARVESTING FROM THIS JOURNAL. 'SALTED' EMAIL ADDRESSES APPEAR HEREIN TO VERIFY THIS. YOU GET SUED IN SMALL CLAIMS COURT IF YOU GET CAUGHT SPAMMING OR SENDING VIRUSES. DON'T DO IT. See the bottom of this issue for subscription and archive details and the name of our lawyer; other stuff of interest. ---------------------------------------------------------------------- Date: Mon, 30 Sep 2002 20:42:07 EDT From: TELECOM Digest Editor Subject: New CD Rom of Archives is Available Now Well, almost ... in the next day or two Joey Lindstrom will be in a position to begin shipping orders. You can begin ordering it now. The first CD Rom was issued in 1996, and since that time about six more years of issues of the Digest have been printed, and a bit more information has been included as well. In addition to 'just the archives' as on the last edition, this time around we have a few more things for you. We have the complete list of links from the linkspage.html, the most current links to Judith Oppenheimer, Mike Sandman and our other advertisers and their web pages for telephone equipment, etc. **You will need to have the disk in your computer to go on line to use these features, since we link out to those pages. This means you will get Linc Madison's pages and all the other links including the huge list on another site.** To search for items and files, you also have to be **on line** but then you can go back to the disk to look for the articles. The templates for searching are on the disk, but they go out to the net to search, and everything up to the start of the current volume 22 are on the disk. Anything for later than September 7 will have to be grabbed from the net. Also, about a hundred GIFs used in the Telecom Digest web site you are free to use for your own web stuff as desired, and more. A few Javascripts of interest used on the Digest web site, etc. Best of all for some folks, we have several .mp3 files from the oldtimeradiovault.com included by Joey Lindstrom, including these selections: (all with telephone motifs): Life of Riley 'Telephone is Rationed' Dragnet 'Big Phone Call' Family Theatre 'Man Who Bought the Phone Company' Bell Telephone Hour Guest Lily Pons Halls of Ivy 'Phone Problems' Suspense 'Sorry, Wrong Number' (Agnes Morehead) Lux Radio Theatre 'Sorry, Wrong Number' (Barbara Stanwick/Burt Lancaster) SciFi Theatre 'Sorry, Wrong Number' The Suspense and SciFi Theatre versions are the short radio versions originally written by Lucille Fletcher. The Lux Radio Theater version is longer (one hour) and was done for television. In addition, as a bonus, if you put the CD in a regular CD player then you can listen to the Suspense production with Agnes Morehead. Put it in your computer, you will get the archives *and* the .mp3 files as well. You get all these as part of the CD, plus the Telecom Archives. To read the archives files, you may need to set the file type to use as 'WordPad' or Internet Explorer or Netscape or Opera. To do the .mp3 files, use one of your players as appropriate. Feel free to right click the .gif/.jpg images and take them away as desired. Basically for the Archives portion, you are just getting the 'raw' data, as it appears in the archives. Sometimes, some of the links on things like the index pages, etc won't always link correctly. When the links are working correctly, they will attempt to go off your local machine and out to the net to wherever. To obtain one of these 'twentieth anniversary of the archives' disks I would appreciate a donation or gift of at least twenty dollars or more, as you see fit and are able to contribute. You may use PayPal for your donation by going to our website http://telecom-digest.org and *all the way* at the bottom of the index page you will find a PayPal donation button. Or, also see http://telecom-digest.org/donations/ for a similar button. Use your credit/debit card or your personal PayPal account. When writing the memo field PLEASE include the phrase 'send Archives CD' plus your name and address. You will get the usual thank you note to the email address PayPal has for you, but your street address will be used for the CD mailing. If you prefer to mail a check, then include the above information but mail to: TELECOM Digest / PO Box 50 / Independence, KS 67301-0050 . Thanks very much as always for your help. I hope you will enjoy the CD and the many years of telecom research/resources it represents. Allow two or three weeks to get your CD delivered by postal mail. (It will be sent from Joey in Calgary, Alberta.) The Telecom Archives (ftp massis.lcs.mit.edu/telecom-archives/archives) remains a free and openly accessible resource on the net. PAT ------------------------------ From: Shaun Ewing Subject: Re: Emergency Number 112 Date: Tue, 1 Oct 2002 09:27:03 +1000 > I've got a newish Nokia phone that has a feature to lock the keyboard > so you don't accidently make a call while its in a bag. That locking > allows calls to 112. Pressing the top row of buttons while the > locked can result in a call. My Nokia phone does the same thing. Also, if you are entering the pin number to turn it on - enter 112 and you'll see the digits show up on the screen ready to dial. > The local Emeregncy call center gets a large number of false calls. > They get far more false calls than in US and Canada. It appears > that a major source of these calls is the phones making calls while > its "locked" how ever there are other causes. Yes, I'd imagine there would be false calls. 112 would be a relatively easy number to dial by accident. I've never seen statistics regarding false calls but they would probably be higher from mobile phones. > Many PABX's here are programmed to require a 0 to get an outside > line. The code to dial NYC info is 0011-1-212-555-1212. Now put > those together and get someone to dial them often. Then they go > home and make an international call. 4 seconds latter they are > talking to an emergency operator. I've done a similar thing in the past but with speed dial. Here at home we have a small PABX. On the DECT cordless phone all the speed dials are programmed as "0-number" so an international call would be "0-0011-number". I had put this phone on a direct outside line while some changes were made to the PABX. Imagine my surprise when I chose the speed dial, forgetting it wasn't on the PABX and instead of reaching somebody overseas - I heard a voice "Triple-0 Emergency". I then had to explain what happened to the operator. Since then the PABX has been changed with the digit '9' for an outside line which has eliminated any chance of that happening. > The major source of children's TV programming in Australia is the > US. There have been cases where small children know to call 911 > in an Emergency but it won't work and they should dial 000. I > remember hearing about a survey that indicated this was a real > problem but I've never heard anything else about it. My web research > shows a "Sesame Street Fire Safety Project" so are Ernie, Bert and > Big Bird inadvertantly teaching Aussie Kids about 911? I've been concerned about this myself. I've come across many children who, when asked what the emergency number is will respond '911'. It's probably far fetched, but with the internationalisation of TV programs, movies, and other media, I think something needs to be done to have a globally available emergency number. As a scenario: An American child is on holiday here in Australia with his/her parents. An emergency situation occurs so the child runs to the phone and dials '911'. Because '911' is the start of a valid phone number (at least here in Sydney), it will sit there until the CO times out and returns a busy signal. The child wouldn't know the dial '000', or '0000' if behind a PABX (eg: hotel). I guess the good thing though is that if the child is in a hotel, '9' will get him/her the reception desk where the emergency could be relayed to. Another scenario: I'm going to the UK next year (for the first time). Until I looked at the list at http://www.sccfd.org/travel.html, I didn't know the emergency numbers were '112' or '999'. If I had an emergency and had to dial emergency services, I wouldn't know what to dial. Knowing that the international direct dial code is '00', I would know that '000' wouldn't possibly be their emergency number but I wouldn't know what is. It's times like these when "Quick, what's the number for 911?" would be a valid question (thinking back to the movie "The Little Rascals"). Shaun ------------------------------ From: todd.ballengee@luminant.com (tball) Subject: Differences between Mobile and Handheld Date: 30 Sep 2002 15:33:10 -0700 Organization: http://groups.google.com/ I have been reading several different articles about wireless and mobile devices And some of the authors use the terms "wireless" and "mobile" interchangeably, while others feel they are mutually exclusive. Can anyone point me to a place that talks about the differences between the two? Any help would be appreciated. Thanks, Todd ------------------------------ From: Jim Thompson Subject: Re: Boycott The Body Shop !!! Date: Mon, 30 Sep 2002 22:26:44 GMT Organization: Cox Communications On 29 Sep 2002 23:44:09 GMT, bsoulm@britshit.org, wrote the following: > Description: Anita Roddick (founder and CEO of The Body Shop) > commentary for the London Independent regarding American civil > liberties since 9/11/2001 > How has the world changed since Sept. 11? For one thing, Europeans no > longer aspire to *be* Americans. [snip] Good article ... hopefully it *will* cut down on immigration ;-) Besides, nobody "aspire(s) to *be* American(s)", they only want to be hyphenated Americans. ...Jim Thompson -- | James E.Thompson, P.E. | mens | | Analog Innovations, Inc. | et | | Analog/Mixed-Signal ASIC's and Discrete Systems | manus | | Phoenix, Arizona Voice:(480)460-2350 | | | Jim-T@analog_innovations.com Fax:(480)460-2142 | Brass Rat | | http://www.analog-innovations.com | 1962 | For proper E-mail replies SWAP "-" and "_" I love to cook with wine. Sometimes I even put it in the food. ------------------------------ From: Charles P. Subject: Re: Cable & Wireless Giving LD Customers to Primus Date: Mon, 30 Sep 2002 21:22:24 GMT Hi Mike, Primus also took over Telegroup a while back, change the name to Isterra (why?). I became a Telegroup rep a number of years ago, to be able to offer a good ld service if my interconnect customers were looking. I specifically went with Telegroup because everyone I talked to there seemed very helpful and they were serious about no slamming or pressuring customers. Basically they seemed to be very ethical at a time when that was (is) hard to find. I haven't done much with them in recent years but I have stayed with their service. I have not seen any degredation in service since Primus took over, but I have not had to deal with any tech support lately. Hopefully they'll be able to perform ... Charles Patterson Global Communications Tarrytown, NY charles@telephonesecurity.com Mike Sandman wrote in message news:telecom22.50.3@telecom-digest.org: > We've been a long distance customer of Cable & Wireless for a few > years, and have had perfect service. > This is in stark contrast to the horrible service/customer service we > received from LDDS and then Worldcom for many years before. > They recently sent us a letter saying they're turning our account over > to Primus Telecommunications, since they are getting out of the US > long distance market. > Interestingly, the letter said "Please note that existing preferred > carrier freezes on the service(s) involved in the transfer will be > lifted; you will need to contact your local phone company if you wish > to arrange a new freeze." How in the hell does that work! > I searched around for comments on Primus, and it looks like they offer > good phone service, have low rates, but it's hard to reach their > customer service. > I'm wondering if anyone has had experience with Primus in the US. I > have a pretty short fuse for the morons other companys employ in > customer service, and I don't need to raise my blood pressure dealing > with another bunch of idiots. > If you've had good customer service from Primus or another LD company, > I'd like to hear that. We haven't needed to call Cable & Wireless > customer service since we changed to them, so I don't know for sure it > was OK. It sure was nice not having to call customer service! > It would be nice to switch to another company that did a good job with > both service and customer service, even if we had to spend more money. > We currently spend around $350 a month with C&W - and we don't have > the cheapest rates possible. That's been a real time/blood pressure > saver for us, compared to the idiots at LDDS and Worldcom. > Thanks ... Mike > [TELECOM Digest Editor's Note: Mike Sandman is the proprietor of > http:sandman.com where I suggest everyone *at least look* at his > online catalog of telephone peripheral equipment. If he does not have > it, then you can't get it. He has also been a valued patron and > friend of this Digest for many years. PAT] ------------------------------ From: Joseph Singer Subject: Re: Ordinary Phone With Good Sound? Date: Mon, 30 Sep 2002 14:54:59 -0700 Organization: Drizzle Reply-To: joeofseattle@yahoo.com On Sat, 28 Sep 2002 17:26:05 -0700, James Boyk wrote: > I find the sound quality of ordinary consumer phones very > annoying. The old carbon-mike phones were much better. The best > current models I've found are by Sony, but they're not great and don't > last long enough. I want one that sounds good to me and the person I'm > talking to, whose handset doesn't resonate my voice back hollowly to > me, and which will last a reasonable time, which none so far > do. Single-line is fine. People at rec.audio.pro mentioned B&O & > VTech; I haven't had a chance yet to try either. Other suggestions > welcome. Your finding does not match with mine. I find that the transmitted audio when using a carbon granule transmitter such as is found on "500" type sets is not as true to life as many of the newer electret type such as is used in modern transmitters. I find that audio from a carbon granule transmitter tends to sound very "gravely" sounding. I've found that Panasonic phones (wired not wireless) have a very natural sounding audio to the listener. Personal replies most likely will not be read. Please reply in the newsgroup. ------------------------------ From: markrobt@hotmail.com (Mark Roberts) Subject: Re: One Area Code to Unify Divided Town Date: Mon, 30 Sep 2002 22:04:38 -0000 Organization: 1.94 meters Joseph Singer had written: > Often when DDD was implemented in areas with step-by-step offices the > 112 access code was used instead of 1. Generally they were areas that > still used the service codes with 11 such as 113 for information (now > directory assistance) and 114 for repair service. It's interesting > that I grew up in Portland, Maine and even before DDD came to our area > we had the standard service codes of 411 for information and 611 for > repair service. At one time Portland did have 113 and 114 codes. We > also had 119X codes for revertive call ring back which later became > 69X for revertive call ring back. The Columbia, Missouri example to which I have been referring is similar (and I'm sure that was a step office, at least in the oldest 442, 443, and 449 (GIbson 2, etc.) exchanges): 112: DDD 113: directory assistance 114: repair service 118: time & temperature (later became 655 and still memorialized as 573-449-0655) 119: revertive ringback I just pulled out the 1972-1973 phone book for Centerville, Iowa, served by Continental Telephone of Iowa. The DDD code was not indicated, because it was provided on a separate card: either "11" or "12". (ours was "11") The other codes: 70: repair service 71: directory assistance 75: mobile operator 90: ringback There was also an entire page devote to how to call from one exchange to another. If there's any interest in this stuff, I can scan a couple of the pages from the book. I wish I had an old Columbia, Mo. phone book, but I don't. Mark Roberts | "How do you like following the goat story?" -- Oakland, Cal.| Dennis Richmond to meteorologist Bill Martin on NO HTML MAIL | KTVU's "Ten O'Clock News", 9-13-2002 [TELECOM Digest Editor's Note: If you can scan that stuff in or don't mind typing, please do so and send to the Digest to share with others. PAT] ------------------------------ From: Doug Subject: Re: Three Things to Remember Organization: Totally disorganized Date: Mon, 30 Sep 2002 22:40:51 GMT Pat, you're a little premature on the return to Standard Time. It begins the last Sunday of October. We "spring forward" to Daylight Savings Time at 2:00 AM on the first Sunday of April. We "fall back" to Standard Time at 2:00 AM on the last Sunday in October. I can't argue with the rest. ;-) Doug in Delaware ------------------------------ From: John Higdon Subject: Re: Three Things to Remember Organization: Green Hills and Cows Date: Mon, 30 Sep 2002 15:45:30 -0700 In article , ptownson wrote: > As September ends and October gets underway there are three things to > remember: (1) with this coming weekend, be certain to set your clocks > back one hour in most areas of the United States. Remember the adage, > 'spring ahead, fall behind'. If you forget about setting your clock then > you will be behind an hour. If you inadvertently reverse the process and > do 'fall ahead' then you will really be out of whack. Isn't that the last weekend of October? John Higdon | Email Address Valid | SF: +1 415 428-COWS +1 408 264 4115 | Anytown, USA | FAX: +1 408 264 4407 ------------------------------ Date: Mon, 30 Sep 2002 16:37:18 -0700 From: Ari Ollikainen Subject: Re: Three Things to Remember On comp.dcom.telecom, you wrote: > As September ends and October gets underway there are three things to > remember: (1) with this coming weekend, be certain to set your clocks > back one hour in most areas of the United States. Remember the adage, > 'spring ahead, fall behind'. If you forget about setting your clock > then you will be behind an hour. If you inadvertently reverse the > process and do 'fall ahead' then you will really be out of whack. Ummm ... DST **ENDS** at 2am October 27 this year, eg on the LAST Sunday of October, and not the first Sunday as described in your message. [TELECOM Digest Editor's Note: Yes, I know. I was just checking to see who is awake out there and paying attention. Or maybe I should say it was a PD (printer's deviltry, a typographical error.) That's how I usually can explain away my errors here. Or better still I suppose I could paraphrase an old Lucille Ball routine routine (pre-'I Love Lucy' days) in one of her early comedy routines where she explains the problem with setting your watch behind one hour: "I was always so busy with never enough time to do everything, so I decided to set my watch back one hour each night at midnight and then I wound up getting all my work done each day as planned. Trouble is when it was time to celebrate New Year's Eve, I thought is was only early in December." I think she got that from Lillian Russell, a great lady and comedian also from the 1940's. But I can't explain it that way. All I can say is that's a historical first for me: the first time I have ever screwed up in print. (I see/hear smirking back there; cut it out!) In the meantime do remember to order your 20th Anniversary CD Rom today using the ordering instructions in an different message in this issue. PAT] ------------------------------ TELECOM Digest is an electronic journal devoted mostly but not exclusively to telecommunications topics. It is circulated anywhere there is email, in addition to various telecom forums on a variety of networks such as Compuserve and America On Line, 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: 620-870-9697 Fax 1: 775-255-9970 Fax 2: 775-306-8390 Fax 3: 775-642-0603 Fax 4: 530-309-7234 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 second 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) Email <==> FTP: telecom-archives@telecom-digest.org Send a simple, one line note to that automated address for a help file on how to use the automatic retrieval system for archives files. You can get desired files in email. ************************************************************************* * 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. Access to Premium (P) links requires upgrade to a paid subscription. One click a day feeds a person a meal. Go to http://www.thehungersite.com Only subscribers or registered users of ICB Toll Free News web site will be able to access all or some of the full text of URLs provided. LEGAL STUFF: TELECOM Digest (sm) is owned by Patrick Townson. Copyright 2000 ICB, Inc. and TELECOM Digest. All rights reserved. Our attorney is Bill Levant, of Blue Bell, PA. --------------------------------------------------------------- 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 twenty 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 V22 #58 ***************************** From editor@telecom-digest.org Tue Oct 1 16:17:23 2002 Received: from localhost (localhost [[UNIX: localhost]]) by massis.lcs.mit.edu (8.11.3nb1/8.11.3) id g91KHNF12434; Tue, 1 Oct 2002 16:17:23 -0400 (EDT) Date: Tue, 1 Oct 2002 16:17:23 -0400 (EDT) From: editor@telecom-digest.org Message-Id: <200210012017.g91KHNF12434@massis.lcs.mit.edu> X-Authentication-Warning: massis.lcs.mit.edu: ptownson set sender to editor@telecom-digest.org using -f To: ptownson Approved: patsnewlist Subject: TELECOM Digest V22 #59 TELECOM Digest Tue, 1 Oct 2002 16:17:00 EDT Volume 22 : Issue 59 Inside This Issue: Editor: Patrick A. Townson Re: Ordinary Phone With Good Sound? (Ed Ellers) Re: Ordinary Phone With Good Sound? (Kim Brennan) Re: Anti-Spam Filter Blocks XX and Others (Dave Phelps) Commentary: AT&T Goes Dead (Ed Ellers) Broadband Disconnect (Monty Solomon) Motorola's Symphony Digital Radio Chipset (Monty Solomon) Re: One Area Code to Unify Divided Town (Rob) Re: One Area Code to Unify Divided Town (PaulCoxwell@aol.com) Re: Emergency Number 112 (PaulCoxwell@aol.com) Re: American Caller Id Compatibile With European? (ken) Fax Service Using Prepaid Calling Cards (Joe Trevathan) Fax Machine Sound When You Call Person Without Fax (David Ogletree) Re: Boycott The Body Shop !!! (Peter Dubuque) Re: Three Things to Remember (Gail M. Hall) Re: Spring Forward, Fall Back (Wlevant@aol.com) SPAM Removal Lists; Already in Directory? (David B. Horvath, CCP) Toll Free Service and Web Hosting For Business Directory (David Horvath) Re: Three Things to Remember (Geoffrey Welsh) Re: Three Things to Remember (Linc Madison) 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. WE DO NOT PERMIT NAME/EMAIL ADDRESS HARVESTING FROM THIS JOURNAL. 'SALTED' EMAIL ADDRESSES APPEAR HEREIN TO VERIFY THIS. YOU GET SUED IN SMALL CLAIMS COURT IF YOU GET CAUGHT SPAMMING OR SENDING VIRUSES. DON'T DO IT. See the bottom of this issue for subscription and archive details and the name of our lawyer; other stuff of interest. ---------------------------------------------------------------------- From: Ed Ellers Subject: Re: Ordinary Phone With Good Sound? Date: Tue, 1 Oct 2002 05:08:19 -0400 My own favorite still is the AT&T Trimline 210, whose handset is the same size and shape as the classic Trimline (the base looks somewhat different). Received audio is indistinguishable from a Traditional (500-type) or classic Trimline, and transmitted audio is even better (as Joseph Singer noted) because of the electret mike. The buttons are quite a bit bigger than on the classic Touch-Tone Trimlines and are very handy to press. The 210 usually sells for around $10; there used to also be a 230, which had speed dial memory, but it seems to have been discontinued. ------------------------------ From: kimbrennan@aol.comfrtz.com (KimBrennan) Date: 01 Oct 2002 05:32:32 GMT Organization: AOL http://www.aol.com Subject: Re: Ordinary Phone With Good Sound? << People at rec.audio.pro mentioned B&O & VTech; I haven't had a chance yet to try either. Other suggestions welcome. >> I use B&O phones (both wireless and desktop models) and have been very pleased by sound quality and features. Of course, the price was pretty darn expensive. "I'm sorry, all my money is tied up in currency." W.C.Fields ------------------------------ From: Dave Phelps Subject: Re: Anti-Spam Filter Blocks XX and Others Date: Mon, 30 Sep 2002 21:10:36 -0500 Organization: Posted via Supernews, http://www.supernews.com In article , hes@hes01.unity.ncsu.edu says: > How can you tell it is an open relay? Do you test it yourself, or do > you use one of the many black lists? Some of the ISP's use such black > lists - and I believe it is possible to be incorrectly listed. I rely on ordb.org and monkeys.com. I also check spamcop, but I don't bounce if spamcop is the only system blacklisting a source, because they generally block an entire domain, such as earthlink.com and aol.com. > Received: from user-2ivf4vu.dialup.mindspring.com ([165.247.147.254] helo=FPE) > by epic.mail.pas.earthlink.net with smtp (Exim 3.33 #1) > id 17ulF8-0005F3-00 > for hes@ncsu.edu; Thu, 26 Sep 2002 19:52:40 -0700 > Note that the originating host (dialup) wasn't verified by epic as > coming from the IP address shown for dialup. This appears to be > because epic doesn't check via reverse DNS. It looks like epic did reverse DNS to me. The header was generated by the epic mailserver, not the client. Since the reverse DNS name is there, epic must have done a reverse DNS lookup. Dave Phelps Phone Masters Ltd. deadspam=tippenring ------------------------------ From: Ed Ellers Subject: Commentary: AT&T Goes Dead Date: Tue, 1 Oct 2002 01:51:57 -0400 By John Corry AT&T, I am sure, is a very fine company. Dot-coms may come and go, while the Enrons and Tycos cast big business into disrepute, but AT&T is solid and respectable, corporate America's equivalent of mom's apple pie, with a track record going back years. On the other hand, things fall apart, and institutions decay, and I am beginning to fear the worst. When I first called AT&T and requested phone service, I was asked if New York City was in upstate or downstate New York, and if Nigeria was in Africa. Meanwhile I still do not have a phone. http://americanprowler.org/article.asp?art_id=2002_9_25_23_41_27 ------------------------------ Date: Tue, 1 Oct 2002 01:23:08 -0400 From: Monty Solomon Subject: Broadband Disconnect washingtonpost.com Broadband Disconnect By Vandana Sinha Washington Techway Staff Writer Monday, September 30, 2002; 8:29 AM In two years, Francis Santayana had to shuffle between five broadband providers. National Associates, a Washington staffing firm where Santayana is chief technology officer, had shifted to digital subscriber line technology because dial-up connections were too slow and T1 lines too pricey for the 35-person business. But it seemed every door they knocked on to buy broadband sported an "Out of Business" sign six months later. "It's crazy," sighs Santayana. But that's nothing. Nathalie Birkenfeld and Pam Small, account executives at Washington public relations firm Ignition Strategic Communications, are searching for their seventh DSL provider in a year. Most filed for bankruptcy protection. Others offered spotty service. The 15-employee firm's latest provider just scrapped its flailing digital subscriber line business altogether. http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/articles/A21649-2002Sep30.html ------------------------------ Date: Tue, 1 Oct 2002 01:37:06 -0400 From: Monty Solomon Subject: Motorola's Symphony Digital Radio Chipset Motorola's Symphony(TM) Digital Radio Chipset Delivers Breakthrough AM/FM Reception and Performance Christmas 2003 Radios Will Receive More Stations and Sound Notably Better AUSTIN, Texas, Oct. 1 /PRNewswire-FirstCall/ -- Fans of AM/FM radio wanting to enjoy improved sound need not pay for satellite digital radio or wait for the introduction of land-based digital radio broadcasts. In a move that has significant repercussions for the digital radio industry, Motorola's (NYSE:MOT) Semiconductor Products Sector has developed a new digital radio technology that enhances sound quality and improves signal reception for existing AM and FM analog broadcasts. Designed for home and automotive stereo systems, Motorola's Symphony(TM) Digital Radio Chipset implements this new technology. Its benefits to listeners are numerous: less static, fading, pops and hisses; automatic tuning, so that adjacent stations won't interfere with each other; extended listening range from existing signals; and overall improved audio clarity and volume. The bottom line: listeners can hear more stations, whether at home or on the road, tune to more remote stations with greater ease and enjoy higher quality sound. Unlike other digital radio offerings, the Symphony Digital Radio Chipset does not require broadcasters to buy new digital broadcast equipment. Neither does it require consumers to pay a monthly subscription fee like those charged by satellite services because it operates on traditional AM/FM analog broadcasts. ... http://finance.lycos.com/home/news/story.asp?story=28898024 ------------------------------ From: rob51166@yahoo.com (Rob) Subject: Re: One Area Code to Unify Divided Town Date: 1 Oct 2002 02:29:07 -0700 Organization: http://groups.google.com/ rob51166@yahoo.com (Rob) wrote in message news:: > David Massey wrote in message > news:: >> When I read this it made that Simpsons cartoon about the split area >> code come to mind! >> We here in Kennesaw, Georgia, USA (a city near Atlanta) have two >> postal zip codes and I think the area codes we can call toll-free are >> 404, 770, 678, 470 and 906 of which the first four overlay the metro >> Atlanta area. Such is life near a big city! At least I can brag that >> we have the LARGEST local calling area in the USA and possibly the >> world. > I think you'll find that London in the Uk has the largest local > calling area in the world, with calls within 020, 01372, 01689, 01708, > 01737, 01784, 01923, 01932, 01992, 01322, 01707, 01784, 01895 and > 01959 all reagrded as being local from the 020 London area code. > Rob BTW, just because we have to pay for local calls doesn't mean that they're not local. *ALL* numbers on the same area code and all neighbouring area codes are regarded as local, which often isn't the case in the US; plus they *are* at a cheaper rate to national/long distance calls. Some telephone companies charge a fixed rate regardless of where you're calling ~ i.e. one cable telco, NTL, have a 3-2-1 price-plan, where they charge 3p/minute peak, 2p/minute off peak mid-week and 1p/minute at weekends, regardless of whether you're phoning someone in the same street or at the other end of the country. Another cable telco, Telewest, offers free unlimited geographic calls, local and national, for a fixed monthly fee of GBP25. You have to remember that the phone systems in the EU and the rest of Europe aren't like the NANP. Rob ------------------------------ From: PaulCoxwell@aol.com Date: Tue, 1 Oct 2002 07:30:12 EDT Subject: Re: One Area Code to Unify Divided Town > If there's any interest in this stuff, I can scan a couple of the > pages from the book. I wish I had an old Columbia, Mo. phone book, but > I don't. Yes please! I don't know about anyone else, but I'm always fascinated by the way the numbering schemes and exchange linking developed. [TELECOM Digest Editor's Note: It would be a great submission here in the Digest wouldn't it? PAT] ------------------------------ From: PaulCoxwell@aol.com Date: Tue, 1 Oct 2002 07:30:20 EDT Subject: Re: Emergency Number 112 > Many PABX's here are programmed to require a 0 to get an outside > line. The code to dial NYC info is 0011-1-212-555-1212. Now put > those together and get someone to dial them often. Then they go > home and make an international call. 4 seconds latter they are > talking to an emergency operator. Is there any particular reason why 0 became the common access code for an outside line on PBX systems in Australia? Here in the U.K., as in North America, the access code is more usually 9 (or occasionally 8), with level 0 reserved for access to the PBX operator, if any. ------------------------------ From: ken Subject: Re: American Caller Id Compatibile With European? Date: Tue, 1 Oct 2002 11:37:01 +0100 Organization: ntlworld News Service Caller id wrote in message news:telecom22.51.9@telecom-digest.org: > I just bought a General Electric 29096GE1 caller id/call waiting device. > I'm planning to give it my parents for use in Europe. I was wondering > whether there are any compatibility issues between the American and > European telecoms regarding caller id systems. > Thank you for your assistance. There are four separate schemes in use in European countries (the UK has three of them, depending on operator). According to the list on this site, only Italy supports the North American standard. http://www.digitalroom.net/calltrace/support.html#cidtypes Unless your unit's handbook says it can be used for lines in the required country, you'd probably be wasting your time. Apart from the signalling format, the connectors would be wrong. Better for your parents to buy in the country they are visiting. ------------------------------ From: Joe Trevathan Subject: Fax Service Using Prepaid Calling Cards Date: Tue, 1 Oct 2002 12:58:30 -0400 I haven't been to your site in quite awhile but it is always impressive as I am sure your knowledge about the telecom industry is. I have a friend who has been sitting on the fence about getting away from Excel long distance and the monthly charges he is paying. I have recommended several other alternatives but he is afraid he will somehow end up with big charges charged at the casual rate if he tries to leave them. Rather than try to belabor that, I am trying to answer some of his questions. Rather than changing carriers, he is considering completely getting rid of his long distance carrier and only use prepaid calling cards for those calls. The problem is that he wants to have a fax number. Can he do this with only a pre-paid calling card or must he have a long distance carrier for this to work. I will appreciate any guidance you can provide. Thank you. Joseph T. Trevathan [TELECOM Digest Editor's Note: What you refer to as a 'fax number' is usually just a regular phone line with a fax machine attached on it. People often times refer to those as 'fax numbers' in order to route incoming calls correctly to the fax machine. There is nothing really magic about a line used for a fax machine. A long time ago, the line had to be 'conditioned' for proper audio levels, etc. Not any more. If he intends to get a rechargeable prepaid card (one that is used over and over, by simply adding money to the card balance) then the card number and dialup number (to access the card services) could be set up as speed dial numbers on the fax to save some dialing efforts. Be sure and build the proper pauses into the dialing sequences, etc. There is no reason it should not work fine. PAT] ------------------------------ From: david@houstonnetworking.com (David Ogletree) Subject: Fax Machine Sound When You Call Person Without Fax Machine Date: 1 Oct 2002 08:11:30 -0700 Organization: http://groups.google.com/ Why is it in the past few years that when I call people that I know don't have a computer, fax or anything except a regular phone connected to their phone line do I get a fax machine sound? It does not happen every time just every once in a while. Also it does not matter where I call from it could be my cell phone or home phone. I have moved several times in the past few years and have had it happen from lots of different phones. Is it the phone company or the phone manufacturers? Everybody just about has a cordless phone now could that be it? [TELECOM Digest Editor's Note: Many people buy cheap, crappy phones these days. Maybe you have a cheap, crappy phone also. Electronic phones are notorious for picking up spurious radio signals. The less you pay for the phone the more prone it is to get static and hash on the line. You did not mention if the 'fax machine sounds' stay on the line for the entire conversation, or if they come and go, or are only there prior to the call being answered, or it if happens only when you call people or when they call you, or if it is only on local calls or only on long distance calls or a combination of the above. All those conditions can make a difference. Can you try to be a bit more specific? Telephone service is the one utility which requires two to tango. You do not need any cooperation to use electricity, gas or water; you do have to have another party to use the phone. What another person does or tries with his phone service does affect everyone else. PAT] ------------------------------ From: Peter Dubuque Subject: Re: Boycott The Body Shop !!! Date: Tue, 1 Oct 2002 17:40:25 UTC Organization: PANIX Public Access Internet and UNIX, NYC bsoulm@britshit.org wrote: > Description: Anita Roddick (founder and CEO of The Body Shop) > commentary for the London Independent regarding American civil > liberties since 9/11/2001 To be honest, this just makes me want to go out and buy more Body Shop products. Much of the growing mountain of anti-American screeds published in Europe these days is utter garbage -- one particularly idiotic British commentary I'm aware of even argues the lunatic idea that the WTC attacks were karmic payback for the Mexican War of the 1840s. But apart from her grotesque exaggeration in describing detentions as Chilean-style "disappearances," Roddick's arguments are pretty much dead on. Forget about her "rogue-state" accusations; they are irrelevant. We have an absolute right to defend ourselves against nations that threaten us in whatever way we deem necessary, whether or not it offends the French or the Chinese or the Russians. And most Western democracies were perfectly happy with us threatening first-strike nuclear attacks when doing so protected them from being overrun by the Soviet Union. But as for her criticism of our *domestic* response to terrorism ... do you really think that it's *OK* for the government to lock up a US citizen indefinitely, incommunicado, with no charges and no trial, simply because the President decrees that he is a "very bad man"? Is it acceptable for the White House press secretary, the official spokesman of the executive branch, to warn Americans to "watch what they say, watch what they do"? Is the vague threat of terrorism really sufficient justification for secret government monitoring of civic and religious groups, warrantless searches, and open-ended detentions? The Constitution and Bill of Rights are not a set of guidelines. They are not some obstacle to be skirted, nor some lofty, dreamy ideals to be paid lip service on special occasions and ignored in normal activities. They are the supreme law of the land, the core principles that bind us as a nation. We cannot violate them in the name of defending them. What a sorry state of affairs we have come to, when we need to be reminded of this by a foreigner, and then lash out at her in response. Peter F. Dubuque - peterd@panix.com - Enemy of Reason(TM) O- [TELECOM Digest Editor's Note: Things have gotten much more difficult here in the USA since 9/11/01. Amazingly, there are any number of Americans these days who see no problem at all with abolishing or canceling out parts of the Bill of Rights and 'free speech'. The main reason they see no problem with killing 'free speech' is because they are not creative enough to think of anything particularly to say, and resent others who are creative and thoughtful enough to do so. PAT] ------------------------------ From: Gail M. Hall Subject: Re: Three Things to Remember Date: Mon, 30 Sep 2002 21:28:58 -0400 Reply-To: gmhall@apk.net I think Pat had a senior moment. Those of us having senior moments make up quite a company these days, thanks to the wonders of modern medicine and plain good luck. This time, let's get the time change on the right day! These days I check the time with my cable TV box. I wonder if anyone calls "Time" on the phone any more. On Mon, 30 Sep 2002 17:04:30, in comp.dcom.telecom, you (ptownson ) wrote: > As September ends and October gets underway there are three things to > remember: (1) with this coming weekend, be certain to set your clocks > back one hour in most areas of the United States. Remember the adage, > 'spring ahead, fall behind'. If you forget about setting your clock then > you will be behind an hour. If you inadvertently reverse the process and > do 'fall ahead' then you will really be out of whack. Pat, I think you should double check that advice! I looked on two different calendars, and both have Sunday, October 27, marked as the day we change back to "standard" time. Furthermore, if you don't set your clock BACK one hour, you will be early to where you are supposed to go, not behind. There may be somewhere in the world where they change back the first week of October, but not in any of the United States that I know of. I lost an hour of sleep back in April. I will enjoy getting that extra hour of sleep on October 27th. While we are talking about time ... Bonus question for wireless experts out there: My wireless "nights" start at 9:00 p.m. When I'm in my own area, it is clear when I can use my cell phone for all those hundreds of "night/weekend" minutes. What is not clear to me is when I'm in another time zone. I thought I would be able to just look on my phone and see the time, but then I discovered that it just gives the date in the display. So if I'm in the Pacific time zone but my "home" phone number is in the Eastern time zone, do my calls made from out west get counted as ET (my home time zone) or as PT (where I'm actually calling from)? My plan does not charge for "roaming" anywhere within the 48 states. I didn't see that info in any of the literature that came with my phone or service. Gail from Ohio USA [TELECOM Digest Editor's Note: I *think*, therefore I am. (snort!) Seriously, I *think* (I get in a lot of trouble for doing that lately [thinking, I mean]). I *think* the time is from the local tower you are on. If you are in CA, it is unlikely a tower in NY or OH is handling your call. If you get itemized bills from your carrier, look at such a roaming call and see what time of day it says you made the call. Does *anyone* bother getting itemized billings each month any longer? PAT] ------------------------------ From: Wlevant@aol.com Date: Mon, 30 Sep 2002 21:27:17 EDT Subject: Re: Spring Forward, Fall Back You're showing your age. Daylight time now runs from the FIRST weekend in April to the LAST weekend in October. It used to run from the LAST weekend of April to the FIRST weekend of October, but changed to the present scheme in 1986. Bill [TELECOM Digest Editor's Note: I guess that's why during July in Western Kansas (near the state line, as far west as you can go in the Central Time zone; go a mile further west and they chop off an hour so you become Mountain Time) it does not get dark until almost 10 pm at night. (like 9:30-9:45 pm according to the Almanac feature in the daily newspaper in Liberal, Kansas. PAT] ------------------------------ Date: Mon, 30 Sep 2002 21:08:53 -0400 From: dhorvath@cobs.com (David B. Horvath, CCP) Subject: SPAM Removal Lists; Already in Directory? > Your email address was obtained from a purchased > list, Reference # [DELETED]. If you wish to unsubscribe from > this list, please Click here and enter your name into the > remove box. If you have previously unsubscribed and are still > receiving this message, you may email our Abuse Control > Center, or call 1-888-763-2497, or write us at: NoSpam, 6484 > Coral Way, Miami, FL, 33155". > (c) 2002 Web Credit Inc. All Rights Reserved > If you would rather not receive any further information from us, > please CLICK to be taken off our list. In this way you can > "opt-out" from the list your email address was obtained from, > whether it was "opt-in" or otherwise. Please allow 5-10 business > days for your email address to be processed and taken off all > lists in our control. Meanwhile, delete any duplicate emails that > you may receive and rest assured that your request will be > honored. If you have previously requested to be taken off this > list and are still receiving this advertisement, you may call us > at 1-(888) 817-9902, or write to: Abuse Control Center, 7657 > Winnetka Ave., Suite 245, Canoga Park, CA 91306 - David [TELECOM Digest Editor's Note: I don't *think* (there I go again, trying to think for myself) that any good comes from that Abuse Control Center thing. I wonder why they don't have a central registry for everyone to use? Has anyone every contacted that A.C.C. outfit and actually gotten removed? I doubt it. PAT] ------------------------------ Date: Mon, 30 Sep 2002 21:08:50 -0400 From: dhorvath@cobs.com (David B. Horvath, CCP) Subject: Toll Free Service and Web Hosting for the Business Directory > Although there are a lot of features, here's a summary: you get one > central toll-free number (with a low per-minute rate) which you give > out to everyone. When people call, they are given the opportunity to > enter an extension for a specific individual. > As soon as an extension is entered, the system takes steps to reach > you. Each extension can be separately defined on-line to try to > reach you at any set of numbers in turn (for example, try your home > first and if there's no answer try your cell phone and if there's > no answer ...). ... > Please check it out in more detail at [URL DELETED] > There's a toll-free number which has a live demo. "Live Demo or to Sign Up 888.577.0692" (actually an image, not text on the web page). Web hosting company page says: "OLM customers, please visit our Support Center . Resellers and dedicated server customers should access technical support using the login information supplied to you. Toll Free (US and Canada) 800-741-6813 International 203-445-7700" - David ------------------------------ From: Geoffrey Welsh Subject: Re: Three Things to Remember Date: Tue, 1 Oct 2002 15:59:30 -0400 ptownson tried to think for himself again with his deseased brain: > Remember the adage, 'spring ahead, fall behind'. > If you forget about setting your clock then you will be behind an hour. Uh, no ... if you forget to set your clock back, you (and your clock) will be *ahead* of everyone else by an hour, not behind. ------------------------------ From: Linc Madison Subject: Re: Three Things to Remember Date: Mon, 30 Sep 2002 22:25:33 -0700 Organization: LincMad.com Consulting Reply-To: Telecom@LincMad.com In article , ptownson wrote: > As September ends and October gets underway there are three things to > remember: (1) with this coming weekend, be certain to set your > clocks back one hour in most areas of the United States. Remember the > adage, 'spring ahead, fall behind'. If you forget about setting your > clock then you will be behind an hour. If you inadvertently reverse > the process and do 'fall ahead' then you will really be out of whack. Well, yes, except that you're a month early. In the United States, Canada, and now the European Union, DST ends on the LAST Sunday in October. When I was a small child, I found it immensely frustrating that my hours of waning daylight were cut short just before Halloween each year. Mongolia just ended DST on Sunday, and Iraq ended DST just a few hours ago. Of course, there is always the obscure question of whether I was born on Daylight Savings Time or not. I was born in the summer of 1963 in San Antonio, Texas, three years before the U.S. standardized the rules for DST nationally. Each municipality could decide whether or not and when to start and stop observing DST. The Congressional hearings for the 1966 law included details of a 35-mile bus ride from Moundsville WV to Steubenville OH, on which passengers and driver had to endure SEVEN time zone changes. > (3) Consider making a donation to help TELECOM Digest ... always timely, in any season. www dot LincMad dot com / Telecom at LincMad dot com Linc Madison * San Francisco, California [TELECOM Digest Editor's Note: That law about changing the clocks back an hour on the fourth Sunday (or is it the final, there can be five Sundays) in October was passed because Mothers do not want their little guys being out after dark on Hallowed Eve eating the poison candy and apples with razor blades embedded in them that are given out by Bad People to the kids. You just gave me a new excuse for my error yesterday. I was actually talking about the time change in Mongolia (the outer region) where I am located. Now is this October 1 or July 17? If the former I want to be sure to remind you all to send in your Tithes for this month, and when you send them in be sure to ask for your Twentieth Anniversary CD of the Archives. Twenty dollars or whatever you wish to send above that will get you the CD. Donation button located at the web site: http://telecom-digest.org, or via snailmail: PO Box 50, Idependence, KS 67301-0050. PAT] ------------------------------ TELECOM Digest is an electronic journal devoted mostly but not exclusively to telecommunications topics. It is circulated anywhere there is email, in addition to various telecom forums on a variety of networks such as Compuserve and America On Line, 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: 620-870-9697 Fax 1: 775-255-9970 Fax 2: 775-306-8390 Fax 3: 775-642-0603 Fax 4: 530-309-7234 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 second 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) Email <==> FTP: telecom-archives@telecom-digest.org Send a simple, one line note to that automated address for a help file on how to use the automatic retrieval system for archives files. You can get desired files in email. ************************************************************************* * 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. Access to Premium (P) links requires upgrade to a paid subscription. One click a day feeds a person a meal. Go to http://www.thehungersite.com Only subscribers or registered users of ICB Toll Free News web site will be able to access all or some of the full text of URLs provided. LEGAL STUFF: TELECOM Digest (sm) is owned by Patrick Townson. Copyright 2000 ICB, Inc. and TELECOM Digest. All rights reserved. Our attorney is Bill Levant, of Blue Bell, PA. --------------------------------------------------------------- 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 twenty 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 V22 #59 ***************************** From editor@telecom-digest.org Wed Oct 2 15:05:45 2002 Received: from localhost (localhost [[UNIX: localhost]]) by massis.lcs.mit.edu (8.11.3nb1/8.11.3) id g92J5j017692; Wed, 2 Oct 2002 15:05:45 -0400 (EDT) Date: Wed, 2 Oct 2002 15:05:45 -0400 (EDT) From: editor@telecom-digest.org Message-Id: <200210021905.g92J5j017692@massis.lcs.mit.edu> X-Authentication-Warning: massis.lcs.mit.edu: ptownson set sender to editor@telecom-digest.org using -f To: ptownson Approved: patsnewlist Subject: TELECOM Digest V22 #60 TELECOM Digest Wed, 2 Oct 2002 15:05:00 EDT Volume 22 : Issue 60 Inside This Issue: Editor: Patrick A. Townson Raising the "800" Payphone Surcharge (Danny Burstein) Earthspam (Joey Lindstrom) Re: NPA-NXX and LATA (NOSPAM) Re: Greek Dialing Plan Change Phase 3 (obsidian) Re: Three Things to Remember (Wes Leatherock) Re: Three Things to Remember (Joseph Singer) Re: Three Things to Remember (Joseph Singer) News Headlines of Interest 10/2/02 (Monty Solomon) Re: One Area Code to Unify Divided Town (Mark Roberts) Customized Telecom Breaking Newsletter (Jan Hajek) Advice on Small Business Phone System (Philip) Unlock For Sendo j230 (wael tabaz) Re: SPAM Removal Lists; Already in Directory? (Steven Lichter) 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. WE DO NOT PERMIT NAME/EMAIL ADDRESS HARVESTING FROM THIS JOURNAL. 'SALTED' EMAIL ADDRESSES APPEAR HEREIN TO VERIFY THIS. YOU GET SUED IN SMALL CLAIMS COURT IF YOU GET CAUGHT SPAMMING OR SENDING VIRUSES. DON'T DO IT. See the bottom of this issue for subscription and archive details and the name of our lawyer; other stuff of interest. ---------------------------------------------------------------------- From: Danny Burstein Subject: Raising the "800" Payphone Surcharge Date: Tue, 1 Oct 2002 21:39:19 -0400 Organization: PANIX Public Access Internet and UNIX, NYC For the past few years, owners of (registered) payphones have been entitled to a kickback of (generally about $0.25) by the long distance (the "800") carrier. (This actually applies to just about all "tollfree" calls, 1-800/888/877/866 and various others) Accordingly, these carriers have been passing along that charge (plus, of course, overhead) to the "owner" of the 800 number. This has led, as we all know, to many people blocking payphone access to their line. Anyway, there's now a petition in front of the FCC to double this rate. Sigh. Excerpting from (various formats of the FCC filing): http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-02-2381A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-02-2381A1.txt http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-02-2381A1.doc APCC asserts that substantial changes to market conditions since the Commission adopted the Third Report and Order justifies an increase to the $0.24 rate. The RBOC Coalition also requests that the Commission establish a new per-call payphone compensation rate, increasing the rate to $0.49. _____________________________________________________ Knowledge may be power, but communications is the key dannyb@panix.com [to foil spammers, my address has been double rot-13 encoded] ------------------------------ From: Joey Lindstrom Date: Tue, 01 Oct 2002 15:58:41 -0600 Reply-To: Joey Lindstrom Subject: Earthspam On Thu, 26 Sep 2002 22:22:06 -0400 (EDT), Wes Leatherock wrote: > From: Wesrock@aol.com > Date: Thu, 26 Sep 2002 09:41:00 EDT > Subject: Re: Anti-Spam Filter Blocks XX and Others > This was posted by the owner of a list to which I subscribe, one > that is the antithesis of spam. I have substituted XX for the name of > the list passim. > Wes Leatherock > wesrock@aol.com > wleathus@yahoo.com >> ---TECH AND LENGTH ALERT--- >> Earthlink, Mindspring, Netcom subscribers of XX ... (BUT of some >> interest to all): This note is being posted to XX .. for FYI of >> all ... and also being sent privately to those here with the above >> ISP addresses. If I may juxtapose a couple of cliche'ish >> metaphors: The inevitable backlash to the spam onslaught now >> appears to be in full swing .. with some ISP's implementing >> policies that are more or less throwing out the baby with the >> bathwater. To be specific, they are throwing out legitimate >> email. Earthlink, which is the second largest ISP behind AOL, >> today began an anti-spam effort that, among other things, is >> preventing the delivery of XX messages. Some sample "bouncebacks" >> are given below. My apologies if this has already been beaten to death -- I'm several days behind in reading the TELECOM Digest due to having to upgrade our antiques at work to Windows 2000 (y'ever try that on a Pentium 133?) Wes, your list manager should be quite embarrassed right about now - and if he's not, then I'd consider his credibility severely damaged. He went on, at length and ad nauseum, about what a bunch of bastards Earthlink are and how they and other ISP's are throwing out the baby with the bathwater, etc. etc. etc. yada yada yada. Just one problem. It ain't bleepin' true. What your list manager guy (and Pat, and many others including myself) bumped into was a major glitch at Earthlink's end, a glitch that was repaired within 24 hours. Shit happens sometimes. What makes your buddy look like a fool is this: every bounceback message (and I got several from a list I maintain) contained a means by which you could contact Earthlink, at an address that WOULD let your email through. He obviously didn't even try, he just went off and vented all over the place, and made completely erroneous assumptions about Earthlink's motives and tactics. I, and many others, did try to contact Earthlink for an explanation. And we got a very apologetic letter from Earthlink explaining the problem, and stating that the problem was now fixed. Yay, everybody's happy. Some people walk around with chips on their shoulders, and this is especially true of spamfighters and spam-promoters. That doesn't make their react-without-thinking approach any more acceptable, just a tad more understandable. If your list-manager buddy hasn't apologized to the list membership for his stupid remarks, perhaps you might suggest to him that he do so. Feel free to send along a copy of this message if he wants an explanation as to why he should do so. If he's not likely to read a long explanation, try this short one instead: "Hey buddy, you made yourself look like a grade-A ignoramus, and the longer you fail to deal with it, the stupider you look!" :-) Joey Lindstrom - Laird's Flooring joey@lairdsflooring.com [Grade-A Ignoramus Note: All this you say is correct, Joey. But I still maintain that the ultimate 'death of the net' (which we have all heard so much about over the years) will eventually come from the sheer volume of trash and spam (mostly the latter) which continues to inflitrate our computers and networks daily and hourly. The people who continue to deluge us with it don't consider it 'trash' or 'spam' however, and they probably think us elitist and peculiar because we object to it. Those of us who have been around here (in this community) for many years *know* there is much potential on this net. But then, the 'general public' decided to get in on the act, and as in the later years of Citizens Band Radio, it didn't all vanish at once, it just gradually got so noisy all the time no one else could have a decent conversation. People tried filter-rules type solutions on CB radio also, and soon found out that no amount of rules took the place of or did as well as the human mind; so, they had to endure the crap in order to make sure they got the diamonds and other gems out of the cesspool. Eventually however, people's minds get burned out. Eventually, as Ayn Rand phrased it, Atlas decided to shrug and quit fighting or struggling any longer. I think we will see that here. The intelligent people who have been treating spam as something they can outwit, with filters, insults, phone calls, etc will just get very, very burned out and tired, and like Atlas, they will shrug, and when enough of the guys shrug, throw up their hands and walk away, we will indeed see the death of the net. I was not on the net for a year and a half or almost two years, between November 29, 1999 and the end of 2001 except for a few intervals. When I got back to work in earnest at the start of this year, I was frankly astounded at *how awful and commercialized the net had become during my absence*. Popup windows galore, etc. I really could not believe it. That will be the death of the net; when enough good netizens simply get bored and walk away from it, like they did with CB Radio twenty years ago. Request: Anyone who remembers/has a copy of that Usenet posting called 'Tragedy of the Commons' please mail it to me for use here. Thanks. PAT] ------------------------------ From: NOSPAM Subject: Re: NPA-NXX and LATA Organization: Prodigy Internet http://www.prodigy.com Date: Wed, 02 Oct 2002 00:58:53 GMT Start here http://access-networking.com/telecom_resources.htm wrote in message news:telecom22.51.13@telecom-digest.org... > I read a TELECOM Digest article/memo regarding NPA-NXX and LATA, where > they were listed in this format: > NPA NXX LATA LATA NAME > 410 741 236 WASHINGTON DC > 410 741 238 BALTIMORE MARYLAND > I am looking for a web site that will give me NPA-NXX numbers by state > in this type format, or even using a regional map format, and was > hoping you could tell me if such a database even exists. > Marise A. Klapka > Next Day Gourmet > dba Superior Products > 510 West County Road D > St. Paul, MN 55112 > 651-638-8947 ------------------------------ From: obsidian Subject: Re: Greek Dialing Plan Change Phase 3 Date: Tue, 1 Oct 2002 22:27:17 +0200 Organization: -= Skynet Usenet Service =- Are these "flash" changes or is there a period of dual running? Spyros Bartsocas wrote in message news:telecom22.57.8@telecom-digest.org: > The third and final stage of the change of the Greek dialing plan will begin November 3. The following changes will take place: > 1.Geographic Numbers: > When calling from within Greece the initial 0 will be replaced by a 2 > (e.g. 010-211-0499 will become 210-211-0499) When calling from abroad > a 2 will be added after the country code (e.g. +30-10-211-0499 will > become +30-210-211-0499) ------------------------------ From: wesrock@aol.com (Wes Leatherock) Date: 01 Oct 2002 20:41:47 GMT Organization: AOL http://www.aol.com Subject: Re: Three Things to Remember On Mon, 30 Sep 2002 22:25:33 -0700 Linc Madison nobody@example.com wrote: > Of course, there is always the obscure question of whether I was born > on Daylight Savings Time or not. I was born in the summer of 1963 in > San Antonio, Texas, three years before the U.S. standardized the rules > for DST nationally. Each municipality could decide whether or not and > when to start and stop observing DST. Surely there are Texans on the list who know whether or not San Antonio observed daylight saving time in the summer of 1963. In general, there were very few; hardly any places in Southwestern Bell territory (Missouri, Kansas, Oklahoma, Arkansas and Texas) which observed daylight saving time before it became a national law. This was a matter of some inconvenience because St. Louis, where the company headquarters was located, observed daylight saving time and hardly anywhere else in the company did. A notable exception was Bartlesville, Oklahoma, which one year decided to observe daylight saving time. This was a district headquarters and none of the other places in the district were on DST. The district manager came to work at 9 a.m. and stayed until 6 p.m. so as to be there during the working hours in the rest of the district. The rest of the Bartlesville organization worked 8 to 5 (daylight saving time). > ... The Congressional hearings for > the 1966 law included details of a 35-mile bus ride from Moundsville WV > to Steubenville OH, on which passengers and driver had to endure SEVEN > time zone changes. In general, passengers only need to be concerned about the time in use at their origin and destination. The schedules were no doubt in one time or the other for the entire route, and that was what the driver would go by. If you are flying coast to coast in the U.S.A. do you have to endure three time changes? Do you reset your watch every time the airplane passes over a time zone boundary? Or do you just change your watch three hours at the beginning or end of the journey? Of course, if you are flying to or from Phoenix, the rules change. Wes Leatherock wesrock@aol.com wleathus@yahoo.com ------------------------------ From: Joseph Singer Subject: Re: Three Things to Remember Date: Tue, 01 Oct 2002 19:54:12 -0700 Organization: Drizzle Reply-To: joeofseattle@yahoo.com On Mon, 30 Sep 2002 21:28:58 -0400, Gail M. Hall wrote: > I think Pat had a senior moment. Those of us having senior moments > make up quite a company these days, thanks to the wonders of modern > medicine and plain good luck. > This time, let's get the time change on the right day! > These days I check the time with my cable TV box. I wonder if anyone > calls "Time" on the phone any more. Before I had my computer I used to call the number that played WWV on the phone. You can still get it by calling +1 303 499 7111 or by calling the National Bureau of Standards in DC @ +1 202 762 1401. WWV gives the time @ UTC. The National Bureau of Standards uses Eastern daylight/standard time. And of course if you have money to burn you can call the dialit number 1-900-410-TIME (8463) and you can get dinged 50 cents per minute. Personal replies most likely will not be read. Please reply in the newsgroup. [TELECOM Digest Editor's Note: Actually the Natl Bureau of Standards is the Boulder, CO operation on 303 499 7111. The Washington, DC version on 202 762 1401 (aka 900 410 TIME) is the Naval Observatory Master Clock. Boulder, CO and the NBS uses the audio output of WWV radio on the 7111 phone line. It is just a 'tick-tock' sound with a standardized tone signal except on the minute when a voice announce- ment tells the time to the minute. Since there are places in the USA which can hear the Hawaiian version (radio station WWVH) then when either WWV or WWVH want to make spoken announcements, the other end shuts off the tone signal for the one or two minutes the other side is broadcasting its messages, thus preventing heterodyne between the two. California for example can easily hear the Colorado signal and the Hawaii signal. 7111 only gets whatever WWV is doing at the moment. The east coast NAVOBS audio on the other hand talks all the time, giving the time every ten seconds in voice. That's about the only difference. As Joe Singer notes, if you would rather pay to hear what your taxes are already paying for, then use the 900 version to get NAVOBS. PAT] ------------------------------ From: Joseph Singer Subject: Re: Three Things to Remember Date: Tue, 01 Oct 2002 19:59:05 -0700 Organization: Drizzle Reply-To: joeofseattle@yahoo.com On Mon, 30 Sep 2002 21:28:58 -0400, Gail M. Hall wrote: > Bonus question for wireless experts out there: > My wireless "nights" start at 9:00 p.m. When I'm in my own area, it > is clear when I can use my cell phone for all those hundreds of > "night/weekend" minutes. Your wireless night minutes start at 9:00 pm *local* time not where you have your home service. So, if you live in Pennsylvania but are visiting in San Francisco it's only 6:00 pm and your bonus night minutes cannot be used for another three hours. People on the left coast are at a distinct disadvantage in that regard. A goodly portion of the population in the east will likely be in bed and in deep sleep by the time west coasters get to use their night minutes. On Mon, 30 Sep 2002 21:28:58 -0400, TELECOM Digest tried to think in response to Gail M. Hall : > [TELECOM Digest Editor's Note: I *think*, therefore I am. (snort!) > Seriously, I *think* (I get in a lot of trouble for doing that lately > [thinking, I mean]). I *think* the time is from the local tower you > are on. If you are in CA, it is unlikely a tower in NY or OH is > handling your call. If you get itemized bills from your carrier, look > at such a roaming call and see what time of day it says you made the > call. Does *anyone* bother getting itemized billings each month any > longer? PAT] My wireless bill shows *every* call I make where someone answers whether it's to customer service or not. I'm glad it does too. I like to see what all I've called or the carrier "claims" I've called. Personal replies most likely will not be read. Please reply in the newsgroup. ------------------------------ Date: Tue, 1 Oct 2002 23:15:51 -0400 From: Monty Solomon Subject: News Headlines of Interest 10/2/02 Memo Indicates Global Crossing Chief Knew of Troubles By SIMON ROMERO The chief executive of Global Crossing warned the company's chairman, Gary Winnick, as early as mid-2000 that the company was doomed to collapse, according to documents released yesterday by Congressional investigators. If publicly known, the warning from the chief executive, Leo J. Hindery Jr., would have shocked investors. At the time, Global Crossing, the operator of a worldwide fiber optic network, seemed to have almost limitless potential. Mr. Hindery's memorandum, written in June 2000, seems to contradict previous assertions by Mr. Winnick that he was unaware of potential problems at Global Crossing. He subsequently sold more than $100 million in company stock, bringing his proceeds from disposing of shares to $730 million. The documents, released by the House Energy and Commerce Committee in advance of a hearing today, also seem to indicate that Mr. Winnick was personally involved in Global Crossing's dealings with Enron and WorldCom, transactions that are now under federal investigation. His representatives have insisted that Mr. Winnick was unaware of many day-to-day details at the company in his role as chairman. http://www.nytimes.com/2002/10/01/business/01GLOB.html Cellphone: A Convenience, a Hazard or Both? By JANE E. BRODY When a new technology takes off, it seems to fly with the speed of light. So it is with cellphones, now owned by well over half the population and soon to be found in more than 90 percent of American households. The latest trend is to replace one's land line with a cellphone, but that action seems a bit premature, given the erratic nature of many cellphone connections. Still, the potential is there, and when you can carry a phone wherever you go, you can spend many more hours on the phone than you would if a land line was all you had. This raises critical questions that have been asked for nearly a decade with little resolution. How safe are they? What effect do they have on quality of life? Recent bans in New York State and elsewhere on the use of hand-held phones while driving only begin to address these questions, and with limited effectiveness. http://www.nytimes.com/2002/10/01/health/01BROD.html Spitzer Sues Executives of Telecom Companies By PATRICK McGEEHAN Eliot Spitzer, the attorney general of New York, sued former top officials of five telecommunications companies yesterday, contending that they had steered investment banking business to Citigroup in exchange for inflated ratings on their companies' stocks and new shares of other companies. After filing suit in State Supreme Court in Manhattan, Mr. Spitzer said he wanted the executives, including Bernard J. Ebbers, former chairman of WorldCom, to give back more than $1.5 billion in "ill gotten" personal gains to the shareholders of the companies they ran. That sum included $28 million in profits on shares of initial public offerings and far larger gains on stock and options of their own companies. The other defendants were Joseph P. Nacchio, former chief executive of Qwest Communications International and Philip F. Anschutz, its former chairman; Stephen A. Garofalo, chairman of Metromedia Fiber Network; and Clark E. McLeod, former chief executive of McLeod USA. Each was named last year in a wrongful-termination lawsuit filed by David Chacon, a former Citigroup broker who contended that the firm favored corporate executives when allocating new stocks. Mr. Spitzer's suit contends that each defendant reaped gains of several million dollars on shares allocated to him by the Salomon Smith Barney unit of Citigroup, through a practice known on Wall Street as spinning. In turn, Mr. Spitzer said, each of them directed his company to pay Citigroup tens of millions of dollars in investment banking fees. http://www.nytimes.com/2002/10/01/business/01WALL.html Cingular Expands Rollover Plan; Wildly Popular Feature Now Available On National Plans ATLANTA, Oct. 1 /PRNewswire/ -- Cingular Wireless today expanded its wildly popular Rollover feature to select national rate plans. Rollover, the wireless plan that lets customers keep their unused monthly minutes, is now available on Cingular Preferred Nation plans costing $39.99 and more. Customers who have leftover package minutes in one month will have them "rolled over" into the next month for up to 12 months. Cingular Preferred Nation plans allow Cingular customers to travel nationwide on the Cingular network with no roaming or long distance charges. The plans cover the most heavily traveled cities in the United States. http://finance.lycos.com/home/news/story.asp?story=28903286 VeriSign Signs Arrival, Cellular Mobile Systems, and First Cellular For NetDiscovery Services Trusted Nationwide Infrastructure Supports Turnkey Solution Enabling All Types Of Carriers to Comply with CALEA Easily at Low Cost MOUNTAIN VIEW, Calif., Oct. 2 /PRNewswire-FirstCall/ -- VeriSign, Inc. (NASDAQ:VRSN), the leading provider of digital trust services, announced today that three new contracts have been executed for their NetDiscovery(TM) Services, the most complete outsourced solution available for compliance with the Communications Assistance for Law Enforcement Act (CALEA). Arrival Communications, a competitive local exchange carrier (CLEC) that provides voice and data services to underserved cities throughout California, and regional wireless carriers Cellular Mobile Systems of St. Cloud and First Cellular of Southern Illinois, have deployed VeriSign's NetDiscovery Services as a cost-efficient means of meeting their obligations under CALEA, the congressional mandate requiring carriers to support law enforcement agencies in conducting lawfully authorized intercepts of communications content and call data. VeriSign's trusted network infrastructure, secure data centers and security bureau personnel uniquely position the company to serve the CALEA, subpoena, and judicial order compliance needs of all types of telecommunications carriers and information service providers as well as law enforcement agencies. - http://finance.lycos.com/home/news/story.asp?story=28919712 ------------------------------ From: markrobt@hotmail.com (Mark Roberts) Subject: Re: One Area Code to Unify Divided Town Date: Wed, 02 Oct 2002 03:51:35 -0000 Organization: 1.94 meters PaulCoxwell@aol.com had written: >> If there's any interest in this stuff, I can scan a couple of the >> pages from the book. I wish I had an old Columbia, Mo. phone book, but >> I don't. > Yes please! I don't know about anyone else, but I'm always fascinated > by the way the numbering schemes and exchange linking developed. > [TELECOM Digest Editor's Note: It would be a great submission here in > the Digest wouldn't it? PAT] I'll put some scans up at my website in a couple of days. Some initial scans tonight came out really big (>65K even after doing JPEG compression >50%) and I would like to work on reducing their size. It's not a problem for me but I am aware that there are a lot of people out there still on dialup. Perhaps I can provide a "supersize" option (kind of like a fast food chain). Mark Roberts | "How do you like following the goat story?" -- Oakland, Cal.| Dennis Richmond to meteorologist Bill Martin on NO HTML MAIL | KTVU's "Ten O'Clock News", 9-13-2002 [TELECOM Digest Editor's Note: Please give us link to the web site we should be using when it is ready to go. PAT] ------------------------------ From: helpdesk@inboxrobot.com (Jan Hajek) Subject: Customized Telecom Breaking Newsletter Date: 2 Oct 2002 00:59:46 -0700 Organization: http://groups.google.com/ Hello, My name is Jan Hajek and I am the Telecom Breaking Newsletter editor. It is a part of Inbox Robot which is hourly updated and you can also search therein thousands of daily headlines. The location is at http://www.inboxrobot.com/news/telecom Please take a look at let me know if it matches your interest. Best regards, Jan Hajek Telecom Breaking Newsletter Editor [TELECOM Digest Editor's Note: Thanks for the tip, Jan. I imagine a lot of the guys will look into your service. PAT] ------------------------------ From: Drloyd@cherryhealthcenter.com (Philip) Subject: Advice on Small Business Phone System Date: 2 Oct 2002 04:01:41 -0700 Organization: http://groups.google.com/ I am building a new chiropractic office. The building will be 4224 sq. ft., of which I will occupy 2112 sq. ft.. I need a minimum of three phone lines. Three lines that trunk over, the last of which will be used with an analog fax and SBC dsl. I will be looking for a couple of other doctors to be independent contractors, that will need there own phone lines (numbers) to advertize so our businesses can be truely seperate. In addition, if everything works out I may take over the other 2112 sq. ft. with another business, so I would like the possibility of having 8 incoming lines and 16 to 24 extensions. Initially, I would like to start with 3 phone lines and 10 extensions to equip all treatment rooms, so I can page the front desk and ask for a chart and such. I would also like to use a regular digital anwering machine. At this point I do not see the need for voice mail. You don't want to call your doctor and hear a bunch of options. You want to call and quickly talk to someone and set up an appointment. My budget is about $2000 for the equipment. I have been looking on ebay and like the thought of used equipment. New, I could afford 3-4 line system that would be expensive to upgrade. Used, I could afford the full system capable of 6-8 lines. On Ebay there are so many option: New, Used, NEC, Nortel, Panasonic, etc. I have looked at Nortel CICS, but I don't think I can have the fax and digital answering machine on the system with out having an expensive analog card. I don't like the idea of a dedicated fax line. We are a small office and currently only have two lines that trunk with DSL and fax on the second line, so I would like to have the possibility of trunking over to that third line on the system. Your help would be much appreciated, I believe if I bought now with my current knowledge, I would be making a mistake that would only be discovered after it is to late. I would like to make the purchase within 30 days. Any advice would be much appreciated. ------------------------------ From: wael tabaz Subject: Unlock For Sendo j230 Date: Wed, 02 Oct 2002 12:51:27 +0000 Hi, I want the unlock for sendo j230. Can you help me? Thanks. ------------------------------ From: stevenl11@aol.com (Steven Lichter) Date: 02 Oct 2002 13:23:59 GMT Organization: AOL http://www.aol.com Subject: Re: SPAM Removal Lists; Already in Directory? > [TELECOM Digest Editor's Note: I don't *think* (there I go again, > trying to think for myself) that any good comes from that Abuse > Control Center thing. I wonder why they don't have a central registry > for everyone to use? Has anyone every contacted that A.C.C. outfit and > actually gotten removed? I doubt it. PAT] The Canoga Park address is a Mail box service. Just what scammers use. Apple Elite II 909-359-5338. Home of GBBS/LLUCE, support for the Apple II 24 hours 2400/14.4. An OggNet Server. The only good spammer is a dead one!!! Have you hunted one down today? (c) Kill Spammers, Inc. A Hope You Roast In Hell Company. ------------------------------ TELECOM Digest is an electronic journal devoted mostly but not exclusively to telecommunications topics. It is circulated anywhere there is email, in addition to various telecom forums on a variety of networks such as Compuserve and America On Line, 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: 620-870-9697 Fax 1: 775-255-9970 Fax 2: 775-306-8390 Fax 3: 775-642-0603 Fax 4: 530-309-7234 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 second 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) Email <==> FTP: telecom-archives@telecom-digest.org Send a simple, one line note to that automated address for a help file on how to use the automatic retrieval system for archives files. You can get desired files in email. ************************************************************************* * 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. Access to Premium (P) links requires upgrade to a paid subscription. One click a day feeds a person a meal. Go to http://www.thehungersite.com Only subscribers or registered users of ICB Toll Free News web site will be able to access all or some of the full text of URLs provided. LEGAL STUFF: TELECOM Digest (sm) is owned by Patrick Townson. Copyright 2000 ICB, Inc. and TELECOM Digest. All rights reserved. Our attorney is Bill Levant, of Blue Bell, PA. --------------------------------------------------------------- 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 twenty 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 V22 #60 ***************************** From editor@telecom-digest.org Thu Oct 3 16:34:28 2002 Received: from localhost (localhost [[UNIX: localhost]]) by massis.lcs.mit.edu (8.11.3nb1/8.11.3) id g93KYS923459; Thu, 3 Oct 2002 16:34:28 -0400 (EDT) Date: Thu, 3 Oct 2002 16:34:28 -0400 (EDT) From: editor@telecom-digest.org Message-Id: <200210032034.g93KYS923459@massis.lcs.mit.edu> X-Authentication-Warning: massis.lcs.mit.edu: ptownson set sender to editor@telecom-digest.org using -f To: ptownson Approved: patsnewlist Subject: TELECOM Digest V22 #61 TELECOM Digest Thu, 3 Oct 2002 16:35:00 EDT Volume 22 : Issue 61 Inside This Issue: Editor: Patrick A. Townson Ze Death Of Ze Net (Joey Lindstrom) Re: Customized Telecom Breaking Newsletter (Gail M. Hall) Re: Raising the "800" Payphone Surcharge (Joseph Singer) Re: NPA-NXX and LATA (Clarence Dold) Re: Advice on Small Business Phone System (Rich Campbell) Re: Advice on Small Business Phone System (Danny Ocean) Re: Advice on Small Business Phone System (Justin Time) Payphones Thru a PBX (Perseus) Re: Earthspam (John Meissen) Re: Earthspam (Zed**3) Re: Motorola's Symphony Digital Radio Chipset (Scott Dorsey) News Headlines of Interest 10/3/02 (Monty Solomon) Worst Telephone Service: News article (David Esan) Unwanted Callbacks (Don Brearley) Low(er) Priced KSU Recommendations? (Danny Ocean) Tollstations (M. J. Poirier) Re: News Headlines of Interest 10/2/02 (Justin Time) Telecom Digest CD's (Joey Lindstrom) 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. WE DO NOT PERMIT NAME/EMAIL ADDRESS HARVESTING FROM THIS JOURNAL. 'SALTED' EMAIL ADDRESSES APPEAR HEREIN TO VERIFY THIS. YOU GET SUED IN SMALL CLAIMS COURT IF YOU GET CAUGHT SPAMMING OR SENDING VIRUSES. DON'T DO IT. See the bottom of this issue for subscription and archive details and the name of our lawyer; other stuff of interest. ---------------------------------------------------------------------- From: Joey Lindstrom Date: Wed, 02 Oct 2002 13:28:40 -0600 Reply-To: Joey Lindstrom Subject: Ze Death Of Ze Net On Wed, 2 Oct 2002 15:05:45 -0400 (EDT), editor@telecom-digest.org wrote: > [Grade-A Ignoramus Note: All this you say is correct, Joey. But I > still maintain that the ultimate 'death of the net' (which we have > all heard so much about over the years) will eventually come from the > sheer volume of trash and spam (mostly the latter) which continues to > inflitrate our computers and networks daily and hourly. The people who > continue to deluge us with it don't consider it 'trash' or 'spam' > however, and they probably think us elitist and peculiar because we > object to it. Those of us who have been around here (in this community) > for many years *know* there is much potential on this net. But then, > the 'general public' decided to get in on the act, and as in the later > years of Citizens Band Radio, it didn't all vanish at once, it just > gradually got so noisy all the time no one else could have a decent > conversation. People tried filter-rules type solutions on CB radio > also, and soon found out that no amount of rules took the place of or > did as well as the human mind; so, they had to endure the crap in > order to make sure they got the diamonds and other gems out of the > cesspool. Eventually however, people's minds get burned out. Eventually, > as Ayn Rand phrased it, Atlas decided to shrug and quit fighting or > struggling any longer. I think we will see that here. The intelligent > people who have been treating spam as something they can outwit, with > filters, insults, phone calls, etc will just get very, very burned out > and tired, and like Atlas, they will shrug, and when enough of the > guys shrug, throw up their hands and walk away, we will indeed see the > death of the net. > I was not on the net for a year and a half or almost two years, > between November 29, 1999 and the end of 2001 except for a few > intervals. When I got back to work in earnest at the start of this > year, I was frankly astounded at *how awful and commercialized the net > had become during my absence*. Popup windows galore, etc. I really > could not believe it. That will be the death of the net; when enough > good netizens simply get bored and walk away from it, like they did > with CB Radio twenty years ago. > Request: Anyone who remembers/has a copy of that Usenet posting called > 'Tragedy of the Commons' please mail it to me for use here. Thanks. PAT] I dunno Pat. I mean, it's easy to see parallels to the problems of today vis a vis the CB radio situation, but I think this is different. CB Radio was never a "mainstream" thing. E-mail is. People have come to depend on it. There are services (Brightmail and others) which people can subscribe to in order to have their inbox "cleaned" of spam. Enough people are willing to pay for this that such businesses have become viable. Similarly, a lot of companies employ full-time admin people just to keep abreast of the spam problem. In short, people value email highly enough (generally) that: 1) It will guarantee the fight will go on, so long as people continue to place a high value on email. As people burn out, new people will come in, because there is a dollar to be made. 2) Pressure will continue to mount on lawmakers to enact tougher anti-spam legislation, possibly even with some teeth to it. I think CB Radio would have died anyways. It was never anything more than a fad, a novelty -- it wasn't a "serious" method of communication, if for no other reason than the limited range it offered. I remember sitting in my dad's kitchen late one night, playing with his CB set. He had the power boosted way beyond legal limits, 15 watts I think. He also had it hooked up to a 40-foot antenna, that jutted out of his 31st-floor balcony in downtown Calgary. It was an overcast night and we actually managed to have a fifteen minute conversation with "Ole" in Sweden before we lost the skip. That was really cool, but we eventually lost interest entirely -- and that was WAY before the problems you mentioned cropped up. Email, and the 'net, are an entirely different matter. A lot of people use the internet everyday, for reasons OTHER than the "cool factor". I haven't been in a record store in about four years -- I buy my CD's, and DVD's and some books, from places like cdnow.com, amazon.ca, chapters.ca, and others. There's no fighting the crowds at the mall and the merchandise is delivered to your door (with amazon.ca, they've never taken longer than TWO DAYS with my orders, which is incredible). I like that, and I for one am willing to push past the crap (pop-up ads, etc.) in order to keep using these services. The "lure of the internet" has grown way, way beyond the casual chatrooms and bulletin boards and the like -- it's maturing. Granted, the commercialization pendulum has swung a LONG way towards abject commercialism, but I don't see that as a trend that will continue LONG TERM. Things will settle out and the internet will continue to be both a fun toy and a very useful tool. And they say right-wing conservatives like me can't be optimistic. :-) Joey Lindstrom - Laird's Flooring joey@lairdsflooring.com [TELECOM Digest Editor's Note: First, you mention the inredibly good service from amazon.com . Well, you see, they are located right here, between Independence and Coffeyville in a place called 'Coffeyville Industrial Park' off of Sunflower Avenue near Liberty, KS on the way north toward Independence. They have a lot of farmer's wives and daughters working there, with a smattering of high school age guys, all of whom seem to have good work ethics and work cheap. But I dunno how they do it; they are always running help wanted ads in the Inde- pendence Reporter and the Coffeyville Journal looking for workers. The last thing I got from them was a copy of the book 'Ruling the Root' by the guy at MIT. Ordered one day via computer, it was here two or three days later via UPS. I've suggested to Mike Sandman that he ought to relocate his warehouse/offices from the Chicago area to the same place. You mention that 'CB was only a fad; email is more serious.' Well, CB was a bit more than just a fad in the sixties and seventies, and although there was 'skip' which allowed (very) long distance communi- cations using cranked up (and illegal) power, I now and then talked between north-side Chicago and far south-suburban Joliet with just one or two watts, because things were *so quiet*. One day, I was chatting on the radio with a friend, and got quite rudely interuppted by someone who 'broke' me with a curse: 'Bullsh--, ! That guy you are talking to is not in Joliet. How could that be?' My friend had to confirm it was true. In those days, a watt or two *did* allow you to talk over large areas of the USA; certainly all around the Chicago area; that's the nature of radio propogation in the eleven-meter band. And in those times, certain 'channels' on the radio had certain types of discussions going on, with 'moderators' who pushed the conversations in certain directions, etc at certain times. For instance, I was a regular part of a group which met on Channel 33 at 9 pm nightly for open chat. You could always expect certain people to be on there at that time nightly, all *operating legally*. But then the 'spammers' got wise to it and started taking over the channel. They'd use mobius loop (ever-repeating) tapes and play their advertising messages for ten or fifteen minutes at a time. So then the serious people would crank up their power a little to get through. Then the 'spammers' would crank up their power. Then the white racist people would get into fights with the black people on the south/west sides (always with full power going) and it was not uncommon for some guys to 'key up' their microphones, lock them open, key up the power full blast and proceed to have sex on the radio, going from one channel to the next so that everyone got the 'benefit' of the experience. Long after the serious users had abandoned it all, the spammers and audio porn people kept fighing with each other and the white racists and the black power people. Occassionally, the FCC police would come around and raid the worst offenders, kicking the door down, smashing up the radios, etc then then things would get very quiet for a day or two while 'radio silence' prevailed. Honestly, I think the ederal ureau of nquistion agents and various police SWAT teams learned their trade by watching the FCC inspectors at work. Those guys were not to be trifled with. When they would raid the premises, they would take anything that remotely resembled radio gear, and smash up other things they did not want. Sound like present day FBI SWAT teams, when they propose to catch a 'hacker' at his work? No, Joey, CB was a cut above 'just a fad'. In Chicago-area it got to the point the airwaves were just solid heterodyne, solid noise near the end. And today, 20 years later, when I dust off the CB now and then, I still hear the guys with two thousand watt linear amps in Montana trying to make contact with guys in Florida, etc. Even the FCC eventually gave up on any enforcement actions regards CB. And when Compuserve came out with 'CB Simulator' we were all thrilled. At last we could be in peace. Yeah, you bet. Fast forward another twenty years and look at it now. PAT] ------------------------------ From: Gail M. Hall Subject: Re: Customized Telecom Breaking Newsletter Date: Wed, 02 Oct 2002 16:27:44 -0400 Reply-To: gmhall@apk.net Sorry, folks, I can't resist! On 2 Oct 2002 00:59:46 -0700, in the comp.dcom.telecom newsgroup, Jan Hajek (helpdesk@inboxrobot.com) wrote: > Hello, > My name is Jan Hajek and I am the Telecom Breaking Newsletter editor. I knew that telecom companies were in trouble. But a person who goes around breaking the telecoms? Wow! And she sends out news about it? [.....] > Please take a look at let me know if it matches your interest. I'm not really interested in breaking telecoms. I might like to knock some sense into some of them, though. [.....] Running for Cover in Ohio [TELECOM Digest Editor's Note: The person did not speak the best English, did they? But I knew what was being said and thought maybe some folks might like to look at the publication. PAT] ------------------------------ From: Joseph Singer Subject: Re: Raising the "800" Payphone Surcharge Date: Wed, 02 Oct 2002 14:12:59 -0700 Organization: Drizzle Reply-To: joeofseattle@yahoo.com On Tue, 1 Oct 2002 21:39:19 -0400, Danny Burstein wrote: > The RBOC Coalition also requests that the Commission establish a new > per-call payphone compensation rate, increasing the rate to $0.49. And how much you wanna bet that calling cards will now ding you $1 or $1.50 surcharge when you use one of their cards. Many cards now charge $.50 or $.55 surcharge along with all other sorts of "gotchas" so their 2.5 cent per minute or similar rates are of course really sort of bogus. They ding you elsewhere with lots of micro fine print. Personal replies most likely will not be read. Please reply in the newsgroup. ------------------------------ From: dold@32.usenet.us.com Subject: Re: NPA-NXX and LATA Date: Wed, 2 Oct 2002 21:39:17 UTC Organization: a2i network Marise_A_Klapka@ndgstp.com wrote: > I read a TELECOM Digest article/memo regarding NPA-NXX and LATA, where > they were listed in this format: > NPA NXX LATA LATA NAME > 410 741 236 WASHINGTON DC > 410 741 238 BALTIMORE MARYLAND http://www.nanpa.com/number_resource_info/co_code_assignments.html http://www.nanpa.com/nanp1/AllCodes.zip ALLCODES.MDB These are free, but they don't include the LATA or LATA NAME. They do include the CO city name. In your example, one of very few in the country where NPA-NXX spans a lata, they only show one entry. there is no awareness of split NPA-NXX on a LEC responsibility either. MD 410 741 AS 9212 VERIZON MARYLAND, INC. WEST RIVER MRBOMDMBDS0 The full LERG does have that information, but it's far from free. http://www.trainfo.com/products_services/tra/index.html ------------------------------ From: Rich Campbell Subject: Re: Advice on Small Business Phone System Organization: AT&T Broadband Date: Wed, 02 Oct 2002 21:40:54 GMT If you are going to use an answering machine, just wire it in front of the phone system. This will allow you to turn on/off the answering system at night. For the fax, get a fax detect box. I suggest ComShare but there are many others. This will allow you to share your line with your fax machine. GL finding a system. Panasonic's are about the easiest systems I have seen to set up for your application. Rich Philip wrote in message news:telecom22.60.11@telecom-digest.org: > I am building a new chiropractic office. The building will be 4224 > sq. ft., of which I will occupy 2112 sq. ft.. I need a minimum of > three phone lines. Three lines that trunk over, the last of which will > be used with an analog fax and SBC dsl. I will be looking for a couple > of other doctors to be independent contractors, that will need there > own phone lines (numbers) to advertize so our businesses can be truely > separate. In addition, if everything works out I may take over the > other 2112 sq. ft. with another business, so I would like the > possibility of having 8 incoming lines and 16 to 24 extensions. > Initially, I would like to start with 3 phone lines and 10 extensions > to equip all treatment rooms, so I can page the front desk and ask for > a chart and such. I would also like to use a regular digital anwering > machine. At this point I do not see the need for voice mail. You > don't want to call your doctor and hear a bunch of options. You want > to call and quickly talk to someone and set up an appointment. > My budget is about $2000 for the equipment. I have been looking on > ebay and like the thought of used equipment. New, I could afford 3-4 > line system that would be expensive to upgrade. Used, I could afford > the full system capable of 6-8 lines. On Ebay there are so many > option: New, Used, NEC, Nortel, Panasonic, etc. have looked at > Nortel CICS, but I don't think I can have the fax and > digital answering machine on the system with out having an expensive > analog card. I don't like the idea of a dedicated fax line. We are a > small office and currently only have two lines that trunk with DSL and > fax on the second line, so I would like to have the possibility of > trunking over to that third line on the system. > Your help would be much appreciated, I believe if I bought now with my > current knowledge, I would be making a mistake that would only be > discovered after it is to late. > I would like to make the purchase within 30 days. > Any advice would be much appreciated. ------------------------------ From: vipvideo@onebox.com (Danny Ocean) Subject: Re: Advice on Small Business Phone System Date: 2 Oct 2002 22:12:04 -0700 Organization: http://groups.google.com/ Dr. Phil, The no-longer-available Nortel 6x16 sounds like it will suit your current needs and are very affordable on E-Bay right now (used), but ... I do not believe this system is expandable beyond 6 lines and 16 extensions. Also, purchasing used equipment w/o warranty is a risky propostion. You could end up with a smoking hunk of plastic and no recourse. I recommend to clients on a budget a new KSU (system) and used or re-furbished phones. That's a relatively safe way to save $$$. I have rarely seen Nortel phones go bad, regardless of age. You CAN run your fax machine and answering machine on any phone system by installing them between the CO lines and the system. Only problem (without dedicated fax #) is knowing when an incoming fax arrives (fax switch might help). Also, the Nortel CICS has a built in ATA port that can be programmed to ring an answering machine or fax if you so desire. The Nortel CICS (8 x 16 configuration) is a very good investment and can be had NEW with NEW phones for slightly more than your budget. Programming is user-friendly (even with "non-techhies") You can program the CICS to ring independently on different lines, in effect running 2 ~ 3 offices from one system. Cost can be recovered/reduced by leasing system access to other tenants in building. You can also add voice mail to this system. Older 6 x 16's do not work with newer StarTalk boxes. I guarantee you will be very happy with the Nortel CICS. Have you considered the AT&T 4-line "KSU-less" phones? Model numbers are 944, 954 & 964 (about $89 ~ $129 @ Office Depot). I recently installed 4 of these in a new chiropractic office (in conjunction with fax/dsl/ans. mach.) and the client is very pleased. These can do almost everything a phone system can do (hold, transfer, MOH, conference) and are expandable up to 12 unique extensions. My advice: Trying to save money on phone systems by "doing-it-yourself" can lead to more expense and headaches down the road (I certainly wouldn't try to adjust myself!). Call 3 ~ 4 "phone guys" in your area (ask for references!) and have them compete for your business. You will save money in the long run and can concentrate on your profession. Best of luck on your new venture. Regards, D. Ocean Miami, FLA vipvideo@onebox.com P.S. - Why do businessmen spend hundred's of thousands of dollars on building/remodelling new offices (oak paneling, marble lobbies, Herman-Miller furniture, flat computer screens, etc.) then get a case of the "low-budget cheapies" when it comes to telephone systems? I just don't get it ... sales are the most frustrating part of my job. Drloyd@cherryhealthcenter.com (Philip) wrote in message news:: > I am building a new chiropractic office. The building will be 4224 > sq. ft., of which I will occupy 2112 sq. ft.. I need a minimum of > three phone lines. Three lines that trunk over, the last of which will > be used with an analog fax and SBC dsl. I will be looking for a couple > of other doctors to be independent contractors, that will need there > own phone lines (numbers) to advertize so our businesses can be truely > separate. ------------------------------ From: a_user2000@yahoo.com (Justin Time) Subject: Re: Advice on Small Business Phone System Date: 3 Oct 2002 05:35:01 -0700 Organization: http://groups.google.com/ Drloyd@cherryhealthcenter.com (Philip) wrote in message news:: > I am building a new chiropractic office, etc. Hardware cost is only a portion of what you need to budget for any small telephone system. There will be installation costs for the system that must be included also. The best suggestion I can make at this point is to talk to other business owners/operators in your area, preferably other Drs. and find a reputable dealer. In your discussions with that dealer, you can talk about your budget, plans and other desires for possible expansion. They can then guide you in the selection of appropriate hardware, new or used. As you are uncertain as to the final size of your needed system, I would suggest a "throw-away" as a starter. Something that would meet your immediate needs of 3 lines that wouldn't be a big loss when you threw it away and ordered a larger system with expansion capability when the business expanded. Why buy something you don't need (30 to 40 port capability) when you only need 8? Think about this a little - would you buy an MRI when you need to see X-Rays? ------------------------------ From: google@wnybusiness.com (Perseus) Subject: Payphones Thru a PBX Date: 3 Oct 2002 06:14:40 -0700 Organization: http://groups.google.com/ I've been asked about the feasibility of replacing our current Verizon payphones with phones that our company would own. I'd like to connect these payphones to the outside world thru our PBX rather than ordering seperate lines for each phone. Has anyone out there ever done this and if so, what are the *pitfalls*? Also, should I go with new or refurbished payphones? [TELECOM Digest Editor's Note: How would you do call supervision? Would you consider the connection established (thus collect the coins) when the PBX connected with the outside line or when the outside line actually answered? I think there is a change in the battery status when the '9' provides a dial tone isn't there? PAT] ------------------------------ From: jmeissen@shell1.aracnet.com (John Meissen) Subject: Re: Earthspam Date: 2 Oct 2002 21:53:26 GMT Organization: Aracnet Internet In article , Our esteemed moderator/editor wrote: > But I > still maintain that the ultimate 'death of the net' (which we have > all heard so much about over the years) will eventually come from the > sheer volume of trash and spam (mostly the latter) which continues to > inflitrate our computers and networks daily and hourly. I just had to respond with this supporting data point. The other day I decided to check my daughter's (14 yr-old) email, and she had over 400 messages, all spam, spanning a period of about 3 days. My sister, who wouldn't know what a newsgroup is and wouldn't be able to construct a web page with her email address in it if her life depended on it, told me yesterday she gets 200-300 spam messages per day. And those are the ones that make it past the spam filtering her ISP supposedly does. The sysadmin at my ISP has been developing a very aggressive spam filtering package. Unfortunately, before he could bring it completely live the management there decided to contract with a 3rd-party filtering service, which has been marginally successful. The sysadmin has reworked his package as GPL and made it available over the web . I have my own domain, which gives me complete control over mail services, and I intend to implement the most aggressive filtering possible here, using Spasm. If legitimate email gets bounced, too bad -- they'll have to use the phone. Assuming we answer the phone, given all the telemarketing calls we get ;-) john- ------------------------------ From: gc@radix.net (Zed**3) Subject: Re: Earthspam Date: 3 Oct 2002 14:23:50 GMT Organization: Spontaneous > Request: Anyone who remembers/has a copy of that Usenet posting called > 'Tragedy of the Commons' please mail it to me for use here. Thanks. PAT] Pat, What may be the original Tragedy of the Commons posting was an article written by Garrett Hardin and published in Science magazine in 1968. A web search will get you more references to this article than you really want. The first one I came up with was: http://dieoff.org/page95.htm Also, at any libertarian oriented web site, e.g. www.cato.org www.free-market.net etc. you can do a search and find numerous references to it. ------------------------------ From: kludge@panix.com (Scott Dorsey) Subject: Re: Motorola's Symphony Digital Radio Chipset Date: 2 Oct 2002 14:01:55 -0400 Organization: Former users of Netcom shell (1989-2000) Monty Solomon wrote: > AUSTIN, Texas, Oct. 1 /PRNewswire-FirstCall/ -- Fans of AM/FM > radio wanting to enjoy improved sound need not pay for satellite > digital radio or wait for the introduction of land-based digital radio > broadcasts. In a move that has significant repercussions for the > digital radio industry, Motorola's (NYSE:MOT) Semiconductor Products > Sector has developed a new digital radio technology that enhances > sound quality and improves signal reception for existing AM and FM > analog broadcasts. If people really wanted better signal reception, why not make radios with decent RF sections instead? As far as AM audio quality goes, it's horrifying to hear how bad most modern radios sound compared with the cheapest of old All-American Five sets from the fifties. It's also very interesting to compare them at the ability to pick up marginal signals. > Designed for home and automotive stereo systems, Motorola's > Symphony(TM) Digital Radio Chipset implements this new technology. Its > benefits to listeners are numerous: less static, fading, pops and > hisses; automatic tuning, so that adjacent stations won't interfere > with each other; extended listening range from existing signals; and > overall improved audio clarity and volume. The bottom line: listeners > can hear more stations, whether at home or on the road, tune to more > remote stations with greater ease and enjoy higher quality sound. So, rather than get a decent front end, we're just going to add DSP on? Sheesh. scott "C'est un Nagra. C'est suisse, et tres, tres precis." [TELECOM Digest Editor's Note: A few months ago I got a Bose radio/CD combination. I did not originally think *any* radio was worth four hundred dollars. The Bose comes very close to what I had to pay for it. Anyone else have one? I found that if I attach an amplified TV antenna to the back of it where the cable or other antenna is supposed to go, the radio really does a tremendous job even here in s.e. Kansas. The speakers really have a 'deep throat sound' to them, like a radio I had years ago. But this one has digital tuning as well as a CD player and an AUX connector (RCA plugs) so I can plug the audio output from the cable in there as well. And a remote control, etc. I am very pleased with it. Anyone else have any experience with Bose? PAT] ------------------------------ Date: Wed, 2 Oct 2002 21:41:32 -0400 From: Monty Solomon Subject: News Headlines of Interest 10/3/02 Dan Gillmor: Apple stands firm against entertainment cartel By Dan Gillmor Mercury News Technology Columnist Intel's doing it. Advanced Micro Devices is doing it. Microsoft is doing it. Apple Computer isn't. What's Apple not doing? It's not -- at least so far -- moving toward an anti-customer embrace with Hollywood's movie studios and the other members of the powerful entertainment cartel. Unlike Intel and AMD, the big chip makers for Windows-based computers, Apple hasn't announced plans to put technology into hardware that could end up restricting what customers do with the products they buy. Unlike Microsoft, Apple hasn't asserted the right to remote control over users' operating systems. The era of Digital Rights Management, commonly called DRM, is swiftly moving closer, thanks to the Intels and AMDs and Microsofts. They're busy selling and creating the tools that give copyright holders the ability to tell users of copyrighted material -- customers, scholars, libraries, etc. -- precisely how they may use it. DRM, in the most typical use of the expression, is about owners' rights. It would be more accurate to call DRM, in that context, ``Digital Restrictions Management.'' http://www.siliconvalley.com/mld/siliconvalley/4193833.htm 802.11g: The Next Best Thing or the Next Last Thing Want to have an argument? Get a dozen people who care about the future of 802.11 networking and ask them about 802.11g's prospects and watch the fur fly and the fun begin. by Steven J. Vaughan-Nichols of 802.11-Planet.com http://isp-planet.com/fixed_wireless/technology/2002/g_021002.html Sales of TV ads explode Fourth-quarter network slots nearly sold out By Emily Nelson and Suzanne Vranica THE WALL STREET JOURNAL Oct. 2 - The stock market is tumbling. Companies are scaling back their profit forecasts. And shoppers are spending less. BUT IN THE WORLD of network television, business is booming. So many marketers want to advertise on TV that the networks are selling commercial airtime for 25% to 40% more than they could in May. Ad space on prime-time shows is nearly sold out for the fourth quarter, network executives say. And car manufacturers, phone companies and movie studios are leading the TV advertising increase, creating a broad and diverse base, industry executives say. Each week Viacom Inc.'s CBS can raise its prices by a few percentage points as it runs out of available airtime, says Joe Abruzzese, president of network sales for CBS television. And General Electric Co.'s NBC sees its strong ad sales continuing in the first quarter. http://www.msnbc.com/news/815985.asp DVRs--are they hot or not? By Richard Shim Staff Writer, CNET News.com October 2, 2002, 3:45 PM PT Although the digital video recorder market is growing steadily, the sharp increase in shipments many had expected won't come to pass, according to a new report. In a report due out later this week, research firm The Yankee Group says DVR products will find their way into 1.8 million U.S. homes by year's end. That number will grow to 19.1 million homes by the end of 2006--last year, the firm had put that estimate at 18.6 million homes. When DVR technology began appearing in the late 1990s, the hype was enormous, with at least one analyst predicting DVRs would be the "hottest electronics category in history." But the new figures are still a far cry from those racked up by DVD (digital video, or versatile, disc) players, which are expected to sell 15 million to 20 million units this year. In fact, it's DVD players that have become the most popular consumer-electronics product ever. http://news.com.com/2100-1040-960554.html Likable Sidekick is priced right Henry Norr Monday, September 30, 2002 If anything can bring joy to Silicon Valley this holiday season, the T- Mobile Sidekick just might be it. The product, which T-Mobile will launch this week under license from a Palo Alto startup called Danger Inc., is a hybrid communicator -- a mobile phone, but also a wireless Web browsing, instant-messaging and e-mail device, as well as a personal organizer. It is by no means the first entry in its category -- Handspring, Nokia, Research in Motion, and T-Mobile itself, with a Microsoft-developed Pocket PC device, are already there. Nor is the Sidekick the sleekest of the bunch -- it's about the size and shape of a bar of bath soap. Its screen, though sharp, is small (about 2.25 inches wide by 1.25 inches high, with a resolution of 240 by 160 pixels) and displays only 16 shades of gray -- no colors. But unlike its predecessors, I believe the Sidekick, despite some significant shortcomings, is destined to be a genuine mass-market hit. http://www.sfgate.com/cgi-bin/article.cgi?file=/chronicle/archive/2002/09/30/BU202936.DTL ------------------------------ From: david_esan@hotmail.com (David Esan) Subject: Worst Telephone Service: News Article Date: 3 Oct 2002 08:39:36 -0700 Organization: http://groups.google.com/ America's worst phone service Telecoms hit with slow growth, numerous fraud probes By Jane Spencer THE WALL STREET JOURNAL Oct. 3 For flailing phone companies, luring new customers has become a game of seduction: MCI gives out DVD coupons and T-Mobile (the former VoiceStream) offers up a glossy-lipped Catherine Zeta Jones inviting you to "get more." One discount provider, Working Assets, even promises a year's supply of free ice cream. Read the rest at: http://www.msnbc.com/news/816517.asp?0dm=L13PT ------------------------------ From: donbrearley@hccgwy.mnscu.edu (Don Brearley) Subject: Unwanted Callbacks Date: 3 Oct 2002 09:16:16 -0700 Organization: http://groups.google.com/ Hello, Several people have come to me recently with a strange issue. They are claiming that when they hang up, they get immediate ring backs from some of the numbers they are calling. This problem appears to be random in nature. When they answer, there is nobody on the other side. Just dead silence. These people also have line echo problems. However I have re-terminated the lines, and re-punched them on the termblocks and it has not helped. Any suggestions on how I may remedy this, as the phone company says they are not seeing any problems on their end. I have tried replacing the telephones themselves and the problems still exist. Any thoughts or suggestions on this? Thanks, - Don Brearley donbrearley@hccgwy.mnscu.edu [TELECOM Digest Editor's Note: One thing that will cause immediate ring backs is when the user attempts to make a new call while not totally disconnecting the old call. He is on one call, get done on it, flashes the hook and starts a second call without waiting for the line to totally time out. So the phone equipment faithfully 'holds' the one call (by now, dead air usually) until the impatient caller gets done with the second call and disconnects. Then the equipment promptly rings back to 'remind the caller he left a call on hold when he started the second call.' See that your users understand that they need to hold down the button (the actual disconnect button) for a couple seconds before starting a new call. I'll bet some of your complainers are pressing the 'flash' button to get a new dial tone and dialing against that. It will work, but not as they expect. PAT] ------------------------------ From: vipvideo@onebox.com (Danny Ocean) Subject: Low(er) Priced KSU Recommendations? Date: 2 Oct 2002 21:29:43 -0700 Organization: http://groups.google.com/ I've been pretty successful at selling Nortel CICS systems to small businesses, however every so often smaller companies balk at the price and I lose the sale. As Nortel no longer sells/supports the 6x16 (NT5B01), can anyone recommend a (non-Nortel) reliable, easy-to-program system in the $1000 ~ $1400 range (including sets)? Thanks in advance, D. Ocean Miami, FLA vipvideo@onebox.com Post a follow-up to this message ------------------------------ From: M. J. Poirier Subject: Tollstations Date: Wed, 02 Oct 2002 23:16:00 -0700 Organization: Posted via Supernews, http://www.supernews.com Have all toll stations been converted to 7-digit?? Does anyone know of valid toll stations still functioning in Calif and Nev?? Does anyone have the 7-digit for what was Warm Springs #2, Nevada? ------------------------------ From: a_user2000@yahoo.com (Justin Time) Subject: Re: News Headlines of Interest 10/2/02 Date: 3 Oct 2002 05:53:53 -0700 Organization: http://groups.google.com/ Monty Solomon wrote in message news:: > Cellphone: A Convenience, a Hazard or Both? > By JANE E. BRODY > When a new technology takes off, it seems to fly with the speed of > light. So it is with cellphones, now owned by well over half the > population and soon to be found in more than 90 percent of American > households. > The latest trend is to replace one's land line with a cellphone, but > that action seems a bit premature, given the erratic nature of many > cellphone connections. > Still, the potential is there, and when you can carry a phone > wherever you go, you can spend many more hours on the phone than you > would if a land line was all you had. > This raises critical questions that have been asked for nearly a > decade with little resolution. How safe are they? What effect do they > have on quality of life? Recent bans in New York State and elsewhere > on the use of hand-held phones while driving only begin to address > these questions, and with limited effectiveness. > http://www.nytimes.com/2002/10/01/health/01BROD.html SHEESH! Another half-baked rehash of the same unverifiable allegations! Let's start a NEW rumor, increased sun spot activity is directly linked to higher incidences of skin cancer. "According to a study by the prestigious Skin Cancer Research Institute of Kokomo, Indiana, a 2% increase in the number of visible sun spots resulted in an 8% increase in the number of observed cases of skin cancer among the study group. According to the Center's leading researcher, Zonker Harris, it had been widely held by NANO, the North American Nudist Organization, sun-worshippers over the age of 95 had increased chances of melenomas during periods when there was increased sun spot activity. Working closely with Dr. Sarah Bellum, a renouned authority on statistical ambiguities, SCRI compiled their study based on the personal observations of Mr. Harris. A request has been forwarded to the Department of Health and Human Services for a multi-million dollar long-term grant to conduct more extensive studies. Volunteers are needed as both observers and test subjects. Please submit your application, along with multiple 8 x 10 color glossy prints to - insert your name and e-mail here." [TELECOM Digest Editor's Note: I guess you read in the papers a few days ago that a court in New York totally tossed out a lawsuit for eight million dollars against Motorola, Nokia and a couple of cell phone carriers which had been filed by a man who claimed that *his* deseased brain had gotten that way from 'tumors' growing in his head due to cell phone radiation. His allegation was that the use of cell phones caused his brain cancer. His doctors testified in his behalf, but the court was not convinced, and tossed it out. I guess it was a sort of important case for the cellular makers/carriers, because if he had succeeded in it, the door would have been opened for many more such lawsuits. PAT] ------------------------------ Date: Wed, 02 Oct 2002 13:48:59 -0600 From: Joey Lindstrom Subject: Telecom Digest CD's Reply-To: joey@garynuman.info I've promised Pat that I'll set up a web page detailing all of this, but until I do, there's probably some of you getting ready to send him your $20, or indeed may have already done so. In regards to the CD he mentions, which I'm producing for him, it's my intention to be quite flexible with it. Pat mentioned that, in addition to containing the complete set of Telecom Digest archives, the CD is also playable in a regular CD player - and if you do so, you'll hear the "Suspense" presentation of "Sorry, Wrong Number". That's true to an extent, inasmuch as the disc I sent Pat behaved this way. Pat also mentioned that there are several other radio shows (telephone- related in some way) included on the disc, in MP3 format (you'll need to play them on your PC or on an MP3-capable CD player). This also is true. But now let me clarify this just a bit. :-) When making the discs, I have a choice: the disc can be "Mode 2", which means it contains *ONLY* the Telecom Digest Archives along with the MP3 files, *OR* it can be "Enhanced". If it's "Enhanced", then I can also include some audio for you to listen to if you stick the disc in a CD player. THERE IS A DOWNSIDE TO THIS, however: in "Enhanced" mode, the filesystem reverts from "Joliet" to "ISO", and that means all filenames are limited to a maximum of 30 characters and have to conform to "MS- DOS" style limitations, which means basically alphanumeric characters only, only one "." character allowed, all upper case, etc. This can mangle some filenames, although I do include (in each directory) a file showing the REAL filenames of each file. If you're willing to put up with that limitation, great: I'll be more than happy to include an audio track on your disc. In fact, you can choose from *ANY* of the tracks that Pat mentioned, with the exception of the Lux Radio Theatre version of "Sorry, Wrong Number", as it runs too long. If, on the other hand, you'd prefer your disc to preserve all the original filenames as intended and couldn't care less whether you can put the disc into a CD player and hear an old radio play, then I can certainly make yours as "Mode 2" disc. The choice is entirely up to you. When I build the webpage, which Pat will either link to or host himself, I'll include Pat's descriptions of the shows and lay out all of your options, so you don't need to save this message for a couple of months if you were planning on making your donation in December.:-) But if you're going to donate in the next week or so, or indeed have already done so, please drop me a line, at joey@garynuman.info, and let me know HOW you'd like me to create your disc. One final thing: I don't promise to be completely up to date, but I don't intend for this thing to be "static" either. Every few weeks, I'll pop into the Telecom Digest FTP site and grab the latest issues of the Digest, and include them in future discs. Which means that there's still some incentive for each of you to make an annual donation: after all, with each one, you'll get a new, up-to-date copy of the Archives on CD. :-) Joey Lindstrom PS - if you're interested in more old time radio shows, I've got a fairly large collection - about 160 gigabytes of MP3 (and a few RealAudio) files. You can view the collection at: http://www.oldtimeradiovault.com (Thanks for the plug Pat!) [TELECOM Digest Editor's Note: You are quite welcome, and thanks for your help in getting this second edition of the CD Rom ready to go. For those of you who don't take hints without a lot of encouragement, NOW is the time to begin ordering. Joey will send them out ASAP. Twenty dollars or more (as you see fit and are able) will get you the Telecom Archives CD Rom with various .mp3 files as well and a choice of any ONE show usable in a 'regular' CD player as well. Currently it is the Suspense version of 'Sorry, Wrong Number'. Don't be surprised if Joey sticks in a catalog or order form for other shows as well. To use a credit card, go to http://telecom-digest.org at the very bottom of the first page. To donate with a check or money order, use the address: Telecom, PO Box 50, Independence, KS 67301. The Telecom Archives remains a free research tool for the net community to use at ftp massis.lcs.mit.edu/telecom-archives/archives . PAT] ------------------------------ TELECOM Digest is an electronic journal devoted mostly but not exclusively to telecommunications topics. It is circulated anywhere there is email, in addition to various telecom forums on a variety of networks such as Compuserve and America On Line, 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: 620-870-9697 Fax 1: 775-255-9970 Fax 2: 775-306-8390 Fax 3: 775-642-0603 Fax 4: 530-309-7234 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 second 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) Email <==> FTP: telecom-archives@telecom-digest.org Send a simple, one line note to that automated address for a help file on how to use the automatic retrieval system for archives files. You can get desired files in email. ************************************************************************* * 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. Access to Premium (P) links requires upgrade to a paid subscription. One click a day feeds a person a meal. Go to http://www.thehungersite.com Only subscribers or registered users of ICB Toll Free News web site will be able to access all or some of the full text of URLs provided. LEGAL STUFF: TELECOM Digest (sm) is owned by Patrick Townson. Copyright 2000 ICB, Inc. and TELECOM Digest. All rights reserved. Our attorney is Bill Levant, of Blue Bell, PA. --------------------------------------------------------------- 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 twenty 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 V22 #61 ***************************** From editor@telecom-digest.org Fri Oct 4 21:34:46 2002 Received: from localhost (localhost [[UNIX: localhost]]) by massis.lcs.mit.edu (8.11.3nb1/8.11.3) id g951Yko29875; Fri, 4 Oct 2002 21:34:46 -0400 (EDT) Date: Fri, 4 Oct 2002 21:34:46 -0400 (EDT) From: editor@telecom-digest.org Message-Id: <200210050134.g951Yko29875@massis.lcs.mit.edu> X-Authentication-Warning: massis.lcs.mit.edu: ptownson set sender to editor@telecom-digest.org using -f To: ptownson Approved: patsnewlist Subject: TELECOM Digest V22 #62 TELECOM Digest Fri, 4 Oct 2002 21:35:00 EDT Volume 22 : Issue 62 Inside This Issue: Editor: Patrick A. Townson Busboy Pleads Guilty to ID Theft (Monty Solomon) Re: Ze Death Of Ze Net (Kenneth Becker) CB Versus Email (Joey Lindstrom) Re: Unwanted Callbacks (David) Re: Unwanted Callbacks (Dave Phelps) Telecom Digest CD's (Joey Lindstrom) Last Laugh! Pest, Please Meet Annoyance (rr.com) 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. WE DO NOT PERMIT NAME/EMAIL ADDRESS HARVESTING FROM THIS JOURNAL. 'SALTED' EMAIL ADDRESSES APPEAR HEREIN TO VERIFY THIS. YOU GET SUED IN SMALL CLAIMS COURT IF YOU GET CAUGHT SPAMMING OR SENDING VIRUSES. DON'T DO IT. See the bottom of this issue for subscription and archive details and the name of our lawyer; other stuff of interest. ---------------------------------------------------------------------- Date: Fri, 4 Oct 2002 01:37:45 -0400 From: Monty Solomon Subject: Busboy Pleads Guilty to ID Theft By Reuters October 3, 2002, 5:38 PM PT A 32-year-old restaurant busboy pleaded guilty on Thursday to pilfering personal and financial data belonging to America's rich and famous, including billionaire Warren Buffett. Abraham Abdallah, a high-school dropout, entered his guilty plea in response to a 12-count indictment charging him with wire, mail and credit card fraud, identity theft and conspiracy -- in what authorities believe is the largest identity theft in Internet history. The federal case accuses Abdallah of using the information as part of a scheme to steal more than $80 million from individuals, corporations and financial institutions. Although he pleaded guilty, Abdallah told U.S. District Judge Loretta Preska he was not driven by greed. http://news.com.com/2100-1023-960754.html ------------------------------ From: Kenneth Becker Subject: Re: Ze Death Of Ze Net Date: Fri, 04 Oct 2002 10:03:58 -0400 Organization: Lucent Technologies, Indian Hill Joey Lindstrom wrote: > On Wed, 2 Oct 2002 15:05:45 -0400 (EDT), editor@telecom-digest.org > wrote: >> [Grade-A Ignoramus Note: All this you say is correct, Joey. But I >> still maintain that the ultimate 'death of the net' (which we have >> all heard so much about over the years) will eventually come from the >> sheer volume of trash and spam (mostly the latter) which continues to >> inflitrate our computers and networks daily and hourly. The people who >> continue to deluge us with it don't consider it 'trash' or 'spam' >> however, and they probably think us elitist and peculiar because we >> object to it. Those of us who have been around here (in this community) >> for many years *know* there is much potential on this net. But then, >> the 'general public' decided to get in on the act, and as in the later >> years of Citizens Band Radio, it didn't all vanish at once, it just >> gradually got so noisy all the time no one else could have a decent >> conversation. People tried filter-rules type solutions on CB radio >> also, and soon found out that no amount of rules took the place of or >> did as well as the human mind; so, they had to endure the crap in >> order to make sure they got the diamonds and other gems out of the >> cesspool. Eventually however, people's minds get burned out. Eventually, >> as Ayn Rand phrased it, Atlas decided to shrug and quit fighting or >> struggling any longer. I think we will see that here. The intelligent >> people who have been treating spam as something they can outwit, with >> filters, insults, phone calls, etc will just get very, very burned out >> and tired, and like Atlas, they will shrug, and when enough of the >> guys shrug, throw up their hands and walk away, we will indeed see the >> death of the net. >> I was not on the net for a year and a half or almost two years, >> between November 29, 1999 and the end of 2001 except for a few >> intervals. When I got back to work in earnest at the start of this >> year, I was frankly astounded at *how awful and commercialized the net >> had become during my absence*. Popup windows galore, etc. I really >> could not believe it. That will be the death of the net; when enough >> good netizens simply get bored and walk away from it, like they did >> with CB Radio twenty years ago. >> Request: Anyone who remembers/has a copy of that Usenet posting called >> 'Tragedy of the Commons' please mail it to me for use here. Thanks. PAT] I'm going to put a point in here, Pat, about comparing CB to the internet. Pat, CB has a limited number of channels. It is also a broadcast service. Once a jammer/spammer was is the air, so long as that jammer/spammer is on the air, there is no way to get them off short of the FCC ramming the doors down. And, given the 13 or 40 legal channels (yeah, I know about the CB'ers with everything from VFO's to illegally used amateur radio "ham" gear), it doesn't take much to jam up the available frequencies to make them unusable. The last couple of times I've used the service was when my wife and I had to drive cross-country in a couple of cars. So long as we were within a couple hundred yards of each other we could talk over the people who, ahem, "owned" the frequencies. (That's them saying they owned it, not the FCC.). Fools like these people also inhabit the amateur radio frequencies as well. They've been the downfall of several amateur radio nets over the years. The differences are that (1) most of the real fools can't get a license since they don't have the smarts to learn the material, thus weeding out the worst of them; (2) the ones who get on illegally tend to get reported to the FCC by other hams who care; and (3) there's a LOT more frequencies. The "lot more frequencies" part means that one can almost always move away and leave the jammers/spammers to talk to themselves. Now, consider the internet. Yeah, usenet resembles CB in the sense that there are "channels", or newsgroups. Yeah, there is the concept of spamming both newsgroups and email as being something of a metaphor for brodcasting. However, that's about as far as it goes. There are certain differences. First of all: unlike radio, where if a jammer/spammer is talking NOTHING gets through, a spammer on netnews or mail does not actually block the desired email. As previously pointed out there ARE filtering systems. Heck, the easiest one that catches most of the spam directed my way is to just check to see if the mail is actually directed directly at me. It catches 80%-90% of the stuff. Even on newsgroups one tends not to see ridiculous amounts of usenet spam.. well, see the next point. Second: The physics of radio says that if you launch a photon, the photon goes out there and propagates. Despite what the FCC might think, nobody REALLY owns the ether. Once that photon is out there and travelling, the FCC can't arrest it and send it back. It and its mates will arrive at antennas and be received. That is distinctly not true for the internet. The "ether" of the internet is a combination of TCP/IP, routers, and computers strung together in a cooperative sense across the globe. a) If some system is dysfunctional enough, routers elsewhere can be programmed to ignore packets from that system. The "Internet Death Penalty" is, even if infrequently invoked, REAL. When a system is subject to such a thing it really DOES cease to exist as far as the rest of the internet is concerned. The IDP doesn't even involve jackbooted thugs breaking down doors. An IDP doesn't affect other traffic on the internet. Try THAT with radio! b) Partial cancellation of packets short of an IDP is both possible and used. Unless things have changed since the last time I checked news.admin.net-abuse.usenet there are automatic spam cancellers in operation that get rid of the majority of the usenet spam that tries to run around. c)IP providers rightly fear the IDP and its lesser mates since it can literally put the ISP out of business. Hence, despite carping, the Acceptable Use Policies (AUP's) on the internet do have some real meaning and are used. Yes, there are ISP's that, for enough money (or none at all if they're really stupid) will ignore an AUP. They do so at their peril. I strongly suspect that the majority of fools who try to "take over" a newsgroup a la CB land find themselves eventually without a TCP/IP connection. This tends to get rid of the stupid ones who are just smart enough to walk into a Radio Shack and plonk down the money for a CB radio. It does leave room for the technically competent types who try -- but there's relatively few of them, and the same societal forces that keep ham radio more-or-less sane works on them, too, and (except for the entertainment value of the true kooks) gets them chugged off eventually as well. d) Spam, email style. Well, there's no question that it's a problem. Brightmail and the like can do something about it. However, I detect a cloud on the horizon for these types, and it's current name is SPEWS, the Spam Prevention Early Warning System. SPEWS provides through a DNS-style system a list of IP addresses that harbor spammers. ISP who desire to use this list to block mail attempts (Note: I didn't say mail, I said ATTEMPTS at moving mail!). If, after warnings, the ISP that hosts the spammers doesn't remove said spammers from its network, SPEWS increases the list of IP addresses to include more and more of that IP space. Eventually the ISP ends up mail blocked by all those who use SPEWS or it boots the spammers. We now have three players: The people who want to use email; the ISP's who support spammers; and the spammers themselves. Let's see how this plays out. Those who use SPEWS and its cousins on the internet are not highly troubled by spam. Those who don't are. Hence, when a company or the customers of an ISP are casting about for effective methods of reducing spam, SPEWS or its cousins are attractive solutions and are cheap. Hence, given the increasing spam load, SPEWS and its cousins will be used more and more. The ISP's who support spammers by taking their money may, in the short run, make a great deal of money that way. However, as the use of SPEWS increases, they will find that less and less of the internet will talk to their mail servers. Further, any non-spamming customers of these ISP's will find that their business-necessary email is being rejected. If the ISP in question doesn't clean up its act, those customers will necessarily have to leave for an ISP with a clean act. If one hangs about on n.a.n-a.e one will discover that this is precisely what's happening. In the long term (maybe not so long given the dog years of the internet) ISP's that support SPAM may find that they can talk to other ISP's that support SPAM, but nobody else. And, further, that their only customers are spammers, period. I dunno: sounds like a pretty broken business model to me. Also: call it Balkanization of the net, but I think that putting the spammers in their own intranet is a Good Thing. Spammers will discover that ISP's that don't want to be in SPEWS will boot the spammers quickly. They, naturally, will hunt around for "bullet-proof hosting". They'll find it, of course, on those spam-friendly ISP's. Yep, the ones that are getting blocked. As time continues the spammers will find that their response rates will drop as they find they can reach fewer and fewer suckers. Ideally, these types will find that they can't afford the rates that the spam-friendly ISP's HAVE to charge (remember, the ISP's are going to find themselves without large numbers of their legitimate customers) and go out of business. My opinion: We're going to see more spam for a while, maybe a year. Then, we're going to see a precipitous drop to more reasonable spam noise levels. At this point a large percentage of the net will be using SPEWS or its cousins; a certain number of ISP's will go out of business or change their ways; and we'll all be quite a bit happier. Advertisers and marketeers will be upset, of course. 'What do you mean, a nearly free-communications channel that we can't exploit?' However, despite what they want, the internet IS a two-way street. If some bonzo stands in my face screaming "BUY MY XXX-ENLARGEMENT CREAM" said bonzo shouldn't be too surprised when the two-way nature of physical real space results in said bonzo nursing a black eye. Marketeers who think that the world is like TV and radio need to think again -- it's not, at the core. I don't think that this is going to end in a 'tragedy of the commons'. Ken Becker [TELECOM Digest Editor's Note: Maybe it won't end as a tragedy of the commons. At first blush, however, that seems to be an apt analogy. Your comparisons between the late, great CB and Usenet were very good. What do 'they' say about Monday-morning quarterbacking? It is really a damn shame, isn't it, that 'they' did not think all these things through 20-25 years ago, as the Internet/Usenet were first getting off the ground, i.e. 'what will happen when the general public starts getting familiar with all this, as they inevitably will?' Think now about how guys that thought about these things -- if they did back then -- would have been deemed as little Hilters. If anyone had thought about all this, and taken some steps to prevent it, such as having the mechanics of Internet strictly copyrited/patented; very stern rules put in place about no commercialization of email, etc; no kiddie porn stuff, etc (in other words, all the banes of our existence on the net today), think of what an outcast they would have been. I can remember, and I am sure you can also, the terrible fights that sprang up over such simple, mundane things as whether or not to have moderators in newsgroups. 'What do you mean, a newsgroup moderator to decide what does and does not get printed in a newsgroup? Who are you to play God?' Remember those fights? Someone started that fight with me one day, hoping to make me feel guilty I guess about my role. 'Who is going to be making those decisions? etc, ad nausem.' My answer was 'since you all can't decide who will play God and who will make decisions, then *I* will be God. *I will make the decisions!* I just refused to accept the guilt trip they wanted to put me on. I was (like now, I guess) just too arrogant. That earned me my own black hole for a couple years from all the other users of Usenet. I was, I admit, terribly insulting to a few users of other groups. Back when this was all a small, tight clique, just imagine someone telling them all to get their acts together before the government did it for them. Things that in the 1980's were 'unthinkable' around here have in recent years become quite thinkable, and now it is too late to do anything about it. The 'Hitlers' of the 1980's net were the first to shrug as they were castigated roundly by the poor, dear naive guys who put this thing all together. Geniuses, everyone of them, but so *damn* stupid of how real life, uncontrolled crowds of general public and the net would all fit together. Maybe, just maybe, they are starting now to catch on that not all the users on the net are computer scientists who graduated from Harvard or other Ivy League institution. PAT] ------------------------------ From: Joey Lindstrom Date: Fri, 04 Oct 2002 09:28:17 -0600 Reply-To: Joey Lindstrom Subject: CB Versus Email On Thu, 3 Oct 2002 16:34:28 -0400 (EDT), Pat wrote: > TELECOM Digest Editor's Note: First, you mention the inredibly good > service from amazon.com . Well, you see, they are located right here, > between Independence and Coffeyville in a place called 'Coffeyville > Industrial Park' off of Sunflower Avenue near Liberty, KS on the > way north toward Independence. They have a lot of farmer's wives and > daughters working there, with a smattering of high school age guys, > all of whom seem to have good work ethics and work cheap. But I dunno > how they do it; they are always running help wanted ads in the Inde- > pendence Reporter and the Coffeyville Journal looking for workers. The > last thing I got from them was a copy of the book 'Ruling the Root' by > the guy at MIT. Ordered one day via computer, it was here two or three > days later via UPS. I've suggested to Mike Sandman that he ought to > relocate his warehouse/offices from the Chicago area to the same place. Actually I think I was referring (unless my fingers made a typo) to amazon.ca, which is basically a website in the US plus a warehouse in Toronto, with a nearby Canada Post facility. To drive to Toronto from here would take about three days -- it's roughly the equivalent of driving from Phoenix to Charlotte, yet they get my orders here in two to three days. > You mention that 'CB was only a fad; email is more serious.' Well, CB > was a bit more than just a fad in the sixties and seventies, and > although there was 'skip' which allowed (very) long distance communi- > cations using cranked up (and illegal) power, I now and then talked > between north-side Chicago and far south-suburban Joliet with just one > or two watts, because things were *so quiet*. One day, I was chatting > on the radio with a friend, and got quite rudely interuppted by > someone who 'broke' me with a curse: 'Bullsh--, ! That guy you > are talking to is not in Joliet. How could that be?' My friend had to > confirm it was true. In those days, a watt or two *did* allow you to > talk over large areas of the USA; certainly all around the Chicago > area; that's the nature of radio propogation in the eleven-meter band. > And in those times, certain 'channels' on the radio had certain types > of discussions going on, with 'moderators' who pushed the conversations >in certain directions, etc at certain times. (more interesting discussion snipped to save bandwidth) I don't argue with any of this Pat, and thank you for the trip down memory lane. Certainly CB radio was somewhat popular back then, and got some fame/notoriety from movies like "Smokey And The Bandit", but the simple fact of the matter is that it was never, ever anything more than a hobby, with the possible exception of the truckers who used (use?) it on a regular basis, and even then it was used mostly for idle chit-chat. Don't get me wrong, there's nothing wrong with hobbies. I run a server farm here catering to one such hobby, namely the collecting of old time radio shows, and people in the hobby are willing to spend some money to get this stuff, enough that I'm able to run four dedicated DSL lines (which they pay for). But the fact is, with both OTR and with CB -- the user base will forever be in the MINORITY (in the case of OTR, the vast minority). And that means that the "big bucks" just ain't there. This contrasts with email: it has achieved critical mass and has long been "mainstream". CB never achieved that and it's my position it never would have, even if the assholes hadn't moved in and ruined it for everybody. Can you just imagine some business executive calling in on his CB to say he'll be ten minutes late for work? I can't. Maybe I can envision neighbourhood housewives chatting over it and swapping recipes, but it's hard to envision any "killer application" for it ... something that would take it INTO the mainstream. Even without the presence of the assholes, it's still an inherently flawed medium. The range is very limited for one thing, and your transmissions can be intercepted by anyone. Granted, the latter is part of the charm, but that novelty wears off. The "novelty" of email, at least when I first started playing with it (and back then I had no internet access, so I was using the poor man's version: Fidonet "netmail"), was the ability to cheaply and swiftly communicate with somebody halfway around the world in the same manner that you might communicate with someone who lived down the street. With "netmail" you usually had a two-day latency owing to its overnight transmission method, but still, it was cool. Then I got internet access and WOW! Y'know, to this very day I often correspond with an Australian friend, using email but practically in real time (his company won't allow him to install an instant messenger), and still smile at how cool the whole thing is. The guy's so far away that he's in a different SEASON, and yet with the magic of the internet, he's the same distance away as somebody in the next office block. That novelty, too, wears off. But when it does, what's left behind? Plenty, that's what. Email is a very useful tool as well as being a fun toy to play with, and it's that usefulness that makes all the difference between it and CB radio. On a practical basis, CB just isn't a "useful tool" for the vast majority. Truckers? Yes. Smokey? Yes. Most everybody else? No. And that's the difference, Pat. Because email enjoys "majority" participation, you're far, far more likely to see a concerted effort to rid the 'net of spam. Maybe they'll get smart and create some sort of central "server registry", to which all email servers have to register with (maybe also pay over a performance bond) in order to communicate with other hosts (spam filtering would be a simple matter of: "are you in the central registry? No? Sorry, we don't talk to you.") Who knows? But the effort WILL be there and I think it'll be more successful IN THE LONG RUN than the fight against the CB assholes was. Joey Lindstrom - Laird's Flooring joey@lairdsflooring.com [TELECOM Digest Editor's Note: Actually Joey, *most people* are not yet into email and the net. Only about 15-20 percent of Americans have any *real, working* knowledge of the net and 'computers'. Sure, all the rich kids shown in the movies are all aquainted with computers and the web and email and all that, and most high school age and younger kids have a basic knowledge of it, but to older Americans, computers are still a mystery, and the transport mechanisms behind email, Usenet and the web are more of a mystery. How many older people around my age (sixties) in Independence do you think there are who know how it all works? How many Independences do you think there are in America? You think times are tough now, eh? Wait until computers, email and the Internet *really* catch on. Oh, my percentages above may be off a little, but it will be at least another ten years before all the old people (who would never catch on anyway) croak and the world's population is replenished by younger, computer-saavy guys who take over in large numbers. My mother, bless her, recently went over to Walmart and paid a hundred something for a Mail Station, which is a device that you (then) pay a hundred dollars per subscriber/year and plug into your telephone line. You merely press a button and it calls an 800 number and downloads your email at name@mymailstation.com and accepts your outgoing email. There is no POP or SMTP use with the Mail Station device. You cannot get your email from a web page or anything like that. You have to be at the machine, press the button and read your email on an LED screen of ten lines. She is so proud of that little machine. My 80-year old mother has gotten that far in her 'computer education' because she was inspired by me. She has no idea what to do other than type in what she wants to say and press that little button on the side. Well, wait until a few more middle age guys learn to hack in a malicious way. They'll be born soon enough. Remember, the things that twenty years ago were considered 'unthinkable' by many/most netters are becoming more and more thinkable each day, including government intervention with 'our' net. PAT] ------------------------------ From: davidgoNOSPAM@excite.com (David) Subject: Re: Unwanted Callbacks Organization: AT&T Broadband Date: Fri, 04 Oct 2002 19:09:28 GMT This happened to me once when my LEC decided to give "free" samples of 3-way calling, call-waiting, etc. When I hung up by pressing the switch hook to make a new call, the CO thought it was a hook flash and proceeded to ring back on the "held" call. Have them check with the local dialtone provider to make sure that they don't have features that use the hookflash. Tell them to hang up the phone and count to 10 before making another call. The problem will probably go away. David On 3 Oct 2002 09:16:16 -0700, donbrearley@hccgwy.mnscu.edu (Don Brearley) wrote: > Several people have come to me recently with a strange issue. They are > claiming that when they hang up, they get immediate ring backs from > some of the numbers they are calling. This problem appears to be > random in nature. When they answer, there is nobody on the other > side. Just dead silence. > These people also have line echo problems. However I have > re-terminated the lines, and re-punched them on the termblocks and it > has not helped. Any suggestions on how I may remedy this, as the > phone company says they are not seeing any problems on their end. > > I have tried replacing the telephones themselves and the problems > still exist. > Any thoughts or suggestions on this? > [TELECOM Digest Editor's Note: One thing that will cause immediate > ring backs is when the user attempts to make a new call while not > totally disconnecting the old call. He is on one call, get done on > it, flashes the hook and starts a second call without waiting for the > line to totally time out. So the phone equipment faithfully 'holds' > the one call (by now, dead air usually) until the impatient caller > gets done with the second call and disconnects. Then the equipment > promptly rings back to 'remind the caller he left a call on hold when > he started the second call.' See that your users understand that > they need to hold down the button (the actual disconnect button) for > a couple seconds before starting a new call. I'll bet some of your > complainers are pressing the 'flash' button to get a new dial tone > and dialing against that. It will work, but not as they expect. PAT] ------------------------------ From: Dave Phelps Subject: Re: Unwanted Callbacks Date: Fri, 4 Oct 2002 00:08:04 -0500 Organization: Posted via Supernews, http://www.supernews.com Pat's right. The callers are doing a flashhook when intending to place a second call, rather than releasing the line. When you hang up, you must hang up for at least 1 second, otherwise the CO thinks you are trying to set up a 3-way conference call. This has been a problem ever since 3-way calling was added as a pay-per-use feature rather than a subscribed feature. Before 3-way calling was set up on every line, a flashhook sufficed for releasing the call. Dave Phelps Phone Masters Ltd. deadspam=tippenring ------------------------------ Date: Wed, 02 Oct 2002 13:48:59 -0600 From: Joey Lindstrom Subject: Telecom Digest CD's Reply-To: joey@garynuman.info I've promised Pat that I'll set up a web page detailing all of this, but until I do, there's probably some of you getting ready to send him your $20, or indeed may have already done so. In regards to the CD he mentions, which I'm producing for him, it's my intention to be quite flexible with it. Pat mentioned that, in addition to containing the complete set of Telecom Digest archives, the CD is also playable in a regular CD player - and if you do so, you'll hear the "Suspense" presentation of "Sorry, Wrong Number". That's true to an extent, inasmuch as the disc I sent Pat behaved this way. Pat also mentioned that there are several other radio shows (telephone- related in some way) included on the disc, in MP3 format (you'll need to play them on your PC or on an MP3-capable CD player). This also is true. But now let me clarify this just a bit. :-) When making the discs, I have a choice: the disc can be "Mode 2", which means it contains *ONLY* the Telecom Digest Archives along with the MP3 files, *OR* it can be "Enhanced". If it's "Enhanced", then I can also include some audio for you to listen to if you stick the disc in a CD player. THERE IS A DOWNSIDE TO THIS, however: in "Enhanced" mode, the filesystem reverts from "Joliet" to "ISO", and that means all filenames are limited to a maximum of 30 characters and have to conform to "MS- DOS" style limitations, which means basically alphanumeric characters only, only one "." character allowed, all upper case, etc. This can mangle some filenames, although I do include (in each directory) a file showing the REAL filenames of each file. If you're willing to put up with that limitation, great: I'll be more than happy to include an audio track on your disc. In fact, you can choose from *ANY* of the tracks that Pat mentioned, with the exception of the Lux Radio Theatre version of "Sorry, Wrong Number", as it runs too long. If, on the other hand, you'd prefer your disc to preserve all the original filenames as intended and couldn't care less whether you can put the disc into a CD player and hear an old radio play, then I can certainly make yours as "Mode 2" disc. The choice is entirely up to you. When I build the webpage, which Pat will either link to or host himself, I'll include Pat's descriptions of the shows and lay out all of your options, so you don't need to save this message for a couple of months if you were planning on making your donation in December. :-) But if you're going to donate in the next week or so, or indeed have already done so, please drop me a line, at joey@garynuman.info, and let me know HOW you'd like me to create your disc. One final thing: I don't promise to be completely up to date, but I don't intend for this thing to be "static" either. Every few weeks, I'll pop into the Telecom Digest FTP site and grab the latest issues of the Digest, and include them in future discs. Which means that there's still some incentive for each of you to make an annual donation: after all, with each one, you'll get a new, up-to-date copy of the Archives on CD. :-) Joey Lindstrom PS - if you're interested in more old time radio shows, I've got a fairly large collection - about 160 gigabytes of MP3 (and a few RealAudio) files. You can view the collection at: http://www.oldtimeradiovault.com (Thanks for the plug Pat!) ------------------------------ From: rr.com Subject: Last Laugh! Pest, Please Meet Annoyance Date: Thu, 03 Oct 2002 22:49:48 GMT Organization: Road Runner - Texas Some of the more outright spam frauds on the internet are deserving of special reward. So I sign up, and also ask them to please, call me immediately. But I'm a poor typist and have occasionally put in 809 number that costs $50 per minute, or the email address that subcribes the sender to a veritable smorgasbord of porn. Working on the same assumption as the spammers (.. if even 1 in 100 respond...) I believe it's possible to make spamming a very expensive business. (The spam you sent was free, but the phone call your predictive dialer made cost $100.) I must improve my typing skills. Really. ------------------------------ TELECOM Digest is an electronic journal devoted mostly but not exclusively to telecommunications topics. It is circulated anywhere there is email, in addition to various telecom forums on a variety of networks such as Compuserve and America On Line, 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: 620-870-9697 Fax 1: 775-255-9970 Fax 2: 775-306-8390 Fax 3: 775-642-0603 Fax 4: 530-309-7234 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 second 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) Email <==> FTP: telecom-archives@telecom-digest.org Send a simple, one line note to that automated address for a help file on how to use the automatic retrieval system for archives files. You can get desired files in email. ************************************************************************* * 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. Access to Premium (P) links requires upgrade to a paid subscription. One click a day feeds a person a meal. Go to http://www.thehungersite.com Only subscribers or registered users of ICB Toll Free News web site will be able to access all or some of the full text of URLs provided. LEGAL STUFF: TELECOM Digest (sm) is owned by Patrick Townson. Copyright 2000 ICB, Inc. and TELECOM Digest. All rights reserved. Our attorney is Bill Levant, of Blue Bell, PA. --------------------------------------------------------------- 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 twenty 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 V22 #62 ***************************** From editor@telecom-digest.org Fri Oct 4 22:26:10 2002 Received: from localhost (localhost [[UNIX: localhost]]) by massis.lcs.mit.edu (8.11.3nb1/8.11.3) id g952QAe00888; Fri, 4 Oct 2002 22:26:10 -0400 (EDT) Date: Fri, 4 Oct 2002 22:26:10 -0400 (EDT) From: editor@telecom-digest.org Message-Id: <200210050226.g952QAe00888@massis.lcs.mit.edu> X-Authentication-Warning: massis.lcs.mit.edu: ptownson set sender to editor@telecom-digest.org using -f To: ptownson Approved: patsnewlist Subject: TELECOM Digest V22 #63 TELECOM Digest Fri, 4 Oct 2002 22:26:00 EDT Volume 22 : Issue 63 Inside This Issue: Editor: Patrick A. Townson Nortel/Northern Telecom Unity Question (Ahmad Badwan) Re: One Area Code to Unify Divided Town (Mark Roberts) Free Market and Phone Service [was Re: Sprint RIPOFF Alert] (J. Hoffman) Re: Know Your Alpha Bravo Charlies (Dr. Joel M. Hoffman) Headlines of Interest 10/4/02 (Monty Solomon) Telecom Carrier Selection Assistance Needed (Vidya Ramachandran) Re: Payphones Thru a PBX (Stanley Cline) Re: Wi-Fi Stretches its Boundaries (kadokev@chicagotribune.com) Toshiba Questions (dml) Daylight/Standard Time (Re: Three Things to Remember) (Carl Moore) 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. WE DO NOT PERMIT NAME/EMAIL ADDRESS HARVESTING FROM THIS JOURNAL. 'SALTED' EMAIL ADDRESSES APPEAR HEREIN TO VERIFY THIS. YOU GET SUED IN SMALL CLAIMS COURT IF YOU GET CAUGHT SPAMMING OR SENDING VIRUSES. DON'T DO IT. See the bottom of this issue for subscription and archive details and the name of our lawyer; other stuff of interest. ---------------------------------------------------------------------- From: Ahmad Badwan Subject: Nortel/Northern Telecom Unity Question Date: Thu, 3 Oct 2002 21:12:34 +0200 Dear sir/madam: Am living in the Middle East in (Jordan Amman city) I had buy Meridian phone but when I start to connect it to my phone line I found that my wire ended by RJ12 (I mean by that two pair) mainly here in Jordan we used just one pair line and the other pair we ignore it, and your Telephone (Meridian) needs three pair wire. Then I ask a Telecommunication engineer about it they told me that the system in your country is different than ours but if I can get the internal plan of this phone and what I have to connect over the one pair that I have got. Also they can do some thing to convert it to our system but they need the internal manufacture plan of the phone. I need to know what I have to connect to each pin of the three pair outlet on your product. It so important to me cause I had purchased ten phones, and I can't install it until now. It wrote on the phone back this information: Meridian M2317 NT1F21AB35 01J01E=20 AR341593 10/08/99 RE-MANUFACTURED BY NTI/NRDC (800) 251-1758 NT NORTHERN TELECOM MY BEST REGARDS. [TELECOM Digest Editor's Note: I am not at all certain that this person is a regular reader of the Digest or Usenet, so if you do not mind, please email direct to him (as well as any information you want to have appear in the Digest. Thanks. PAT] ------------------------------ From: markrobt@hotmail.com (Mark Roberts) Subject: Re: One Area Code to Unify Divided Town Date: Thu, 03 Oct 2002 19:25:26 -0000 Organization: 1.94 meters Rob had written: > BTW, just because we have to pay for local calls doesn't mean that > they're not local. *ALL* numbers on the same area code and all > neighbouring area codes are regarded as local, which often isn't the > case in the US; plus they *are* at a cheaper rate to national/long > distance calls. It isn't always the case in the United States, either: 1) Where measured-rate service is an option, or 2) Where measured-rate service is mandatory. When I lived in Chicago and had three phone lines, one was on a sort of block calling plan: 10c for every call in the Chicago metro area regardless of distance. The other two lines were on the standard Ameritech plan: 5c for each call within eight miles, 5c/min for metro-area calls beyond that. So when I had to call my employer in Hoffman's Mistake, er, I mean Hoffman Estates from my lakefront location (Edgewater/Ravenswood CO), it was usually on the 10c/call number. Now in Oakland I have "measured" service from Pacific Bell with varying rates depending upon zone. (Flat-rate service is available from PacBell; with our calling patterns, we tend to be heavy LD users and keep most of our local calling on mobiles.) Zone 1 calls are about 1c/minute. There is a $3 per month per line allowance. We have two lines, so we have a $6 allowance that can be spread across both lines. Beyond slightly higher Zone 2 and Zone 3 rates, there is "local toll" intra-LATA calling at rates I still don't understand. Then there is inter-LATA long-distance: 7c/min within California, 10c/min elsewhere in the US, 14c/min to a selected European country with a $6 monthly charge per line. AT&T Broadband has recently begun offering telephone service over the CATV plant in parts of Oakland with a whole different set of plans. I crunched the numbers and found that we might save maybe a dollar a month if that much. The one thing that I would consider is adding distinctive ringing (NOT "priority ringing" but a second phone number assigned to the same line with a different ringing cadence). PacBell does not offer that service in California but AT&T Broadband does. > You have to remember that the phone systems in the EU and the rest of > Europe aren't like the NANP. Some of the NANP isn't even like the NANP. :) And the whole LATA concept added a layer of complexity that, ultimately, seemed to be somewhat purposeless. Back to the topic of flat-rate service, I was surprised to find measured rate plans in rural Illinois four years ago (specifically in Jacksonville) but there they were. Mark Roberts | "How do you like following the goat story?" -- Oakland, Cal.| Dennis Richmond to meteorologist Bill Martin on NO HTML MAIL | KTVU's "Ten O'Clock News", 9-13-2002 ------------------------------ Subject: Free Market and Phone Service [was Re: Sprint RIPOFF Alert] Organization: Excelsior Computer Services From: joel@exc.com (Dr. Joel M. Hoffman) Date: Thu, 03 Oct 2002 20:15:37 GMT >> Relatedly, I recently tried to get 1-800 directory assitance on a >> weekend, and ALL I could get was a computer with voice-recognition >> s/w. I was told that operators are ONLY available Monday through >> Friday. >> Is there anyone left who thinks that a free market will make our phone >> service better? > I do. But it has to be a market with truly equal competition, which > can only come from unbundling the local loop (and all ISPs) from the > LECs. If the FCC weren't bought and paid for by the RBOCs, this would > be the law by now. If you have a truly free market and equal competition, you'll end up with NO phone service in remote areas. I also don't see what unbundling the local loop from the LECs has to do with the fact that I can't get 800- directory information on weekends. -Joel ------------------------------ Subject: Re: Know Your Alpha Bravo Charlies Organization: Excelsior Computer Services From: joel@exc.com (Dr. Joel M. Hoffman) Date: Thu, 03 Oct 2002 20:19:31 GMT > In the days of yore when John Campbell was editing Analog, he proposed > a phonetic alphabet for obfuscation. For example, using "phthisic" > (pronounced "tisik") for the letter "p". I haven't been able to find > the rest of his alphabet online. Does anyone else remember this? Like "P as in psychiatrist" or (worse) "M as in mnemonic." ------------------------------ Date: Fri, 4 Oct 2002 01:50:35 -0400 From: Monty Solomon Subject: News Headlines of Interest 10/4/02 AOL's Miller outlines Net vision Online provider's new CEO sees more cable TV-like features By Brian Steinberg DOW JONES NEWSWIRES NEW YORK, Oct. 3 - In his first presentation before the general public since being named to his post, America Online Chairman and Chief Executive Jonathan F. Miller said the popular Internet service could become a vehicle for programming that would increasingly take on characteristics similar to television cable networks. http://www.msnbc.com/news/816722.asp Scheme hides Web access The ringing declaration that information wants to be free often bounces off a hard reality -- the free flow of information can attract interference. The reality online is that censorship and surveillance are widespread and growing. The everyday flow of ordinary Internet traffic, however, could provide cover for political dissidents, whistleblowers, or anyone else who wants to access censored information online without the activity being recorded or blocked by others. Researchers from the Massachusetts Institute of Technology have come up with a scheme that could guarantee users access to data in such a way that their actions could not be monitored. The MIT researchers' scheme, dubbed Infranet, allows Internet users to navigate using standard hypertext transfer protocol without being noticed. The key to the scheme's ability to allow users to avoid monitoring is that it handles covert communications without adding a conspicuous amount of traffic. To be useful, a covert Internet communications system needs to cloak transmissions well enough to foil most would-be detectors, but must also be efficient enough to permit reasonably speedy browsing. http://www.trnmag.com/Stories/2002/100202/Scheme_hides_Web_access_100202.html Summus and Snapfish Make Snapfish Mobile Available To AT&T Wireless' mMode Customers Wireless Users Can Now View, Store, Manage, Share And Print Digital Photos From Their Phones RALEIGH, N.C. and SAN FRANCISCO, Oct. 4 /PRNewswire-FirstCall/ -- Summus, Inc. (USA) (BB:SUMU), a leading provider of solutions that change the way information is communicated and processed through mobile devices and networks, and Snapfish, the nation's leading online photo service, today announced that Snapfish Mobile, a new mobile personal photo-sharing application developed by Summus, is now available to wireless subscribers of AT&T Wireless (NYSE:AWE) mMode service. With Snapfish Mobile, AT&T Wireless customers can now view, store, manage and print photos right from their mobile phone. Users also have the ability to share their digital photo albums and e-mail their photos to family and friends. Existing Snapfish.com customers who are current AT&T Wireless subscribers can access their Snapfish account seamlessly from the phone and utilize many of the same features they are familiar with on the Web. With Snapfish Mobile, even traditional film photos can be shared via the subscriber's mobile device. When subscribers send their film to Snapfish, they receive back their prints and negatives, plus images are scanned into an online album. These photos are accessible through Snapfish Mobile just like digital camera photos. Snapfish Mobile is powered by BlueFuel(TM), Summus' "Superfast, Superthin(TM)" mobile platform tailored for efficient and easy interaction with information in the mobile environment. Snapfish Mobile is currently available for AT&T Wireless mMode customers with the Sony Ericsson T68i wireless phone. Plans are in place to expand to other phones in the near future. Customers can purchase the new content directly from their wireless phones for a monthly fee of $1.99 or daily usage charge of $0.49 in addition to the standard mMode charges. As an introduction to Snapfish Mobile, Snapfish offers the first roll of film developed free and 10 free digital camera prints. http://finance.lycos.com/home/news/story.asp?story=28956012 Prosecutors subpoena digital TV firm By Reuters October 3, 2002, 5:22 PM PT News Corp.'s NDS Group, which makes encrypted smart cards for digital TV systems, said on Thursday it has received subpoenas for documents from the U.S. Attorney's office in San Diego, California. The company said the federal investigation involves allegations similar to those made earlier this year that charged NDS with hacking a competitor's system. http://news.com.com/2100-1040-960750.html Congress asked to unpick copy lock laws By Declan McCullagh Staff Writer, CNET News.com October 3, 2002, 4:44 PM PT A proposal to defang a controversial copyright law became public on Thursday, after more than a year of anticipation and months of closed-door negotiations with potential supporters. Formally titled the Digital Media Consumers' Rights Act, the new bill represents the boldest counterattack yet on recent expansions of copyright law that have been driven by entertainment industry firms worried about Internet piracy. The bill, introduced by Reps. Rick Boucher, D-Va., and John Doolittle, R-Calif., would repeal key sections of the 1998 Digital Millennium Copyright Act (DMCA). It would also require anyone selling copy-protected CDs to include a "prominent and plainly legible" notice that the discs include anti-piracy technology that could render them unreadable on some players. http://news.com.com/2100-1023-960731.html Cingular halts E-911 gear shipments By Ben Charny Staff Writer, CNET News.com October 3, 2002, 7:12 PM PT Cingular Wireless is considering switching technologies it will use to locate people who dial 911 from a cell phone, according to sources. Cingular Wireless spokesman Clay Owen would not confirm the assertions Thursday, but he acknowledged that the company told suppliers to stop shipping the equipment it ordered related to the 911 technology. The wireless carrier also disclosed Thursday that it will test another cell phone-locating technique later this month. The company is "exploring other options," said Owen, who cited a product from TruePosition, a maker of software for locating cell phones, as one example. Two sources requesting anonymity, one within Cingular Wireless, said the carrier is dissatisfied with the performance of the original technology it was looking at and is beginning to make the necessary moves to switch technologies. The technologies involved are part of the company's efforts to meet a 2004 Federal Communications Commission (FCC) deadline to implement a service that will allow emergency call centers to locate people who dial 911. http://news.com.com/2100-1033-960743.html America's worst phone service; Telecoms hit with slow growth, numerous fraud probes By Jane Spencer THE WALL STREET JOURNAL Oct. 3 - For flailing phone companies, luring new customers has become a game of seduction: MCI gives out DVD coupons and T-Mobile (the former VoiceStream) offers up a glossy-lipped Catherine Zeta Jones inviting you to "get more." One discount provider, Working Assets, even promises a year's supply of free ice cream. BUT THE PARTY ENDS quickly. As the industry crumbles under slowing growth, criminal-fraud probes and the largest bankruptcy in history, consumers are feeling the aftershocks. The Federal Communications Commission received 10,182 complaints from consumers frustrated with wireless and long-distance service in the first quarter of this year alone. And as industrywide layoffs approach the half-million mark, companies from wireless carrier Sprint PCS to AllTel have shut down some customer-service call centers. Are there any good options? We did a wide-ranging analysis of major nationwide phone services, including 10 long-distance carriers and eight wireless companies. The assessment began by examining a year's worth of complaint data from the FCC and matching it up with Public Utility Commission data from more than a dozen states. We also looked at so-called churn rates, the number of times customers move from carrier to carrier, to see which ones people tend to dump most frequently. http://www.msnbc.com/news/816517.asp Cellphones, and Then Some: The Latest High-Tech Mergers By DAVID POGUE As aliens observe us through their intergalactic telescopes, they must laugh their little green heads off at certain illogical aspects of human behavior. We wash down a super-size pizza with a low-cal beverage; we pursue a love interest more intently the more we're rejected; and we buy high, sell low. Gadget freaks often exhibit their own bursts of bizarre behavior, like carrying around one electronic gizmo to look up phone numbers and another to dial them. That problem, at least, is approaching a solution with the arrival of the combination palmtop-cellphones known as communicators. It's quite an engineering challenge: you want the biggest possible screen and keyboard but the smallest overall dimensions. This season, you can choose from four new attempts to take on the task. Each comes from a corporate consortium of hardware, software and cellular companies, but the crucial players are Microsoft, Kyocera, Handspring and a start-up company called Danger. Each communicator combines the functions of telephone, e-mail terminal, instant-messaging pad and Web browser. Better yet, all the new models capitalize on the new, faster Internet "pipes" that the cellphone carriers have just installed. Generally for an extra fee, these new networks (called 1x, GPRS or 3G, along with a variety of carrier-specific marketing names) bring Web sites to your little screen with roughly the same speed as a PC's dial-up modem. Previous Internet cellphones, by contrast, made smoke signals look speedy. http://www.nytimes.com/2002/10/03/technology/circuits/03STAT.html AT&T Wireless sees no demand for WCDMA service - Oct 3, 2002 01:49 PM (Reuters) PARIS, Oct 3 (Reuters) - AT&T Wireless Services Inc. , the No. 3 U.S. wireless telephone company, on Thursday said it was seeing no demand for the long anticipated high-speed wireless service based on the WCDMA format. WCDMA, or Wideband Code Division Multiple Access, promises data speeds of about 2 megabits per second, which is more than 13 times faster than AT&T Wireless's current high-speed network that allows customers to easily check e-mail, surf the Web, and download applications. - http://finance.lycos.com/home/news/story.asp?story=28942822 Jeffco stores soon to require fingerprints for all check and credit card purchases JEFFERSON COUNTY - You'll soon have to provide a fingerprint to go shopping in Jefferson County. Consumers using checks or credit cards will have to give their prints to merchants. It's a new tactic aimed at cracking down on identity theft and catching crooks who use fake IDs. Already, people cashing payroll checks at King Soopers have to give a fingerprint. http://www.kusa.com/storyfull.asp?id=7112 ------------------------------ From: mrvidya2001@yahoo.com (Vidya Ramachandran) Subject: Telecom Carrier Selection Assistance Needed Date: 3 Oct 2002 14:34:59 -0700 Organization: http://groups.google.com/ Hey you telecom studs out there, I need some advice on what carriers are worth doing business with. Can anyone point me in the right direction. This is just for my own informational purposes. With Worldcom gone, Global Crossing gone, Qwest in trouble, than leaves me with: Sprint AT&T Cable & Wireless (For data only) Who else is left? I'm talking about Voice and Data services for mid to large businesses. I can't beleive the market has shrunk to such a small list of providers of such basic commiditized services. C'mon does anyone know of more valid non bankrupt carriers to add to the list. Does anyone have a list of carriers that provide voice and data services, if so please forward. ------------------------------ From: Stanley Cline Subject: Re: Payphones Thru a PBX Date: 3 Oct 2002 23:04:58 GMT Organization: Roamer1 Communications - Dunwoody, GA, USA Reply-To: sc1-news@roamer1.org In article , Perseus wrote: > I've been asked about the feasibility of replacing our current Verizon > payphones with phones that our company would own. I'd like to connect > these payphones to the outside world thru our PBX rather than ordering > seperate lines for each phone. Has anyone out there ever done this and > if so, what are the *pitfalls*? Also, should I go with new or Regulations on this subject differ from state to state. In most states, you can connect COCOTs through a PBX, but must a) buy "COCOT" lines/trunks (not regular business lines/trunks) for exclusive use of the payphones, and b) have enough payphone lines/trunks to support all phones being in use at once (you can't concentrate payphones onto fewer lines than there are phones.) Bottom line: unless you have an unusually large number of phones or have some special need (such as limited copper facilities), it's better and easier to just get individual lines for each phone. and PAT wrote: > Would you consider the connection established (thus collect the > coins) when the PBX connected with the outside line or when the > outside line actually answered? I think there is a change in the Most COCOTs determine answer supervision themselves (sensing voices, busy signals, etc. in the same general manner that modems do) and don't rely on changes in battery, ground, etc. In fact, most "COCOT" lines are nothing more than metered business lines that don't support the operation of older "dumb" phones; many local phone companies do offer "smart lines" for "dumb" phones, but they cost more, so very few COCOT owners use them (I've run across less than a half-dozen COCOTs -- all owned by the same company -- on "smart lines" here in the Southeast.) Stanley Cline -- sc1 at roamer1 dot org -- http://www.roamer1.org/ "Never put off until tomorrow what you can do today. There might be a law against it by that time." -/usr/games/fortune ------------------------------ From: kadokev@chicagotribune.com Subject: Re: Wi-Fi Stretches its Boundaries Date: Fri, 4 Oct 2002 00:24:07 UTC Organization: The author does not speak for this organization. In article , Henry E Schaffer wrote: > In article , Monty Solomon > wrote: >> These versions of wireless networks using the Wi-Fi, or 802.11b, >> standard create a wireless zone of up to 12 miles long, far beyond >> the usual 300-foot-radius range that Wi-Fi typically achieves, Zakin >> said. > Is there a problem with interference with other 2.4GHz users because > of the high power used? Yes, there is. A powerful 802.11b transmitter will interfere with other 802.11b users, on both the same channel, and adjacent channels. A fixed-point directional antenna 802.11b installation is limited by the FCC to a maximum of 4 watts EIRP (transmitter power, plus antenna gain). Pretty much all of the devices (802.11b, cordless landline phones, X-10 voyeur cams) likely to experience interference are "Part 15" license-free usage, and there is no recourse for these users. Amateur radio operators have a primary domestic allocation covering large parts of the 2.4Ghz band, used primarily for ATV operations, and are allowed up to 10 watts output. Lastly, hams have "primary allocation", this means they can interfere with "part 15" users, and also that they do have recourse if unlicensed users interfere with their operation in the allocated frequency bands. Kevin Kadow ------------------------------ From: darrenl0512@yahoo.com (dml) Subject: Toshiba Questions Date: 3 Oct 2002 18:42:11 -0700 Organization: http://groups.google.com/ My company is looking at implimenting a Toshiba 424 telephone system. A couple of questions: What is the maximum distance a digital or analog telephone can be located from the KSU? As a administrator in the system, if I change an extension name, will it also change it in the voicemail. What is the procedure? The voicemail proposed is a strategy voicemail system. Immediate response would be helpful, we are looking at implementing this ASAP. ------------------------------ Date: Thu, 3 Oct 2002 17:36:16 EDT From: Carl Moore Subject: Daylight/Standard Time (Re: Three Things to Remember) ptownson@lcs.mit.edu writes: > As September ends and October gets underway... > with this coming weekend, be certain to set your clocks > back one hour in most areas of the United States. > If you forget about setting your clock then > you will be behind an hour. Daylight Saving Time does NOT end this coming weekend. It ends on the weekend which includes the last Sunday of October, and that is THREE WEEKS after this coming weekend. (This officially happens when, still on Daylight Saving Time, we reach 2 AM on that Sunday morning. As you surely know by now, most people make the change before retiring for the night.) If you forget to make the change, you will be an hour EARLY (not late) for whatever you're going to. We have to be more strict about is the change TO Daylight Saving Time, because if you fail to make THAT change you'll be an hour LATE. ------------------------------ TELECOM Digest is an electronic journal devoted mostly but not exclusively to telecommunications topics. It is circulated anywhere there is email, in addition to various telecom forums on a variety of networks such as Compuserve and America On Line, 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: 620-870-9697 Fax 1: 775-255-9970 Fax 2: 775-306-8390 Fax 3: 775-642-0603 Fax 4: 530-309-7234 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 second 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) Email <==> FTP: telecom-archives@telecom-digest.org Send a simple, one line note to that automated address for a help file on how to use the automatic retrieval system for archives files. You can get desired files in email. ************************************************************************* * 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. Access to Premium (P) links requires upgrade to a paid subscription. One click a day feeds a person a meal. Go to http://www.thehungersite.com Only subscribers or registered users of ICB Toll Free News web site will be able to access all or some of the full text of URLs provided. LEGAL STUFF: TELECOM Digest (sm) is owned by Patrick Townson. Copyright 2000 ICB, Inc. and TELECOM Digest. All rights reserved. Our attorney is Bill Levant, of Blue Bell, PA. --------------------------------------------------------------- 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 twenty 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 V22 #63 ***************************** From editor@telecom-digest.org Sat Oct 5 00:23:04 2002 Received: from localhost (localhost [[UNIX: localhost]]) by massis.lcs.mit.edu (8.11.3nb1/8.11.3) id g954N4Z01702; Sat, 5 Oct 2002 00:23:04 -0400 (EDT) Date: Sat, 5 Oct 2002 00:23:04 -0400 (EDT) From: editor@telecom-digest.org Message-Id: <200210050423.g954N4Z01702@massis.lcs.mit.edu> X-Authentication-Warning: massis.lcs.mit.edu: ptownson set sender to editor@telecom-digest.org using -f To: ptownson Approved: patsnewlist Subject: TELECOM Digest V22 #64 TELECOM Digest Sat, 5 Oct 2002 00:23:00 EDT Volume 22 : Issue 64 Inside This Issue: Editor: Patrick A. Townson The Tragedy of Usenet Commons (TELECOM Digest Editor) AntiSpam Screening Algorithm (Sid Zafran) MobiSys 2003 Submission Deadline Extended Until Oct. 14 (Alex Walker) FCC Staff Opposed to EchoStar-DirecTV Deal: Sources (Monty Solomon) Re: Motorola's Symphony Digital Radio Chipset (Ed Ellers) Re: Advice on Small Business Phone System (Paul A Lee) MCI = Crooks? (Unified) Re: Payphones Thru a PBX (Perseus) Re: Customized Telecom Breaking Newsletter (Geoffrey Welsh) 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. WE DO NOT PERMIT NAME/EMAIL ADDRESS HARVESTING FROM THIS JOURNAL. 'SALTED' EMAIL ADDRESSES APPEAR HEREIN TO VERIFY THIS. YOU GET SUED IN SMALL CLAIMS COURT IF YOU GET CAUGHT SPAMMING OR SENDING VIRUSES. DON'T DO IT. See the bottom of this issue for subscription and archive details and the name of our lawyer; other stuff of interest. ---------------------------------------------------------------------- Date: Fri, 4 Oct 2002 22:59:47 EDT From: TELECOM Digest Editor Subject: The Tragedy of Usenet Commons [TELECOM Digest Editor's Note: This piece of interest was lynxed over to the Digest by myself tonight. I thought it made good reading and hope you enjoy it also. I've left some of the lynx printing intact so you can keep it all in the context where it was originally published. PAT] [Metroactive CyberScape] [ CyberScape | Metro | Metroactive Central | Archives ] Common Tragedy [whitespace] Ilustration Ilustration by Kevin Banks Will privatization of the Net spell the end of its gritty common ground? By Thor Iverson 'ENOUGH," I said to myself. "This is a huge waste of time." I had just spent 15 fruitless minutes on the Usenet newsgroup alt.food.wine and had found absolutely nothing of value. The newsgroup's 150 new messages were a collection of off-topic spam, posts from a psychologically imbalanced individual pretending to represent a winery, and flame wars over that individual. It had been that way for several weeks, and there was no end in sight. Worse, the newsgroup's most informative posters had apparently gone into hiding. I wondered where they had gone and queried one by email. "We're all on the WLDG--the Wine Lovers' Discussion Group," he said. "Spam-free, 100-percent intelligent wine discussion. Why not join us? The URL is ..." I checked it out and was instantly hooked. Sure, it was a web-based bulletin board, but I soon found out that among the wine lovers populating the group were several programmers who kept the board running smoothly, avoiding such forums' usual speed problems. And the discussion was superior to anything I'd found on Usenet. The obvious cause seemed to be the board's semi-moderated quality (obnoxious behavior was punishable by banishment at the site owner's discretion), but that proved to be a misread on my part. Faced with the prospect of going back to the free-for-all on alt.food.wine, members policed themselves; potential flame wars were quashed by public and private messages asking the participants to cool it. A self-imposed atmosphere of civility prevailed, and there was constant, high-quality discussion. I had found my Net oasis. There's a concept in the physical world known as the "tragedy of the commons." Build a useful public space, and people will come. But the more people use it, the more the value of the space is degraded, until it ultimately fails to fulfill the purpose for which it was created. Thus, success leads inevitably to failure. The Net is proof that this concept is fully translatable to the digital sphere. A victim of its own incredible success, the Net has seen its once manageable common space glutted with information both relevant and nonsensical. Content fights a losing battle with spam. Flame wars rage unabated on every mailing list, newsgroup, bulletin board and chat room. And each new user unwittingly adds to the problem. In response, longtime netizens have battled to preserve their "public spaces." Guidelines and rules of conduct--"netiquette"--are a standard part of every access provider's and online service's terms of use. Anti-spam measures, both open and covert, are constantly in use on Usenet newsgroups. And the owners of proprietary chat rooms and websites featuring discussion areas have grown increasingly intolerant of off-topic content and abusive users. But the Net's decentralized nature, an essential part of its design and one of its most positive features, has--ironically--made this sort of control nearly impossible. The Net is designed to work around information filters, but the design is "dumb"; it doesn't distinguish between useful and useless information. Faced with the degradation of the Net's commons, users have retreated to private spaces--moderated newsgroups, private (sometimes invitation-only) mailing lists and highly moderated web discussion groups. The future of discourse on the Net seems destined to be anything but the freewheeling, open exchange of public ideas it was envisioned to be. 'ENOUGH," J. Michael Straczynski said. "I can't participate in this anymore." The newsgroup rec.arts.sf.tv.babylon5 had long served a dual purpose as a discussion area for fans and a forum for those fans to talk with Babylon 5 creator/producer/writer Straczynski about the show, television production and anything else that engaged their common interest. But something had gone wrong. A few malcontents had, justifiably or not, chosen to voice their disagreements with Straczynski frequently and publicly. The newsgroup became a battleground, pitting Straczynski and his supporters against the anti-Straczynski crowd and their supporters. So Straczynski bowed out, saying that he didn't have time to respond to all the flame wars and still produce his show. The newsgroup held a virtual huddle and came up with a plan. The newsgroup as it existed would continue, but two new newsgroups would be created. The first, rec.arts.sf.tv.babylon5.info, would serve only one purpose: the dissemination of essential, official information about the show--air times, production news, merchandise announcements and posts from Straczynski. It would be closed to all posts except those from the few people who had volunteered to repost such information. The second, rec.arts.sf.tv.babylon5.moderated, was slightly different. It looked a lot like the old newsgroup in terms of content and traffic. But there was an important change: all posts were subject to moderation by a committee. The committee didn't manually approve all posts prior to their appearance on the newsgroup, but since all traffic went through a central point that only the moderators could access, problem posts could be removed and problem users could be identified and filtered. This solved Straczynski's problem, and he returned to the newsgroup. It didn't solve all the problems, however. The moderation committee was subject to a fairly hazy set of guidelines, which had been set out in the proposal for the creation of the newsgroup (a long and public procedure that most newsgroups must undergo before their appearance on Usenet). And it soon became fairly apparent that they were not filtering by a set of ironclad rules. Worse, posts questioning the moderation policy were themselves rejected as "off-topic." There seemed to be little recourse for the new set of malcontents. But, as the newsgroup functioned smoothly, there was also little protest. 'ENOUGH," said several people at once. "This is ridiculous." The rec.arts.startrek.* hierarchy was the outgrowth of one of the longest-running discussions on the Net, one that had started virtually simultaneously with the birth of the Internet itself. It had reached five newsgroups and was still growing, with as many as 100 posts per group per hour; there was no way any human being could keep up with it all and still hold a job or attend classes. Nor was the level of discussion particularly illuminating. "Voyager sucks" vs. "Voyager rules" was a not uncommon exchange. A few newsgroup veterans bemoaned the problem and took action. From that action was born an invitation-only mailing list for a few select Trek fans, those with a proven ability to post intelligent and on-topic material. The number of participants was small at first, growing slowly until it reached about 20. The tenor of the discussion was polite and the level of insight high, and the needs of the participants to discuss Trek were met for a long while. But the discussion slowly and inexorably waned. One culprit was the declining quality of the product under discussion; few of the participants were able to tolerate the inanity of Voyager, so they focused their interest on other, non-Trek pursuits. But there was also another, more insidious problem. For a time, the members of the private mailing list kept up a low-key participation in the various Trek newsgroups, which led to new contacts and new members. But that eventually ended as well, and the mailing list stagnated. Everyone on the list knew everyone else's opinion on everything, and since there were no new members, there was nothing to fire new discussion. Meanwhile, low-quality discussion continued unabated on the newsgroups; those few who might have qualified for and enjoyed membership in the private list didn't hear about it because the members of that list weren't paying any attention. [line] RemarQ exec Bill Lee brings order to the chaos of the Usenet. And someday, he'd even like to build a nice community there [line] 'ENOUGH," the post thundered. "Who gave you the right to stifle dissent? By what moral authority do you claim absolute power over the content of this mailing list?" It was the latest in a long series of public attacks against the list "owner" (the person charged with administering a mailing list) of Digital Graffiti, the longest-running and largest Led Zeppelin mailing list on the Net. The list had gone through times both good and bad, but its latest administrator had developed a distressing Napoleonic complex. A mild disagreement--hardly the first, or the most virulent, in the list's history--had escalated into a full-fledged flame war, and the list owner had taken sides, threatening to silence those who disagreed with him. In response to this final attack, the discussion came to an abrupt end with an announcement from the administrator: "By the power vested in me as list owner. Come back when you've learned your lesson." The offending party was booted off the list. Anyone who protested the move was also expelled from the list. Soon, there was no discussion of Zeppelin at all; most of the vocal posters had been banished, and those who remained were too stunned to say anything. Arrogantly asserting that he had to "shepherd the flock," the list administrator unilaterally made the list a moderated one, rejecting and editing posts at his whim. Of course, the abrupt change from an open list to a moderated one couldn't last long. The expelled members began plotting among themselves, including discontented but not-yet-expelled members of Digital Graffiti in their discussions. Choices were considered, and finally a new mailing list was created as an alternative to the old one. This mailing list, however, had a mission: There was a written and voted-upon charter, a rotating committee entrusted with enforcing that charter and many safeguards against a possible power play by one of those committee members. The list was not moderated, nor was much prohibited by the charter, but membership required a voluntary agreement to abide by the fairly simple rules of the list. Drawn by the promise of an unmoderated forum that nevertheless had the teeth to deal with severe problems, people migrated in droves to the new list. Eventually, Digital Graffiti ceased to exist, with the administrator still claiming that his "recalcitrant children" were merely misguided. THE RETREAT of the digerati to mailing lists is ironic, since email is one of the Internet's oldest and most primitive technologies. The promise of Usenet (and ever-more-sophisticated news-filtering technologies to make it manageable)--and, later, of the web and proprietary services' chat technology--made it seem as though simple mail reflectors and text-based communication were headed the way of UHF and the telegraph. Yet the situation also makes sense. The Net's "tragedy of the commons" is certainly a result of exploding growth, but it is also partially the fault of a technology that enabled before it could control, that allowed before it could limit. Control and limitations are not always required (or desired), but their technologically enforced absence is not always desirable either. People will eventually make their way back to the World Wide Web and Usenet (and whatever is yet to come), but it will not be until technology allows more control over those media. Of course, control is a two-edged sword. Personal control over content--Usenet's kill files, email filters--is the Holy Grail of moderation technology. Computers are not yet smart enough to allow complete self-moderation, which is where so-called censorware comes in. Programs like NetNanny and systems like AdultCheck are useful for those attempting to exercise some control over the wide-open content of the Net, but they rely on others' decisions about what content is and is not appropriate. And there's still no reliable way to filter information that is simply stupid or uninteresting without resorting to moderation (which carries its own risks, as the previous examples demonstrate). The most chilling danger is that the flight to private mailing lists, moderated newsgroups and closed websites will exclude those not lucky enough to get in on the ground floor. The Net's public spaces are powerful because they are public, allowing anyone a chance to step up on a soapbox and contribute. But when a forum's best and brightest take their act elsewhere, the original forum's usefulness is greatly diminished. Worse yet, private or moderated forums have a way of becoming closed systems, invisible to anyone not present at their creation and impossible to get into once the creators have left the public forum behind. A new user searching for intelligent discussion of Star Trek on the Net might never find it, simply because he or she doesn't know where to look or whom to ask. So what's the solution? Taking it as a given that the influx of people to the Net will not level off anytime soon, the answer must be found somewhere other than the subdivision of the Net into partitioned, private, proprietary fortresses of users and content. Somehow, a way must be found to reverse the tragedy of the commons, to make the Net's public spaces more useful despite the number of people who use them. The answer, then, lies in technology and its applications. There have been tentative steps in this direction already. Some privately owned forums have given up control to democratically chosen administrators following written guidelines, proving that mailing lists and web discussion groups don't have to succumb to their subscribers. Moderated and limited-content newsgroups (usually those with .moderated or .info at the end of their names) are successful under the same conditions, especially when paired with unmoderated forums that allow completely free discourse to continue. And ever-more-sophisticated filtering technologies, especially those based on software agents, can help separate the digital wheat from the virtual chaff in everything from email to the web. Community-based content selection, in which people rely on one another to sort out the vagaries of the Net (also known as collaborative filtering), is also a promising technology being tried on Usenet and the web. In the end, the Net's survival as a public medium--rather than a privately held, privately controlled one--depends on the success of these technologies. Net users were able to rise up and help defeat the Communications Decency Act in the same way they collectively were able to create and organize Usenet many years earlier: they worked together for a common cause. With all those people off in their own private domains, the misbegotten offspring of the CDA (or something worse) might arrive and cripple the Net without anyone's even noticing. And that would be a tragedy. [ San Jose | Metroactive Central | Archives ] _______________________________________________________________ From the January 14-20, 1999 issue of Metro. Copyright © Metro Publishing Inc. Maintained by Boulevards New Media. _______________________________________________________________ [TELECOM Digest Editor's Note: My thanks to Tad Cook for telling me about this link, and my thanks to *Metro* for publising such a very thought provoking and timely article. PAT] ------------------------------ From: Sid Zafran Subject: AntiSpam Screening Algorithm Date: Fri, 04 Oct 2002 04:21:57 GMT Organization: EarthLink Inc. -- http://www.EarthLink.net Would a spam blocking algorithm be more effective if it used an additional parameter such as the number of identical messages received in a given time interval? For example, an internet service provider (ISP) would flag all messages from the same sender having the same subject appear more than 100 times in a 5 minute period. It is my opinion that a 5 minute screening period would not be objectionable, and that bulk mailers are likely to be sending many simultaneous messages. Legitimate e-mail, such as newsletters, could be passed through after further review of the flagged messages. ------------------------------ Date: Fri, 04 Oct 2002 12:54:56 -0700 From: Alex Walker Reply-To: alex@usenix.org, alex@usenix.org Organization: USENIX Subject: MobiSys 2003 Submission Deadline Extended Until Oct. 14 If you intend to make use of this extension, you must submit the abstract of your paper by the original deadline of Oct. 7th so that we can begin to assign appropriate reviewers. The program committee seeks papers on innovative and significant research in the area of mobile systems. Areas of interests include, but are not limited to: - Design, implementation and evaluation of mobile systems - Operating systems for small devices - System level energy management for mobile devices - Middleware and service architectures for mobile applications - Systems for location awareness and determination - Data management and databases - Personal area networks and systems - Nomadic computing, applications and services supporting the mobile user - Services and resource discovery - Personal Mobility - Web browsing and notification services for wireless and mobile clients - Disconnected and weakly connected operation - Security, Privacy, Authorization, and Billing - Infrastructure support for mobility - Proxies and data adaptation - Wearable and handheld devices - Social and economic aspects of mobility - Mobile Agents - User Interfaces, programming interfaces, and applications for small devices - Context mobility For detailed information, please visit: http://www.usenix.org/events/mobisys03/cfp/index.html MobiSys, May 5-8, 2003 San Francisco, CA http://www.usenix.org/events/mobisys03/ MobiSys 2003, jointly sponsored by ACM SIGMOBILE and The USENIX Association, In cooperation with ACM SIGOPS, will be a 2.5-day conference, featuring refereed paper presentations, demos, poster sessions, and Birds-of-a-Feather sessions. Alex Walker Production Editor USENIX Association 2560 Ninth Street, Suite 215 Berkeley, CA 94710 510/528-8649 x33 ------------------------------ Date: Fri, 4 Oct 2002 21:35:09 -0400 From: Monty Solomon Subject: FCC Staff Opposed to EchoStar-DirecTV Deal: Sources WASHINGTON, Oct 4 (Reuters) - U.S. Federal Communications Commission staff are recommending the agency block EchoStar Communications Corp.'s plans to acquire rival satellite television provider DirecTV and its parent Hughes Electronics, people familiar with the situation said on Friday. FCC staffers have determined that the combination would not be in the public interest, the people said, declining further identification. Staff at the U.S. Justice Department antitrust division have also recommended that the deal be blocked. The final FCC decision will be up to the four commissioners and Chairman Michael Powell has already expressed concerns that the deal would create significant concentration in the direct broadcast satellite business. http://finance.lycos.com/home/news/story.asp?story=28958576 ------------------------------ From: Ed Ellers Subject: Re: Motorola's Symphony Digital Radio Chipset Date: Fri, 4 Oct 2002 01:40:38 -0400 Scott Dorsey wrote: > If people really wanted better signal reception, why not make radios > with decent RF sections instead? Perhaps because signal strength often isn't the problem? > As far as AM audio quality goes, it's horrifying to hear how bad > most modern radios sound compared with the cheapest of old > All-American Five sets from the fifties. Mostly because of narrow bandpass, to keep down the chatter from stations on adjacent channels, which has been getting worse and worse over the past few decades (with a few exceptions). > It's also very interesting to compare them at the ability to pick up > marginal signals. Most solid-state AM radios (aside from car radios) use a ferrite-core loop (this used to be called a "Loopstick," which was someone's trademark, I've forgotten who), while tube radios often used a much larger loop which therefore had a larger capture area. PAT, the TELECOM Digest Editor, noted in reply: > A few months ago I got a Bose radio/CD combination. I did not > originally think *any* radio was worth four hundred dollars. The > Bose comes very close to what I had to pay for it. Anyone else have > one? My aunt does; she has the radio-only version, which is connected to a CD player she already had. Yes, it sounds very good, but Cambridge SoundWorks (http://www.hifi.com), famous for both home audio and computer speakers, has a comparable set called the Model 88 that (to my ear at least) sounds every bit as good and costs a lot less. The Model 88 lists for $200 for the radio-only model or $350 with the built-in CD player, compared to Bose's list prices of $349 and $499 respectively. The Model 88 was the last CSW product designed by the late Henry Kloss, who was famous for Acoustic Research, KLH, Advent and Kloss Video before he founded CSW; after he retired he co-founded still another company, Tivoli Audio (http://www.tivoliaudio.com/), to make an even less expensive high-fidelity (though mono) table radio, the Model One, which goes for $100. While the Model One has conventional rotary tuning and is patterned in many ways after the KLH Model Eight that Kloss designed in the 1960s, it's surprisingly small and provides amazingly good sound, though since Cambridge SoundWorks presently has refurbished Model 88s on sale for $120 I'd probably go that route. > I found that if I attach an amplified TV antenna to the back of it > where the cable or other antenna is supposed to go, the radio really > does a tremendous job even here in s.e. Kansas. That depends on whether or not the TV antenna is aimed at the FM stations you want to hear, which may well not be the case in a lot of situations. It's also possible to buy omnidirectional outdoor antennas which, while not all that great for TV (because they can't reject "ghost" signals coming from other directions), are often very useful for FM. (Cable TV used to be a good FM reception alternative in many areas, and for a while in the 1980s it was the main method of getting stereo sound on channels like MTV or The Nashville Network; Mitsubishi even made some TVs with FM stereo radios for this purpose. But cable FM became all but extinct in the U.S. in 1993, when it became necessary to seek retransmission consent from each and every station to be carried. I'm told it's still fairly popular in Canada and Europe.) [TELECOM Digest Editor's Note: About the only thing I listen to on the radio is KRPS, 89.9 FM, which is the National Public Radio Service from Pittsburg State University in Pittsburg, KS, with its classical music at all times except for the newscasts and other NPR programs like 'All Things Considered', 'Pipedreams', etc. ('Pipedreams' is also on the net at http://pipedreams.org for interested parties.) Pittsburg is a *trip* from here, about 90 miles east, right by Joplin, MO. That is a bit of a trip for any FM station. KRPS also operates a translator in Bartlesville, OK on 102.7 FM, which is a bit closer, but it gets stomped on all the time by Bill Kurtis' KIND operation at 102.9 FM here in Independence. Yes, the same Bill Kurtis, of A&E and formerly CBS fame. He is an Independence native, and owns the local radio station over at 8th and Myrtle Streets. I cannot hear Tulsa, OK's NPR station at all, which is about the same distance away as Pittsburg. Just as in Chicago, I had my radio tuning dial 'rusted' in place on the old WNIB (97.1 FM) for about twenty years when it was a classical music station. (By the way, interested parties, Sonia Florian and her husband Bill Florian sold out *her* audience of classical music lovers for $160 *million* to the Clear Channel people, in February, 2001. $160 mil is not a bad profit for a woman who put maybe a hundred thousand dollars in maintainence in a station she bought for a few thousand dollars in 1955, with the same three staff announcers all that time. Clear Channel wanted the *frequency* [a rare commodity in Chicago], not the transmitter or the programming, all of which was junked. To me, it was just one more reason to write off Chicago totally as a decent place to continue living.) But, I took my amplified indoor antenna, sat it on the floor behind my chair, next to my grandfather clock (with Western Union works) and pointed it in the general direction of Pittsburg. The 'stereo' indica- tor does not light up on KRPS, but the signal isn't bad at all. I also have the AUX plugged into my television and get great 'surround vision' sound from that also. PAT] ------------------------------ From: Paul A Lee Subject: Re: Advice on Small Business Phone System Date: Fri, 4 Oct 2002 01:47:08 -0400 Danny Ocean wrote (in part): > Why do businessmen spend hundred's of thousands of dollars on > building/remodelling new offices (oak paneling, marble lobbies, > Herman-Miller furniture, flat computer screens, etc.) then get a case > of the "low-budget cheapies" when it comes to telephone systems? I > just don't get it ... sales are the most frustrating part of my job. It's because the 125-year history of telephony has resulted in such a degree of ubiquity, reliability, and simplicity to the user that phones and much of the world's telephone infrastructure are seen as being as dependable as dirt. To many people -- especially, I'd venture, those of the "business suit" and MBA persuasions -- "dependable as dirt" has been "misconscrewed" as being the same thing as "cheap as dirt", "simple as dirt", and "respectable as dirt". It's an exasperatingly perverse form of flattery, actually. At least, that's what I tell myself to keep me from beating somebody's head against the floor (mine or theirs)... 8^O Paul A Lee Voice: +1 717 730-8355 Sr Telecom Engineer [Voice & Transmission] Fax: +1 717 975-3789 Rite Aid Corporation, Telecomm, 30 Hunter Lane, Camp Hill, PA 17011-2410 ------------------------------ From: Unified Subject: MCI = Crooks? Date: Fri, 4 Oct 2002 07:16:50 -0700 I switched my service to Isterra three months ago. I've paid the bill every month. Last month my Isterra bill was about $6 for five international calls. USBI billed me $80.30 for the EXACT SAME calls even though I had already paid them. When I called USBI, I didn't know what was going on but the rep was very nice and said she would reprice the calls; all of them to $.15 a minute. Then I realized that these were the exact same calls that I have already paid for on my Isterra bill. When I confronted her she removed the ENTIRE bill. CROOKS ------------------------------ From: google@wnybusiness.com (Perseus) Subject: Re: Payphones Thru a PBX Date: 4 Oct 2002 08:09:25 -0700 Organization: http://groups.google.com/ Not sure .... we are running an old System 75. I'll have to look into that. BTW: We are located in NY. > I've been asked about the feasibility of replacing our current Verizon > payphones with phones that our company would own. I'd like to connect > these payphones to the outside world thru our PBX rather than ordering > seperate lines for each phone. Has anyone out there ever done this and > if so, what are the *pitfalls*? Also, should I go with new or > refurbished payphones? > [TELECOM Digest Editor's Note: How would you do call supervision? > Would you consider the connection established (thus collect the > coins) when the PBX connected with the outside line or when the > outside line actually answered? I think there is a change in the > battery status when the '9' provides a dial tone isn't there? PAT] ------------------------------ From: Geoffrey Welsh Subject: Re: Customized Telecom Breaking Newsletter Date: Fri, 4 Oct 2002 13:30:12 -0400 Jan Hajek wrote: > My name is Jan Hajek and I am the Telecom Breaking Newsletter editor. > It is a part of Inbox Robot which is hourly updated and you can also > search therein thousands of daily headlines. > The location is at http://www.inboxrobot.com/news/telecom > Please take a look at let me know if it matches your interest. Yet another news service announcement page that conveniently omits the fact that the service requires (paid) registration. ------------------------------ TELECOM Digest is an electronic journal devoted mostly but not exclusively to telecommunications topics. It is circulated anywhere there is email, in addition to various telecom forums on a variety of networks such as Compuserve and America On Line, 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: 620-870-9697 Fax 1: 775-255-9970 Fax 2: 775-306-8390 Fax 3: 775-642-0603 Fax 4: 530-309-7234 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 second 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) Email <==> FTP: telecom-archives@telecom-digest.org Send a simple, one line note to that automated address for a help file on how to use the automatic retrieval system for archives files. You can get desired files in email. ************************************************************************* * 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. Access to Premium (P) links requires upgrade to a paid subscription. One click a day feeds a person a meal. Go to http://www.thehungersite.com Only subscribers or registered users of ICB Toll Free News web site will be able to access all or some of the full text of URLs provided. LEGAL STUFF: TELECOM Digest (sm) is owned by Patrick Townson. Copyright 2000 ICB, Inc. and TELECOM Digest. All rights reserved. Our attorney is Bill Levant, of Blue Bell, PA. --------------------------------------------------------------- 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 twenty 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 V22 #64 ***************************** From editor@telecom-digest.org Sat Oct 5 20:33:06 2002 Received: from localhost (localhost [[UNIX: localhost]]) by massis.lcs.mit.edu (8.11.3nb1/8.11.3) id g960X6R06208; Sat, 5 Oct 2002 20:33:06 -0400 (EDT) Date: Sat, 5 Oct 2002 20:33:06 -0400 (EDT) From: editor@telecom-digest.org Message-Id: <200210060033.g960X6R06208@massis.lcs.mit.edu> X-Authentication-Warning: massis.lcs.mit.edu: ptownson set sender to editor@telecom-digest.org using -f To: ptownson Approved: patsnewlist Subject: TELECOM Digest V22 #65 TELECOM Digest Sat, 5 Oct 2002 20:33:00 EDT Volume 22 : Issue 65 Inside This Issue: Editor: Patrick A. Townson RFID Bill Of Rights (Monty Solomon) Re: Advice on Small Business Phone System (David) Help Please: Documentation About Digital Power Line (FRANCOIS-AL) Re: Free Market and Phone Service [was Re: Sprint RIPOFF] (F. Goldstein) Re: Free Market and Phone Service [was Re: Sprint RIPOFF] (John D Galt) Re: Free Market and Phone Service [was Re: Sprint RIPOFF] (Dan Burstein) Belgium Plans Digital ID Cards (Monty Solomon) Re: Commentary: AT&T Goes Dead (Tom Betz) I Have Sinus 42 AB (umer akbar) Re: MCI = Crooks? (John Meissen) Re: Last Laugh! Pest, Please Meet Annoyance (Al Gillis) Re: Last Laugh! Pest, Please Meet Annoyance (Tom Betz) 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. WE DO NOT PERMIT NAME/EMAIL ADDRESS HARVESTING FROM THIS JOURNAL. 'SALTED' EMAIL ADDRESSES APPEAR HEREIN TO VERIFY THIS. YOU GET SUED IN SMALL CLAIMS COURT IF YOU GET CAUGHT SPAMMING OR SENDING VIRUSES. DON'T DO IT. See the bottom of this issue for subscription and archive details and the name of our lawyer; other stuff of interest. ---------------------------------------------------------------------- Date: Sat, 5 Oct 2002 03:08:23 -0400 From: Monty Solomon Subject: RFID Bill Of Rights An RFID Bill of Rights The Net Effect By Simson Garfinkel October 2002 Wireless ID tags will soon be everywhere. We need a manifesto! Think of it as a bar code for your bra. Tiny wireless identification tags are soon going to start showing up throughout your daily life. If you have an E-ZPass transponder in your car or one of several Swatch watches on your wrist, you're already carrying a wireless tag. Your house, your food and even your clothes might someday be permeated with such tags, which can be read without your permission or knowledge. Think I'm crazy? Last November, Texas Instruments and the Gap announced that they had completed a three-month test in which every piece of denim in a store in Atlanta received a wireless ID tag. This technology, boasts TI, allows each item of clothing to be tracked from the warehouse to the shelf to the checkout counter. Some of the largest retailers and consumer products firms, including Coca-Cola, Home Depot, Procter and Gamble and Wal-Mart, have joined to create standards to make sure that future tags and readers will all be compatible. That work is being done at the MIT-based Auto-ID Center. http://www.simson.net/pipermail/simsoft/2002-October/000023.html An RFID Bill of Rights http://www.technologyreview.com/articles/garfinkel1002.asp ------------------------------ From: davidgoNOSPAM@excite.com (David) Subject: Re: Advice on Small Business Phone System Organization: AT&T Broadband Date: Sat, 05 Oct 2002 14:51:47 GMT Paul, Very good point. I sell telephone systems to small businesses and the old phone systems were so reliable that the users assume that they will last forever. Some "bosses" still say they hate VM and don't want any form of AutoAttendant even though, when properly configured, it can provide better service than a human who answers, "XYZ company, please hold", when all you want to do is get back to the person sitting at their desk waiting for your call. Makes for a tough sales situation. Also, I started to sell LD service and am amazed at the number of people who just accept $10.00 monthly fees from AT&T LD so that 20 or 30 minutes of LD winds up costing 90 cents a minute. Some businesses even keep paying the minimum monthly fee long after they stopped using AT&T. Most people have no clue as to what they are actually paying for their phone services. David On Fri, 4 Oct 2002 01:47:08 -0400, Paul A Lee wrote: > Danny Ocean wrote (in part): >> Why do businessmen spend hundred's of thousands of dollars on >> building/remodelling new offices (oak paneling, marble lobbies, >> Herman-Miller furniture, flat computer screens, etc.) then get a case >> of the "low-budget cheapies" when it comes to telephone systems? I >> just don't get it ... sales are the most frustrating part of my job. > It's because the 125-year history of telephony has resulted in such a > degree of ubiquity, reliability, and simplicity to the user that > phones and much of the world's telephone infrastructure are seen as > being as dependable as dirt. To many people -- especially, I'd > venture, those of the "business suit" and MBA persuasions -- > "dependable as dirt" has been "misconscrewed" as being the same thing > as "cheap as dirt", "simple as dirt", and "respectable as dirt". > It's an exasperatingly perverse form of flattery, actually. At least, > that's what I tell myself to keep me from beating somebody's head > against the floor (mine or theirs) ... ------------------------------ From: FRANCOIS-AL Subject: Help Please: Documentations About Digital Power Line Date: Sat, 5 Oct 2002 18:37:31 +0200 Organization: Wanadoo, l'internet avec France Telecom Hello, I am studying network, and I have a project about the Digital Power line: lan network over electricity cable. So I search documentations about it : web sites, concept, etc ... Could you help me to found documentations. Thank you very much. ------------------------------ Date: Fri, 04 Oct 2002 23:20:07 -0400 From: Fred Goldstein Subject: Re: Free Market and Phone Service was Re: Sprint RIPOFF On Thu, 03 Oct 2002 20:15:37 GMT joel@exc.com (Dr. Joel M. Hoffman) wrote, >>> Is there anyone left who thinks that a free market will make our phone >>> service better? >> I do. But it has to be a market with truly equal competition, which >> can only come from unbundling the local loop (and all ISPs) from the >> LECs. If the FCC weren't bought and paid for by the RBOCs, this would >> be the law by now. > If you have a truly free market and equal competition, you'll end up > with NO phone service in remote areas. Not true. You would however have a higher price in remote areas. The cost-based wholesale price is already much higher. Universal service could be targeted at people who couldn't afford a cost-based rate; after all, rural people pay a lot less for housing than we metropolitan folk do. Today it's used to subsidize The Donald's chalet (assuming he has one). Of course now that we have better radio systems than we did in 1934, there'd be an easy workaround. The radio spectrum is less crowded in rural areas. The FCC could simply authorize useful UHF bandwidth for wireless local loops. A couple of towers or mountaintops and 20 MHz could replace a LOT of expensive wire. The main reason this hasn't happened is that the universal service fund comes out of the {Common Carrier | Wireless Competition, since renaming} Bureau of the FCC, while spectrum comes from the Wireless Telecommuications bureau. The latter wants to maximize mobile auction revenue; local loop isn't their problem. > I also don't see what unbundling the local loop from the LECs has to > do with the fact that I can't get 800- directory information on > weekends. If there were demand for 800 directory service, a free market would provide it. Unbundled loop would allow real local service competition, removing monopoly friction that makes it hard to produce some services. ------------------------------ From: John David Galt Subject: Re: Free Market and Phone Service was Re: Sprint RIPOFF Alert Date: Sat, 05 Oct 2002 14:11:30 -0700 Organization: Diogenes the Cynic Hot-Tubbing Society >>> Relatedly, I recently tried to get 1-800 directory assitance on a >>> weekend, and ALL I could get was a computer with voice-recognition >>> s/w. I was told that operators are ONLY available Monday through >>> Friday. >>> Is there anyone left who thinks that a free market will make our phone >>> service better? >> I do. But it has to be a market with truly equal competition, which >> can only come from unbundling the local loop (and all ISPs) from the >> LECs. If the FCC weren't bought and paid for by the RBOCs, this would >> be the law by now. > If you have a truly free market and equal competition, you'll end up > with NO phone service in remote areas. Only if it costs more to provide than it's worth to anyone. The same, of course, holds for 800 DA on weekends and any other service. It would be interesting to know who doesn't provide it (I've had no trouble getting wireless DA on my AT&T cellular phone). > I also don't see what unbundling the local loop from the LECs has to > do with the fact that I can't get 800- directory information on > weekends. You were the one who made the assertion about a free market, on the false premise that we have one now. ------------------------------ From: danny burstein Subject: Re: Free Market and Phone Service was Re: Sprint RIPOFF Alert Date: Sat, 5 Oct 2002 18:19:52 UTC Organization: PANIX Public Access Internet and UNIX, NYC In joel@exc.com (Dr. Joel M. Hoffman) writes: [snip] > If you have a truly free market and equal competition, you'll end up > with NO phone service in remote areas. And tell me why that's a bad thing? I don't subsidize (at least on anything approaching a direct one-to-one basis) the extra gasoline they use for their ten mile drive to the supermarket. Why should I have to pay extra in my phone bill (or in taxes) to cover that ten miles of copper wire? Perhaps if more people (and corporations) had to pay their true share of costs, we'd see a lot more sense out there. Knowledge may be power, but communications is the key dannyb@panix.com [to foil spammers, my address has been double rot-13 encoded] ------------------------------ Date: Sat, 5 Oct 2002 12:45:33 -0400 From: Monty Solomon Subject: Belgium Plans Digital ID Cards A decision in Brussels to create a controversial ID card could radically alter the way citizens interact with government. The card will have a digital certificate embedded on it which will allow Belgian citizens to communicate online with government. It is likely to be widely adopted across Europe and could have major implications for privacy. Many countries, including the UK, are considering introducing ID cards but the Belgian Government is the first in Europe to embed a digital signature in the card. http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/technology/2295433.stm ------------------------------ From: Tom Betz Subject: Re: Commentary: AT&T Goes Dead Date: Sat, 5 Oct 2002 20:53:36 UTC Organization: XOme Quoth Ed Ellers in news:telecom22.59.4@telecom- digest.org: > http://americanprowler.org/article.asp?art_id=2002_9_25_23_41_27 An excellent (and very sad) article. AT&T recently had a telemarketer call my office trying to get us back as an AT&T customer. I explained at some length how AT&T had chased us away 4 years ago with erroneous billings, poor customer service with regard to security code maintenance, and finally the autoattendant menu from Hell that made it impossible to reach a human being. I elaborated upon the long history of AT&T's data services division shamelessly hosting spammers until their checks bounce. Finally, I explained that until I heard from trusted third parties that AT&T had corrected its many sins and was now providing superb and responsible service that I had absolutely no interest in ever hearing from AT&T again. I doubt that it will make a whit of difference, but it was therapeutic at the moment. ------------------------------ From: umer akbar Subject: I Have Sinus 42 AB Date: Sun, 06 Oct 2002 02:55:38 +0500 Dear Editor, I have German telephone, telekom sinus 42 AB, and I don't have its operation manual, can you plz plz help me how can I get its manual book, so that I can have its full use of all its functions, and if I lost the codes in the set how can I break the codes. Does this set have its master code? Sir, plz help me, I'm very dissappointed, and it will be very nice if the manual will be in English. Sir, kindly solve my problem because my expensive set is now useless. Regards, umer akbar popalzai house no A-3 D.D.A colony sakhi sarwar road, DERA GHAZI; KHAN, PAKISTAN ------------------------------ From: jmeissen@shell1.aracnet.com (John Meissen) Subject: Re: MCI = Crooks? Date: 5 Oct 2002 23:45:17 GMT Organization: Aracnet Internet Make sure your long distance provider hasn't been changed. USBI is a 3rd-party billing company that handles billing for a number of obscure telecom companies. I was slammed twice in the space of a year by two different companies, in both cases the charges showed up as being from USBI on my bill. I have a PIC freeze in place now. In article , Unified wrote: > I switched my service to Isterra three months ago. I've paid the bill > every month. Last month my Isterra bill was about $6 for five > international calls. > USBI billed me $80.30 for the EXACT SAME calls even though I had already > paid them. > When I called USBI, I didn't know what was going on but the rep was > very nice and said she would reprice the calls; all of them to $.15 a > minute. Then I realized that these were the exact same calls that I > have already paid for on my Isterra bill. When I confronted her she > removed the ENTIRE bill. > CROOKS ------------------------------ From: Al Gillis Subject: Re: Last Laugh! Pest, Please Meet Annoyance Date: Fri, 4 Oct 2002 19:52:35 -0700 Organization: http://extra.newsguy.com This is an excellent idea! Know any "809" numbers that are especially egregious? rr.com wrote in message news:telecom22.62.7@telecom-digest.org: > Some of the more outright spam frauds on the internet are deserving of > special reward. So I sign up, and also ask them to please, call me > immediately. > But I'm a poor typist and have occasionally put in 809 number that > costs $50 per minute, or the email address that subcribes the sender > to a veritable smorgasbord of porn. > Working on the same assumption as the spammers (.. if even 1 in 100 > respond...) I believe it's possible to make spamming a very expensive > business. (The spam you sent was free, but the phone call your > predictive dialer made cost $100.) > I must improve my typing skills. Really. ------------------------------ From: Tom Betz Subject: Re: Last Laugh! Pest, Please Meet Annoyance Date: Sat, 5 Oct 2002 22:48:37 UTC Organization: XOme Quoth rr.com in news:telecom22.62.7@telecom- digest.org: > Some of the more outright spam frauds on the internet are deserving of > special reward. So I sign up, and also ask them to please, call me > immediately. > But I'm a poor typist and have occasionally put in 809 number that > costs $50 per minute, or the email address that subcribes the sender > to a veritable smorgasbord of porn. Which are those? ------------------------------ TELECOM Digest is an electronic journal devoted mostly but not exclusively to telecommunications topics. It is circulated anywhere there is email, in addition to various telecom forums on a variety of networks such as Compuserve and America On Line, 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: 620-870-9697 Fax 1: 775-255-9970 Fax 2: 775-306-8390 Fax 3: 775-642-0603 Fax 4: 530-309-7234 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 second 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) Email <==> FTP: telecom-archives@telecom-digest.org Send a simple, one line note to that automated address for a help file on how to use the automatic retrieval system for archives files. You can get desired files in email. ************************************************************************* * 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. Access to Premium (P) links requires upgrade to a paid subscription. One click a day feeds a person a meal. Go to http://www.thehungersite.com Only subscribers or registered users of ICB Toll Free News web site will be able to access all or some of the full text of URLs provided. LEGAL STUFF: TELECOM Digest (sm) is owned by Patrick Townson. Copyright 2000 ICB, Inc. and TELECOM Digest. All rights reserved. Our attorney is Bill Levant, of Blue Bell, PA. --------------------------------------------------------------- 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 twenty 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 V22 #65 ***************************** From editor@telecom-digest.org Mon Oct 7 18:04:31 2002 Received: from localhost (localhost [[UNIX: localhost]]) by massis.lcs.mit.edu (8.11.3nb1/8.11.3) id g97M4V415410; Mon, 7 Oct 2002 18:04:31 -0400 (EDT) Date: Mon, 7 Oct 2002 18:04:31 -0400 (EDT) From: editor@telecom-digest.org Message-Id: <200210072204.g97M4V415410@massis.lcs.mit.edu> X-Authentication-Warning: massis.lcs.mit.edu: ptownson set sender to editor@telecom-digest.org using -f To: ptownson Approved: patsnewlist Subject: TELECOM Digest V22 #66 TELECOM Digest Mon, 7 Oct 2002 18:04:00 EDT Volume 22 : Issue 66 Inside This Issue: Editor: Patrick A. Townson Telecom Update (Canada) #352, October 7, 2002 (Angus TeleManagement) Calif. Attorney General Files Spam Suit Against SoCal Company (ptownson) Squirrels (Gail M. Hall) Telemarketer Claims Public Support For Prerecorded Calls (Mark Crispin) Re: AntiSpam Screening Algorithm (Denis McMahon) Re: AntiSpam Screening Algorithm (Gail M. Hall) Re: Free Market and Phone Service was Re: Sprint RIPOFF (Thomas Horsley) Re: Free Market and Phone Service was Re: Sprint RIPOFF (M. Sullivan) Re: Advice on Small Business Phone System (Shaun Ewing) 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. WE DO NOT PERMIT NAME/EMAIL ADDRESS HARVESTING FROM THIS JOURNAL. 'SALTED' EMAIL ADDRESSES APPEAR HEREIN TO VERIFY THIS. YOU GET SUED IN SMALL CLAIMS COURT IF YOU GET CAUGHT SPAMMING OR SENDING VIRUSES. DON'T DO IT. See the bottom of this issue for subscription and archive details and the name of our lawyer; other stuff of interest. ---------------------------------------------------------------------- Date: Mon, 07 Oct 2002 10:58:53 -0400 From: Angus TeleManagement Subject: Telecom Update (Canada) #352, October 7, 2002 ************************************************************ TELECOM UPDATE ************************************************************ published weekly by Angus TeleManagement Group http://www.angustel.ca Number 352: October 7, 2002 Publication of Telecom Update is made possible by generous financial support from: ** BELL CANADA: http://www.bell.ca ** CISCO SYSTEMS CANADA: http://www.cisco.com/ca/letstalk ** CYGCOM INTEGRATED TECHNOLOGIES: http://www.cygcom.com ** ERICSSON CANADA: http://www.ericsson.ca ** JUNIPER NETWORKS: http://www.juniper.net ** PRIMUS CANADA: http://www.primustel.ca ** Q9 NETWORKS: http://www.Q9.com ** TELUS: http://www.telus.com ************************************************************ IN THIS ISSUE: ** Nortel Sells Optical Components Business ** Bell West Expands Market Coverage ** 360 Restructuring Approved in U.S. ** Alcatel Lays Off 400 in Canada ** Nortel Re-Emphasizes Enterprise Telecom ** AT&T Bondholders Withdraw Suits ** AT&T Share Price Confirmed ** Internet Security Hazards Listed ** Cisco Invests $10 Million in Axia ** Software Glitch Causes Internet Slowdown ** Primus Wins LARG*net, UWO Contracts ** Cellphone "Cancer Hazard" Suit Dismissed ** RIM Intros New BlackBerry Server ** RIM Projects Lower Sales ** Teledesic Halts Work on Satellite Network ** Court Approves Teleglobe Sale ** Angus Briefings October 16 ** Exclusive: AT&T, Bell Debate Price Caps ============================================================ NORTEL SELLS OPTICAL COMPONENTS BUSINESS: Nortel Networks has agreed to trade its optical transmitter, receiver, and amplifier divisions for a 30% stake in U.K.-based Bookham Technology. Nortel will exchange facilities in Ottawa, the U.S., U.K., and Switzerland, including 1,000 employees, for US$10 million in cash, plus Bookham shares, warrants, and debt valued at $98 million. BELL WEST EXPANDS MARKET COVERAGE: Bell West is spending $15 million to expand its business services to 10 more cities in Alberta and B.C. Bell's products will be offered by Telebyte Communications (Grande Prairie, Lethbridge, Medicine Hat, and Red Deer), TTM Telecom (Fort McMurray), Okanagan Telephone (Kamloops, Kelowna, Penticton, and Vernon), and ABC Communications (Prince George). 360 RESTRUCTURING APPROVED IN U.S.: U.S. creditors and a New York bankruptcy court have approved 360networks' restructuring plan, clearing the way for 360's emergence from bankruptcy at the end of October. (See Telecom Update #348) ** WL Ross & Co, a U.S. investment firm specializing in turnarounds, has bought 360networks securities representing 10% of equity and 13% of confirmed debt. ALCATEL LAYS OFF 400 IN CANADA: Alcatel is eliminating another 400 jobs across Canada, 350 of them in Ottawa. Alcatel will be left with 2,300 employees in the Ottawa region, down 40% in the last 15 months. (See Telecom Update #340) NORTEL RE-EMPHASIZES ENTERPRISE TELECOM: After several years of being buried in a group that primarily sold network gear to phone companies, Nortel's enterprise systems group has been reestablished as a business in its own right. Oscar Rodriguez has been named President of the new Enterprise Solutions organization; Robert Burke continues as President Enterprise Marketing; Sue Spradley heads the new Wireline Networks group. ** Nortel has announced Norstar 6.0, adding the ability to network up to 10 systems to share voice mail, auto attendant, and a common dialing plan. AT&T BONDHOLDERS WITHDRAW SUITS: AT&T Canada says that a group of bondholders has withdrawn its suit against the carrier in view of the progress of restructuring negotiations. A separate suit by a U.S. hedge fund has also been dropped. AT&T SHARE PRICE CONFIRMED: AT&T Corp will pay C$51.21 for each share of AT&T Canada it does not already own. Morgan Stanley has confirmed that this price is above market value, as required in the agreement governing the sale. The sale will be completed October 8. INTERNET SECURITY HAZARDS LISTED: OCIPEP, Canada's Internet security organization, has welcomed the posting by three U.S. organizations of an updated list of the 20 most important Internet security vulnerabilities. http://www.sans.org/top20 CISCO INVESTS $10 MILLION IN AXIA: Cisco Systems has agreed to lend Axia NetMedia $10 million and to help it develop its IP networking business. Calgary-based Axia has the contract to manage and operate the Alberta government's high-speed IP network. SOFTWARE GLITCH CAUSES INTERNET SLOWDOWN: A failed software upgrade on WorldCom's UUNet network around 8 a.m. October 3 slowed or stalled Internet access for users across the U.S. Traffic was not fully restored until the evening. PRIMUS WINS LARG*net, UWO CONTRACTS: Primus Telecom Canada has been chosen to provide Internet transit service to LARG*net, the non-profit high-speed network organization in the London, Ontario, area. Primus has also won a three-year contract to supply long distance service to the University of Western Ontario. CELLPHONE "CANCER HAZARD" SUIT DISMISSED: A U.S. court has tossed out a US$800 million suit by a Maryland doctor who claims that use of analog cellphones caused his brain tumor. RIM INTROS NEW BLACKBERRY SERVER: Research In Motion has released version 3.5 of BlackBerry Enterprise Server, which allows IT departments to develop wireless applications that access corporate data. RIM PROJECTS LOWER SALES: Research In Motion expects 2003 sales of $300M-$315M, a reduction from its previous estimate of $350M-$375M. June-August revenue was $73M, 2% higher than the previous quarter. Litigation costs accounted for $4.9M of a net loss of $14.3M. TELEDESIC HALTS WORK ON SATELLITE NETWORK: Teledesic has stopped work on its planned 30-satellite network, which was to provide worldwide high-speed Internet access by 2005. (See Telecom Update #318) COURT APPROVES TELEGLOBE SALE: Teleglobe has received court permission to sell its long distance business to two U.S. turnaround firms. (See Telecom Update #350) ANGUS BRIEFINGS OCTOBER 16: This is the last week to register for two exclusive briefings by Angus TeleManagement and Angus Dortmans: ** Reinventing Enterprise Communications: Setting Your Strategy for IP Telephony ** Beyond the Meltdown: A Report Card and Forecast for Canadian Telecom These hard-hitting half-day programs will be offered once only, in Toronto, on October 16. To guarantee that a seat is reserved for you, download the brochure at http://www.angustel.ca/Angus-Seminars.pdf. EXCLUSIVE -- AT&T, BELL DEBATE PRICE CAPS: In the October- November issue of Telemanagement, available this week, AT&T Canada's Chris Peirce and Bell Canada's Bernard Courtois argue pro and con on whether Ottawa should overrule the CRTC on price caps. Also in Telemanagement #199: ** Seven Keys to Call Centre Success ** New Options Boost Audio Teleconferencing ** Voice over Wireless LAN: Not Mainstream Yet Until October 30, new subscribers to Telemanagement will save $50 on the price of a one-year subscription, with a money-back guarantee. Go to http://www.angustel.ca/teleman/Telemanagement_Special_Offer.pdf. ============================================================ HOW TO SUBMIT ITEMS FOR TELECOM UPDATE E-MAIL: editors@angustel.ca FAX: 905-686-2655 MAIL: TELECOM UPDATE Angus TeleManagement Group 8 Old Kingston Road Ajax, Ontario Canada L1T 2Z7 =========================================================== HOW TO SUBSCRIBE (OR UNSUBSCRIBE) TELECOM UPDATE is provided in electronic form only. There are two formats available: 1. The fully-formatted edition is posted on the World Wide Web on the first business day of the week at http://www.angustel.ca 2. The e-mail edition is distributed free of charge. To subscribe, send an e-mail message to: TelecomUpdate@add.postmastergeneral.com To stop receiving the e-mail edition, send an e-mail message to: TelecomUpdate@remove.postmastergeneral.com Sending e-mail to these addresses will automatically add or remove the sender's e-mail address from the list. Leave subject line and message area blank. We do not give Telecom Update subscribers' e-mail addresses to any third party. For more information, see http://www.angustel.ca/update/privacy.html. =========================================================== COPYRIGHT AND CONDITIONS OF USE: All contents copyright 2002 Angus TeleManagement Group Inc. All rights reserved. For further information, including permission to reprint or reproduce, please e-mail rosita@angustel.ca or phone 905-686-5050 ext 500. The information and data included has been obtained from sources which we believe to be reliable, but Angus TeleManagement makes no warranties or representations whatsoever regarding accuracy, completeness, or adequacy. Opinions expressed are based on interpretation of available information, and are subject to change. If expert advice on the subject matter is required, the services of a competent professional should be obtained. ------------------------------ Date: Sat, 5 Oct 2002 21:10:09 EDT From: ptownson@massis.lcs.mit.edu Subject: Calif. Attorney General Files Spam Suit Against SoCal Company This Story has been sent to you by : ptownson@massis.lcs.mit.edu


California Attorney General Bill Lockyer filed suit against Internet
marketer PW Marketing LLC, accusing the company of illegally spamming
millions of Californians.  The full article will be available on the
Web for a limited time:

href=http://www.bayarea.com/mld/bayarea/news/breaking_news/4160856.htm

(c) 2001 bayarea and wire service sources. All Rights Reserved.

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

From: Gail M. Hall 
Subject: Squirrels
Date: Sat, 05 Oct 2002 21:59:24 -0400
Reply-To: gmhall@apk.net


I wonder how many telephone repairpeople have jobs today because of the
work of squirrels.

If there were no squirrels to chew the wires up, how many telephone
repairpersons would be laid off?

Maybe this is just an Ohio thing.  Well, no, but how often do you hear
people talking about the squirrel problem.

My "data" phone went dead.  

When I called repair using another phone, the recorded announcement
informed me that I could find out about the status of my trouble
report by going on the Internet.  Uh, right!  IF I plug my modem into
another phone line.  Some people have only one phone line, though.
Are they encouraging us to sign up for cable access?  

Over the years it seems the main reason for my having to call repair
turned out to be squirrels.

I wonder what it is about phone lines that is so tasty to squirrels.
We have tons of nuts and acorns and such goodies they can choose from.
So why chew on those skinny little phone lines?

Give them half a chance, and squirrels will eat a hole right into your
house and make themselves at home there.  Getting rid of them is more
than an annoyance.  Repairing the damage they do can be expensive.

They are not as numerous or as troublesome as rats, but they are
related.

To give [SBC] Ameritech credit where credit is due, I want to say that
they had the person here to repair the phone within the time promised
over the phone when I called.  And the man sounded and acted like he
knew what he was doing.  He was also very good at communicating what
he was doing each step of the way.

I wonder when scientists will invent a coating for telephone wires
that will taste so bad to squirrels that they will never want to chew
on them again.

I know that this is not just an Ohio problem.  One of the drivers of
the Internet Tourbus has encountered them down in Alabama and even
named his web site for squirrels.  Check this out.

His sig is best seen with a monospaced font.


=========== [ Quote ] ============================

           .~~~.  ))
 (\__/)  .'     )  ))       Patrick Douglas Crispen
 /o o  \/     .~
{o_,    \    {              crispen@netsquirrel.com
  / ,  , )    \           http://www.netsquirrel.com/
  `~  '-' \    } ))    AOL Instant Messenger: Squirrel2K
 _(    (   )_.'
'---..{____}                  Warning: squirrels.


======= [ End Quoted Text ] =========================


Gail from Ohio USA

[TELECOM Digest Editor's Note: I dunno about telephone lines/boxes but
I can tell you sqirrels love electric transformer boxes as places to
raise their babies and hunt for food. When I lived in Chicago there
was an incident about 4 AM one day. The one light I had on was by a
chair where I sat when I was up and around. The radio had been playing
and I was sort of 'half asleep' when I sensed the light go out and the
radio went off. Other light switches were tried, none of them worked.
A call to the Edison service center got me a recorded message saying
all representatives were busy, estimated time on hold would be greater
than ten minutes. Looking out the window I saw all the lights in the
area were off; the only lights were a block down the street at the
Amoco station. While I was on hold waiting for an answer, I saw a
truck pull up down the street with one of those yellow flashing lights
on top like emergency utility trucks have. Even though around four in
the morning, I decided to pull on my clothes and go see what they were
doing.

A 'basket lift' on the side of the truck was up in the air and a man
was inside it. The guy on the ground said to me 'the late Mister
Rodent-Squirell was inspecting new living quarters for himself, the
Missus and their soon to have litter of babies when he got fried.'
The guy in the basket above said 'heads up!' and with a scoop shovel
shoved a completely dead rodent out of the the transformer shelter and
down into a cardboard box on the back of the truck, where a half dozen
of his fried relatives were already in place. 'I am gonna reset it',
he said to the guy on the ground, and there followed a flash of
electrical surge like an arc. They both laughed sort of uproarishly,
and the guy started the lift back to the ground. The guy on the ground
looked at me and said 'you can go back to bed now; your lights are
back on, and whatever you do, **don't say it**'.  I asked him what it
was I was not supposed to say and he said, 'I do not want you to tell
me how this job does not pay very much but I get all the breakfast I
want for free every day.' He then continued, 'I have been doing this
job for several years; at this time of year, we get a couple dozen of
these guys every night and every neighborhood I go to at least one
person tells me that joke about having all the breakfast I want every
day.'

Then his radio started talking; it was the dispatcher telling them the
next stop on their list, and they rolled away, with the cardboard box
with the dead squirrels bouncing along in the back. That's all I know
about squirrels and other rodents chewing into live lines.   PAT]

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

Date: Sat, 5 Oct 2002 20:49:21 -0700
From: Mark Crispin 
Subject: Telemarketer Claims 99+% Public Support for Prerecorded Calls
Organization: Pandamonium Reigns


In a letter dated September 25, 2002, OneSetPrice, an Orlando FL based
telemarketer which uses prerecorded calls to advertise "seminars" for
"business opportunity programs" or "seller assisted marketing plans",
says that "a very few people, a very small fraction of 1%, objects to
the manner in which it is doing business."

I think that this information would be of a great deal of surprise to
the readers of comp.dcom.telecom.

The letter also says that, in regards to the http://panda.com/telesleaze
web site, they are "in the process of working with [my] service
provider to have the offending items removed or to remove the website
entirely."  I have no idea if my ISP will cave in.

I have modified the copyright on the http://panda.com/telesleaze
web page to grant permission to any site(s) which wish(es) to mirror a
verbatum copy.


-- Mark --

http://panda.com/mrc
Democracy is two wolves and a sheep deciding what to eat for lunch.
Liberty is a well-armed sheep contesting the vote.

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

From: Denis McMahon <{denis}@pickaxe.net>
Subject: Re: AntiSpam Screening Algorithm
Date: Mon, 07 Oct 2002 18:06:32 +0100
Organization: pickaxe.net is my personal domain
Reply-To: {denisrt}@pickaxe.net


On Fri, 04 Oct 2002 04:21:57 GMT, Sid Zafran 
wrote:

> For example, an internet service provider
> (ISP) would flag all messages from the same sender having the same
> subject appear more than 100 times in a 5 minute period.

AOL did this, then Harvard sent out a load of emails to freshers
telling them when to turn up at college or something similar.


Rgds,

Denis McMahon / +44 7802 468949 / denis@pickaxe.net / www.pickaxe.net
Top-posters, posters of adverts & binaries are scum. Killfile!
If you get an email that says "send this to lots of people", it's
probably some sort of hoax. Check www.hoaxbusters.org


[TELECOM Digest Editor's Note: That was really Harvard's fault. Their
sysadmin should have known how to stall the mail, or make sendmail
sleep a few seconds between each mailing.  In my scripts, if there is
any chance at all that sendmail or something else will get confused
or overloaded by several things happening at once I insert the ins-
truction 'sleep 5' for example, meaning come back in five seconds for
the next job.  PAT]

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

From: Gail M. Hall 
Subject: Re: AntiSpam Screening Algorithm
Date: Sat, 05 Oct 2002 21:59:23 -0400
Reply-To: gmhall@apk.net


On Fri, 04 Oct 2002 04:21:57 GMT, in comp.dcom.telecom, you (Sid Zafran
) wrote:

> Would a spam blocking algorithm be more effective if it used an
> additional parameter such as the number of identical messages received
> in a given time interval? For example, an internet service provider
> (ISP) would flag all messages from the same sender having the same
> subject appear more than 100 times in a 5 minute period. It is my
> opinion that a 5 minute screening period would not be objectionable,
> and that bulk mailers are likely to be sending many simultaneous
> messages.  Legitimate e-mail, such as newsletters, could be passed
> through after further review of the flagged messages.

Having just recently been a victim of an overzealous spam filter, I found
your question interesting.

Your numbers sound logical.  But your numbers look like they would
work best for checking outgoing spam from a subscriber for an ISP.  I
doubt if a single ISP (unless it is one of the huge ones like AOL or
hotmail) would receive spam for that many subscribers of their own ISP
in that amount of time.

But please don't set your spam blaster to as few as 5 or 6 addresses
on a mailing group.  It took over a week for us to figure out why my
sister wasn't receiving my messages to her.  I was sending messages to
her plus some other family members.  Without any notice or explanation
her ISP put all the mail through some kind of spam filter, and their
logs did not indicate what parameters were used to make the decision.

I like the descriptions that Pat has given for how Spam Assissin gives
points (or negative points) for various spam-like properties of
messages.  Having one or two of those properties in a message might
not be enough to send the message into the bit bucket.  But adding up
all the points might be a different story.

Based on the number of spams I have received recently with the subject
line "Hey there" I am diverting all such messages to a "may be spam"
folder.  That's just in case some friend or family member happens to
use that innocent looking subject line.

Ob Telecom topic comment:  

A telemarketer called today and started talking a steady stream of
heavily accented English (I think it was English) that I couldn't make
heads or tails of.  Rather than take up too much time asking for
clarification about something I probably didn't want anyway, I just
said, "I'm sorry, I don't speak your language."  Then I hung up.

I know that sounds rude, but any more I just don't feel like being
polite to telemarketers any more.  Oh, such a sad state of affairs
this is when an otherwise polite and civilized person stoops to being
rude and not being sorry about it!  :-(


Gail from Ohio USA


[TELECOM Digest Editor's Note: That's why most large telemarketers
located themselves in Iowa, Missouri or Kansas. All they want for
workers are people with very plain, bland middle America voices.
No 'black' accents; some people hate Negroes. No 'southern' accents;
some people might be prejudiced against that. No 'eastern' accents, for
example people from Massachusetts or Maine; some people don't like
that either. If you have a bland 'middle-America' accent, then the
telemarketer doesn't have to repeat him/herself over and over; they
can make their pitch in a hurry. Besides which, years ago, being 
located in Omaha, Nebraska got them very cheap rates for WATS
lines. PAT]

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

Subject: Re: Free Market and Phone Service was Re: Sprint RIPOFF Alert
From: tom.horsley@att.net (Thomas A. Horsley)
Organization: AT&T Worldnet
Date: Sun, 06 Oct 2002 04:22:02 GMT


> Why should  I have to pay  extra in my  phone bill (or in  taxes) to
> cover that ten miles of copper wire?

I suppose the answer to that might depend on how often you want to
talk to someone who lives in a rural area. One of the reasons phone
service is valuable is because it reaches practically everywhere.


>>==>> The *Best* political site  >>==+
      email: Tom.Horsley@worldnet.att.net icbm: Delray Beach, FL      |
 Free Software and Politics <<==+

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

From: Michael D. Sullivan 
Subject: Re: Free Market and Phone Service was Re: Sprint RIPOFF
Date: Sun, 06 Oct 2002 03:16:58 GMT


On Fri, 04 Oct 2002 23:20:07 -0400, Fred Goldstein posted the 
following to comp.dcom.telecom:

> Of course now that we have better radio systems than we did in 1934,
> there'd be an easy workaround. The radio spectrum is less crowded in
> rural areas. The FCC could simply authorize useful UHF bandwidth for
> wireless local loops.  A couple of towers or mountaintops and 20 MHz
> could replace a LOT of expensive wire.

> The main reason this hasn't happened is that the universal service
> fund comes out of the {Common Carrier | Wireless Competition, since
> renaming} Bureau of the FCC, while spectrum comes from the Wireless
> Telecommuications bureau.  The latter wants to maximize mobile
> auction revenue; local loop isn't their problem. 

> In fact, the former Common Carrier Bureau, now Wireless Competition
> Bureau has granted Eligible Telecommunications Carrier status to
> several wireless (cellular) carriers in rural areas, making them
> eligible (after jumping through various additional hoops) for USF
> funds for their wireless local loop service, which is far less
> costly to offer in sparsely populated areas than wireline service.
> And by using cellular infrastructure for providing this service, the
> carriers can use standard cellular hardware instead of having to
> buy, install, and configure specialized equipment.  Currently,
> Western Wireless is providing flat-rate fixed cellular service in a
> number of impoverished rural areas, including the Pine Ridge Indian
> Reservation, where they are offering flat-rate local service for $15
> or so per month.


Michael D. Sullivan
Bethesda, MD, USA
(delete NOSPAM from address to mail me)

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

From: Shaun Ewing 
Subject: Re: Advice on Small Business Phone System
Date: Sun, 6 Oct 2002 14:17:16 +1000


David  wrote in message
news:telecom22.65.2@telecom-digest.org:

> Very good point.  I sell telephone systems to small businesses and the
> old phone systems were so reliable that the users assume that they
> will last forever.  Some "bosses" still say they hate VM and don't
> want any form of AutoAttendant even though, when properly configured,
> it can provide better service than a human who answers, "XYZ company,
> please hold",  when all you want to do is get back to the person
> sitting at their desk waiting for your call.

Our office phone system is 11 years old (NEC Electra 824) and has
never skipped a beat. There hasn't really ever been a reason to
upgrade; as they say "If it aint broke, then don't fix
it". Regardless, I'm thinking of taking it out and putting in
something a bit more modern anyway (either a Nortel or Panasonic
system).

We had auto attendant on a parallel system for a while, but customers hated
it so we took it off.

> Makes for a tough sales situation.

> Also, I started to sell LD service and am amazed at the number of
> people who just accept $10.00 monthly fees from AT&T LD so that 20 or
> 30 minutes of LD winds up costing 90 cents a minute.  Some businesses
> even keep paying the minimum monthly fee long after they stopped using
> AT&T.  Most people have no clue as to what they are actually paying
> for their phone services.

As much as I'd love to scrutinize my phone bills -- the simple fact is
that I (and I'm sure a lot of people) simply don't have the time to go
over phone bills with a magnifying glass. My LD phone bill can be
anything up to 20 pages and it would take me quite a while to go
through it all in detail.

Last month the phone company credited $200 to my phone account to
correct mistakes in the billing. If they never credited the amount, I
would never have noticed.


--Shaun


[TELECOM Digest Editor's Note: That's why some people earn a very nice
living auditing phone bills. There are guys who work purely for the
commissions they make. 'Sign this form authorizing me to be your telco
representative. Pay me fifty percent of what I save you in a month's 
time.'   They find *all sorts* of nickle-dime errors that in some
cases have gone on undetected for *years*.   PAT]

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

TELECOM Digest is an electronic journal devoted mostly but not
exclusively to telecommunications topics. It is circulated anywhere
there is email, in addition to various telecom forums on a variety of
networks such as Compuserve and America On Line, 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: 620-870-9697
                        Fax 1: 775-255-9970
                        Fax 2: 775-306-8390
                        Fax 3: 775-642-0603
                        Fax 4: 530-309-7234
                        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 second 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)

Email <==> FTP:  telecom-archives@telecom-digest.org 

      Send a simple, one line note to that automated address for
      a help file on how to use the automatic retrieval system
      for archives files. You can get desired files in email.

*************************************************************************
*   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.
Access to Premium (P) links requires upgrade to a paid subscription.

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

Only subscribers or registered users of ICB Toll Free News web site
will be able to access all or some of the full text of URLs provided.

LEGAL STUFF: TELECOM Digest (sm) is owned by Patrick Townson.
Copyright 2000 ICB, Inc. and TELECOM Digest. All rights reserved.
Our attorney is Bill Levant, of Blue Bell, PA.

   ---------------------------------------------------------------
    
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 twenty 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 V22 #66
*****************************
    
    
From editor@telecom-digest.org Mon Oct  7 19:49:55 2002
Received: from localhost (localhost [[UNIX: localhost]])
	by massis.lcs.mit.edu (8.11.3nb1/8.11.3) id g97NntA16587;
	Mon, 7 Oct 2002 19:49:55 -0400 (EDT)
Date: Mon, 7 Oct 2002 19:49:55 -0400 (EDT)
From: editor@telecom-digest.org
Message-Id: <200210072349.g97NntA16587@massis.lcs.mit.edu>
X-Authentication-Warning: massis.lcs.mit.edu: ptownson set sender to editor@telecom-digest.org using -f
To: ptownson
Approved: patsnewlist
Subject: TELECOM Digest V22 #67

TELECOM Digest     Mon, 7 Oct 2002 19:50:00 EDT    Volume 22 : Issue 67

Inside This Issue:                           Editor: Patrick A. Townson

    Re: Squirrels (John Higdon)
    One ISP Who Refuses to Deal with Spam (TELECOM Digest Editor)
    Re: Belgium Plans Digital ID Cards (Spyros Bartsocas)
    Risky Credit Customers Seen as Growth Area for Wireless (Monty Solomon)
    Re: Ze Death Of Ze Net (Ed Ellers)
    Re: Norstar ICS 4.0 and Music on Hold (Justin)
    Mail, Phone, Fax Forwarding Services? (Name Witheld on Request)
    Email Penetration (Joey Lindstrom)
    Re: Emergency Number 112 (Denis McMahon)
    Re: RFID Bill Of Rights (Dave Phelps)
    Laugh! RIAA Sues Radio Stations For Giving Away Free Music (Ron Chapman)
    Last Laugh! Jesus Joke (Joe Harakal)

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. WE DO NOT PERMIT NAME/EMAIL ADDRESS
HARVESTING FROM THIS JOURNAL. 'SALTED' EMAIL ADDRESSES APPEAR
HEREIN TO VERIFY THIS. YOU GET SUED IN SMALL CLAIMS COURT IF YOU
GET CAUGHT SPAMMING OR SENDING VIRUSES. DON'T DO IT.

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

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

From: John Higdon 
Subject: Re: Squirrels
Organization: Green Hills and Cows
Date: Mon, 07 Oct 2002 15:34:29 -0700


In article , Gail M. Hall
 wrote:

> I wonder how many telephone repairpeople have jobs today because of the
> work of squirrels.

> If there were no squirrels to chew the wires up, how many telephone
> repairpersons would be laid off?

> Maybe this is just an Ohio thing.  Well, no, but how often do you hear
> people talking about the squirrel problem.

Last year, I had a T1 go down. When that was fixed, another one went
down. Then some DSLs took a dump. Turned out that all the trouble was
caused by squirrels nesting in a B-box not far away.

BTW, I'm in California, not Ohio. I am also within city limits,
although the neighborhood is very wooded and squirrels abound. My
feeling is that creatures interfering with telephone service is a
common problem.


John Higdon     | Email Address Valid | SF:  +1 415 428-COWS
+1 408 264 4115 |     Anytown, USA    | FAX: +1 408 264 4407

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

Date: Mon, 7 Oct 2002 18:58:45 EDT
From: TELECOM Digest Editor 
Subject: One ISP Who Refuses to Deal with Spam


I found out earlier today that SBC/Prodigy (or whatever they call
themselves these days) flatly refuse to do anything about spam.  What
happened is this: I use Outlook Express to get my personal
mail. Outlook Express does POP to sbcglobal.net and a couple other
places where I can (but rarely do) get any mail. Like most sites I use
including Massis, I have to call daily or more often and begin
scooping out the spam buckets at a time. Well, I failed to check the
personal mail at all on Sunday at sbcglobal.net and when I called in
early today there were 90 + pieces of mail, of which 89 or so were
pure spam.

This has happened before, where my Outlook Express got a 'wedge' in
it from the volume of mail. The first forty or so letters came out,
but around letter 41 or so, sbcglobal.net could not deliver it. It
turns out that wedged email was a big, humongous virus thing. Then
the first 39 or so spams started redelivering themselves again, and
again. Never could get item 41 out. The sbcglobal tech I spoke with
suggested going direct to http://swbgobalprodigy.net and getting the
mail from there and I did that. I then got all the mail; threw it 
all out except the one thing from my brother I wanted to see. 

Then I had to go back to Outlook Express and start bailing it all out
to the trash bin there, all 400 or so (by now) pieces of spam. I
called back to sbcglobal and told them I want to change my name and
ditch the old account, and why. The tech said explicitly, we do not
filter spam at all. His argument was essentially what one person
considers spam another person considers important mail. I asked him
what about all the chain letter 'opportunities' and all the 'you can
enlarge your thing several sizes', etc. He said in his personal email
he gets all those things also but the company specifically said they
do not intend to be in the business of 'censoring email'. He claims
SWBell got sued once by someone whose email they filtered out who lost
an important piece of email as a result so SWB/Prodigy decided to quit
doing it; besides which since Prodigy got sued as a 'publisher' of a
mailing list once they now stick totally to the common carrier
business, refusing to filter anything at all.

I tried to call his bluff; I said I would in that case cancel my
account totally if they were not going to make any effort at all to
screen out spam. I told him I also have an account for email at Yahoo
and they at least make a half-assed attempt to set the real mail one
place and the spam in another. He said, and I quote, 'not for much
longer on Yahoo. We own them also now, or they own us.' He claimed
that when you pick up email using a POP mechanism like Outlook Express
there is no way to do it. He did say he could set me up with a second
username  but not cancel the main one, since the main one is a control
on the whole thing. Then, he said, also install the new name in
Outlook Express as well, and call with POP twice on them to get mail;
and 'let the original name and box just go to hell, fill up with
spam until it finally starts bouncing, and on your second pass using 
the new name, get the real mail you want from there.' So I took the 
new name he established for me, then I went back to Outlook Express
and created a new POP thing there called 'mail.sbcglobal.net' and
titled it 'SBC Mail-2'. So far it has worked good, but I suppose the
spammers will ruin that one eventually also.

Have you ever heard of an ISP who *refuses* to do any spam filtering
at all for fear of getting sued by users?


PAT

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

From: Spyros Bartsocas 
Date: Sun, 6 Oct 2002 23:17:50 +0300
Subject: Re: Belgium Plans Digital ID Cards


> A decision in Brussels to create a controversial ID card could 
> radically alter the way citizens interact with government.

> The card will have a digital certificate embedded on it which will 
> allow Belgian citizens to communicate online with government.

> It is likely to be widely adopted across Europe and could have major 
> implications for privacy.
 
The Cyprus government pulled back from a similar plan a couple of 
years ago.

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

Date: Mon, 7 Oct 2002 01:17:18 -0400
From: Monty Solomon 
Subject: Risky Credit Customers Seen as Growth Area For Wireless


By Yukari Iwatani

CHICAGO, Oct 7 (Reuters) - Wireless telephone companies must stop
offering mediocre service plans to customers with risky credit if they
want to reach the other half of the U.S. population that doesn't own
cell phones, analysts said.

At the same time, they must also control cell phone subsidies and
marketing costs if they want to make a profit from a segment that
tends to generate lower revenue than its high-end customers. They also
need to limit how much customer risk they are willing to take on,
analysts said.

Nearly half of all Americans already own cell phones. That means
wireless operators have signed on most of their ideal customers --
those with high income and stellar credit scores.

Now, wireless companies are struggling to add more customers and 
bring the U.S. wireless penetration rate up to a level similar to 
Europe, Japan and South Korea, where as much as 80 percent of the 
population owns cell phones.

http://finance.lycos.com/home/news/story.asp?story=28971373

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

From: Ed Ellers 
Subject: Re: Ze Death Of Ze Net
Date: Mon, 7 Oct 2002 01:44:29 -0400


Kenneth Becker  wrote:

> Pat, CB has a limited number of channels. It is also a broadcast
> service.

I believe the FCC would disagree on that last point.

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

From: Overdrive79@hotmail.com (Justin)
Subject: Re: Norstar ICS 4.0 and Music on Hold
Date: 7 Oct 2002 06:11:28 -0700
Organization: http://groups.google.com/


According to the company that installed this system back in 2000, the
voice mail app didn't ship with Minuet at that time.  I don't know if
these guys know much about anything since they left the guy before me
with a real mess of a system.  (They didn't even leave him any
documentation) Is there any way that I could check to see if the
Minuet software is there?

Dave Phelps  wrote in message
news::

> In article , Overdrive79@hotmail.com 
> says:

>> I probably sound stupid but what is ACD?  Is there an inexpensive
>> module that can queue callers or does the whole voice mail module have
>> to be replaced?

> As Pat said, ACD is Automatic Call Distribution. Now, ACD is software, 
> just like AA/VM.

> If you got the NVM, then it should have come with Nortel's smallest ACD 
> package, the Minuet. It's actually a 3rd party product from a company 
> that has been working with Nortel for years--Cintech. 
> www.cintechsolutions.com.

> Dave Phelps
> Phone Masters Ltd.
> deadspam=tippenring

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

From: Name Withheld 
Subject: Mail, Phone, Fax Forwarding Services?
Date: Mon, 07 Oct 2002 08:00:57 -0600


PAT: I would prefer to have this posted anonymously to the Telecom
Digest. Thanks! 

Are there services available that will forward faxes and snail-mail
packages in order to obfuscate the sender of the message? Do similar
services exist for telephone calls where you could call a service and
have them bridge your call to a third number? 

How would one locate such services?

Is it possible to get an out-of-area cell phone contract in order to
hide your location? What would be the risks of inadvertently revealing
your location?

Thanks.


[TELECOM Digest Editor's Note: Most spammers could tell you how to go
about hiding your real address on spam mail. On snail mail, just do
not put any return on your letter/package, or a false name and
address. Of course you still have to worry about the postal indicia
which appears. On a fax machine, load the header with false info about
the sender's name and phone number. I do not think most people have a
caller-ID box on their incoming fax line, but they might. On email use
one of the proxy services available as well, with a throw-away ISP
account you paid with a money order under a bogus name. Get one of
those '1500 hours free' disks from AOL. AOL does ask for banking info
and/or a credit card number before they let you use it  **and they
have been known to trace fraud back to the telephone pair used to
call them in the first place**, but given sufficiently reasonable 
information you can get a couple pieces of email out before they find
out they got taken also. Unless the recipient of the email complains
to the ISP (for example '1500 free hours AOL disks') it is doubtful
AOL will do anything but write it off.  
 
On cell phones, use a prepaid cell phone in combination with a prepaid
calling card. The caller ID delivered to the caller in almost
meaningless in those cases.  The caller ID and any investigation
conducted will show the number used by the prepaid calling card as the
outbound loop around for the calling card's customer, which appears to
be some bogus name.  If the calling card people bother to trace it
back from there, they will see they receieved the call from 'Wireless
Call' at xxx-xxx-xxxx which is the number assigned to the prepaid
cellphone you bought with cash at the Walmart store. What do you have
planned?  (wink!) Can you cut me in on it? (wink). Are the above ideas
good for starters?  PAT]

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

From: Joey Lindstrom 
Date: Mon, 07 Oct 2002 08:34:32 -0600
Reply-To: Joey Lindstrom 
Subject: Email Penetration


On Fri, 4 Oct 2002 21:34:46 -0400 (EDT), editor@telecom-digest.org
wrote:

> [TELECOM Digest Editor's Note: Actually Joey, *most people* are not
> yet into email and the net. Only about 15-20 percent of Americans have
> any *real, working* knowledge of the net and 'computers'.

That number would be significantly higher north of the border and
particularly here in Calgary, where "high-tech" has significant
penetration.  But regardless of where the numbers currently ARE, it's
my contention that those numbers will continue to rise, until we reach
a point where being without an email address will be as unthinkable as
being without a phone number.  That goes hand in hand with my argument
that, unlike CB radio, email and the internet are here to stay, and
not just in a "hobby" capacity, but for serious, day-to-day business
as well (and that's what will cause money to continue to be spent in
the efforts to eradicate spam).


Joey Lindstrom - Laird's Flooring
joey@lairdsflooring.com

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

From: Denis McMahon <{denis}@pickaxe.net>
Subject: Re: Emergency Number 112
Date: Mon, 07 Oct 2002 18:06:30 +0100
Organization: pickaxe.net is my personal domain
Reply-To: {denisrt}@pickaxe.net


On Sat, 28 Sep 2002 17:41:58 +1000, Shaun Ewing 
wrote:

> 112 must work regardless of the phone having a sim card and
> regardless of phone security settings.

112 must be offered to the network by the handset under those
conditions; the network is not required to accept and route an
emergency call from a handset without a sim card.

On Tue, 1 Oct 2002 07:30:20 EDT, PaulCoxwell@aol.com wrote:

>> Many PABX's here are programmed to require a 0 to get an outside
>> line.  The code to dial NYC info is 0011-1-212-555-1212.  Now put
>> those together and get someone to dial them often.  Then they go
>> home and make an international call.  4 seconds latter they are
>> talking to an emergency operator.

> Is there any particular reason why 0 became the common access code for
> an outside line on PBX systems in Australia?

> Here in the U.K., as in North America, the access code is more usually
> 9 (or occasionally 8), with level 0 reserved for access to the PBX
> operator, if any.

O(0) for Operator

9 so that 9999 would reach the emergency number (999)

Remember that originally all PABXen were installed by and maintained
by the GPO. By the time the monopoly was broken up, the GPO way was
ingrained on too many brains.

For the same reasons, namely it's what people are used to, I imagine
that 999 will continue to be an accessible UK emergency number until
todays pre-teens are pensioners.

Longer term (and so well beyond the likely end of my own lifespan) we
may see the situation where enough people are familiar with 112 to
turn 999 off, but it's a long way away.

Rgds,

Denis McMahon / +44 7802 468949 / denis@pickaxe.net / www.pickaxe.net
Top-posters, posters of adverts & binaries are scum. Killfile!
If you get an email that says "send this to lots of people", it's
probably some sort of hoax. Check www.hoaxbusters.org

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

From: Dave Phelps 
Subject: Re: RFID Bill Of Rights
Date: Mon, 7 Oct 2002 00:24:50 -0500
Organization: Posted via Supernews, http://www.supernews.com


Interesting. I don't suppose they'll be too thrilled when I walk into 
Wal-Mart with my EMP (ElectroMagnetic Pulse) generator purely 
accidentally left on.

In article , monty@roscom.com says:

> An RFID Bill of Rights

> The Net Effect   By Simson Garfinkel    October 2002

> Wireless ID tags will soon be everywhere. We need a manifesto!  Think
> of it as a bar code for your bra.  Tiny wireless identification tags
> are soon going to start showing up throughout your daily life. If you
> have an E-ZPass transponder in your car or one of several Swatch
> watches on your wrist, you're already carrying a wireless tag. Your
> house, your food and even your clothes might someday be permeated with
> such tags, which can be read without your permission or knowledge.

> Think I'm crazy? Last November, Texas Instruments and the Gap
> announced that they had completed a three-month test in which every
> piece of denim in a store in Atlanta received a wireless ID tag. This
> technology, boasts TI, allows each item of clothing to be tracked from
> the warehouse to the shelf to the checkout counter. Some of the
> largest retailers and consumer products firms, including Coca-Cola,
> Home Depot, Procter and Gamble and Wal-Mart, have joined to create
> standards to make sure that future tags and readers will all be
> compatible. That work is being done at the MIT-based Auto-ID Center.

> http://www.simson.net/pipermail/simsoft/2002-October/000023.html

> An RFID Bill of Rights 
> http://www.technologyreview.com/articles/garfinkel1002.asp

Dave Phelps
Phone Masters Ltd.
deadspam=tippenring

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

Date: Sun, 6 Oct 2002 16:44:26 -0400
From: Ron Chapman 
Subject: Laugh! RIAA Sues Radio Stations For Giving Away Free Music


OK, so it's parody (at least for now).  But funny:

http://www.theonion.com/onion3836/riaa_sues_radio_stations.html

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

Date: Mon, 7 Oct 2002 08:34:01 PDT
From: Joe Harakal 
Subject: Last Laugh!  Jesus Joke


Dave Hughes wrote:
 From: "Dave Hughes" 
 To: "Ann Boyd" 
 Subject: Fw: Jesus joke
 Date: Sat, 5 Oct 2002 19:49:00 -0400

 ----- Original Message ----- Subject: Jesus joke

The bartender was washing his glasses, and an elderly Irishman came in
and with great difficulty, hoisted his bad leg over the barstool,
pulled himself up painfully, asked for a sip of Irish whiskey. The
Irishman looked down the bar and said, "Is that Jesus down there?" The
bartender nodded and the Irishman told him to give Jesus an Irish
whiskey also.

The next patron was an ailing Italian with a hunched back and slowness
of movement. He shuffled up to the barstool and asked for a glass of
Chianti.  He also looked down the bar and asked if that was Jesus
sitting down there.  The bartender nodded and the Italian said to give
Him a glass of Chianti also. 

The third patron, a redneck, swaggered in dragging his knuckles on the
floor and hollered. "Barkeep, set me up a cold one. Hey, is that God's
Boy down there?" The barkeep nodded, and the redneck told him to give
Jesus a cold one too. 

As Jesus got up to leave, he walked over ! to the Irishman and touched
him and said, "For your kindness, you are healed!" The Irishman felt
the strength come back to his leg, and he got up and danced a jig to
the door. Jesus touched the Italian and said, "For your kindness you
are healed!" The Italian felt his back straighten and he raised his
hands above his head and did a flip out the door. As Jesus walked
toward the redneck, the redneck jumped back and exclaimed, "Don't
touch me, I'm drawin' disability!"

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

TELECOM Digest is an electronic journal devoted mostly but not
exclusively to telecommunications topics. It is circulated anywhere
there is email, in addition to various telecom forums on a variety of
networks such as Compuserve and America On Line, 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: 620-870-9697
                        Fax 1: 775-255-9970
                        Fax 2: 775-306-8390
                        Fax 3: 775-642-0603
                        Fax 4: 530-309-7234
                        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 second 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)

Email <==> FTP:  telecom-archives@telecom-digest.org 

      Send a simple, one line note to that automated address for
      a help file on how to use the automatic retrieval system
      for archives files. You can get desired files in email.

*************************************************************************
*   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.
Access to Premium (P) links requires upgrade to a paid subscription.

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

Only subscribers or registered users of ICB Toll Free News web site
will be able to access all or some of the full text of URLs provided.

LEGAL STUFF: TELECOM Digest (sm) is owned by Patrick Townson.
Copyright 2000 ICB, Inc. and TELECOM Digest. All rights reserved.
Our attorney is Bill Levant, of Blue Bell, PA.

   ---------------------------------------------------------------
    
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 twenty 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 V22 #67
*****************************
    
    
From editor@telecom-digest.org Tue Oct  8 22:21:04 2002
Received: from localhost (localhost [[UNIX: localhost]])
	by massis.lcs.mit.edu (8.11.3nb1/8.11.3) id g992L4i22502;
	Tue, 8 Oct 2002 22:21:04 -0400 (EDT)
Date: Tue, 8 Oct 2002 22:21:04 -0400 (EDT)
From: editor@telecom-digest.org
Message-Id: <200210090221.g992L4i22502@massis.lcs.mit.edu>
X-Authentication-Warning: massis.lcs.mit.edu: ptownson set sender to editor@telecom-digest.org using -f
To: ptownson
Approved: patsnewlist
Subject: TELECOM Digest V22 #68

TELECOM Digest     Tue, 8 Oct 2002 22:20:00 EDT    Volume 22 : Issue 68

Inside This Issue:                           Editor: Patrick A. Townson

    Re: One ISP Who Refuses to Deal with Spam (Gordon S. Hlavenka)
    Re: One ISP Who Refuses to Deal with Spam (Scott D Fybush)
    Re: One ISP Who Refuses to Deal with Spam (Robert Bonomi)
    Re: One ISP Who Refuses to Deal with Spam (Justin Time)
    Re: One ISP Who Refuses to Deal with Spam (Raymond D. Mereniuk)
    Re: One ISP Who Refuses to Deal with Spam (David Green)
    Re: One ISP Who Refuses to Deal with Spam (JDS)
    Re: One ISP Who Refuses to Deal with Spam (Gail M. Hall)

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. WE DO NOT PERMIT NAME/EMAIL ADDRESS
HARVESTING FROM THIS JOURNAL. 'SALTED' EMAIL ADDRESSES APPEAR
HEREIN TO VERIFY THIS. YOU GET SUED IN SMALL CLAIMS COURT IF YOU
GET CAUGHT SPAMMING OR SENDING VIRUSES. DON'T DO IT.

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

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

Date: Mon, 07 Oct 2002 22:51:40 -0500
From: Gordon S. Hlavenka 
Organization: Crash Electronics, Inc.
Subject: Re: One ISP Who Refuses to Deal with Spam


TELECOM Digest Editor wrote:

> Have you ever heard of an ISP who *refuses* to do any spam filtering
> at all for fear of getting sued by users?

I'd rather not have my ISP do any filtering of incoming mail.  Much as
I hate spam (and I do!) I don't trust someone else to be making that
decision for me.  More than once I've had email fail ot go through
because of an ISP's spam filter -- in fact the last 4 or 5 things I've
submitted to TELECOM Digest have simply vanished into the ether with
no autoack from your scripts.

What I WOULD like to see is some way to trivially and accurately locate
the PERSON (not just the account) who sends an email.  Senders could
(for "privacy" reasons) choose not to include this information and I
could choose to trash any anonymous mail.


Gordon S. Hlavenka               O-             nospam@crashelex.com
                               Burma!

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

From: fybush@world.std.com (Scott D Fybush)
Subject: Re: One ISP Who Refuses to Deal with Spam
Organization: The World Public Access UNIX, Brookline, MA
Date: Tue, 8 Oct 2002 06:11:54 GMT


TELECOM Digest Editor  writes:

> Have you ever heard of an ISP who *refuses* to do any spam filtering
> at all for fear of getting sued by users?

That would be preferable to some of the recent ISP inanity I've been
dealing with. After close to a decade of using Boston's The World as
my primary ISP, I stopped using them for mail and Web hosting last
year because they began doing aggressive "spam filtering" that ended
up dumping large quantities of "real" incoming mail with no notice to
me or to the sender.

That would have been bad enough, but the once-helpful folk who ran the
ISP decided a year or two ago to disclose as little information to the
users as possible. They'll barely acknowledge that they do spam
filtering, and absolutely refuse to respond to any request to discuss
the criteria for their filters or to turn them off if a user so
desires.

So "plonk" to them, and on to my current ISP, RoadRunner cable modem
service, which has been sporadically refusing legitimate mailing-list
traffic to me. The good news here is they at least bounce it back to
the sender, which means I eventually find out I've been missing
mail. The bad news is the miserable customer service: you can get an
immediate response to questions, but not a HELPFUL immediate response,
just a script that somehow never seems to understand what I'm trying
to tell it.  (And this for a former employee of the Time Warner cable
system that supplies the service to me!)

Given the choice, I'd just as soon NOT have the ISP try to "help" me
by filtering my mail. At home on the cable modem connection, even the
biggest spam doesn't take long to download, and I have a pretty good
set of filters going on Eudora to kill it at this end. When I'm on the
road, I send my mail to a different incoming spool, which I access
through a shell account using elm (Old fashioned? Me? :-) that allows
me to delete spam without having to download or read the stuff.

Come to think of it, elm is looking better all the time ...

Anyway, the point is this: be careful what you wish for. It's a rare
ISP indeed that I would trust to filter my mail. I'd much rather do it
at my end, where I can see what I'm dumping and fix it if I get it
wrong.

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

Subject: Re: One ISP Who Refuses to Deal with Spam
Organization: Not Much
From: bonomi@c-ns (Robert Bonomi)
Date: Tue, 08 Oct 2002 10:37:53 GMT


In article , TELECOM Digest Editor
 wrote:

[[  munch  ]]

> Have you ever heard of an ISP who *refuses* to do any spam filtering
> at all for fear of getting sued by users?

*ONLY* ones that are so stupid/ignorant as to not be aware of 47 USC
230.  (which provides *absolute* immunity for an ISP, unless they are
acting in 'bad faith')

It's a good time to go shopping for a different ISP, in my opinion.

[TELECOM Digest Editor's Note: Is there a *good* DSL provider in
Independence, KS other than SWBell Telco?  AOL now offers DSL in this
echange area, but I am a little leary of them; all they do, it seems,
is broker SWBell's DSL subject to the same geographic conditions, etc.
I *must have* DSL or maybe cable modem (but the local cable [Time-
Warner]) does not offer it here. I do not want to be without high-
speed modem service for even one day. PAT]


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

From: a_user2000@yahoo.com (Justin Time)
Subject: Re: One ISP Who Refuses to Deal with Spam
Date: 8 Oct 2002 09:49:04 -0700
Organization: http://groups.google.com/


TELECOM Digest Editor  wrote in message
news::

> I found out earlier today that SBC/Prodigy (or whatever they call
> themselves these days) flatly refuse to do anything about spam.  

             << Big pair of scissors applied >>

> Have you ever heard of an ISP who *refuses* to do any spam filtering
> at all for fear of getting sued by users?

Pat,

I picked up a piece of shareware that is excellent at filtering my
e-mail.  It is not the same type of software as your "SpamAssasin", as
this does no filtering on its own.  What it does do is go out through
my ISP and look at the mail as it resides on the server, brings back
the subject, sender etc. and then asks me what I want to do with it.

It lets me put single addresses, or entire domains into a "blacklist",
identify addresses as "friends" and will identify possible spam.  I
can look at a piece of mail using this software and if it is spam,
mark it as such.  The nice thing about this software handling the mail
first is it will "bounce" a spam message back to the sender with a "no
longer a valid address" message.  Once I process the marked mail, it
will then open my personal e-mail software and download from the
server into my Outlook Express any good messages.  The nice thing
about is, the amount of spam has decreased, as the spammers think the
address is no longer valid, but my friends and family get through with
no problems.  (Once an address or domain is blacklisted, it shows up
as such in the review screen already marked as bounce and delete.)

The program was written by a fellow in New Zealand, proving once again
that KIWI does not mean "Keen Interest Without Intelligence."

If you have made it this far - the program is called MailWasher, and
for as little as $3.00 you can get it licensed with free updates.

[TELECOM Digest Editor's Note: Where do I get this?  Do you have any
address for them or a web site?  Will it work on Windows XP with 
Outlook Express?   PAT]

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

From: Raymond D. Mereniuk 
Organization: FBN Technical Services
Date: Tue, 08 Oct 2002 12:21:12 -0700
Subject: Re: One ISP Who Refuses to Deal with Spam


TELECOM Digest Editor  wrote:

> Have you ever heard of an ISP who *refuses* to do any spam filtering
> at all for fear of getting sued by users?

At the height of the dot com boom I worked in an ISP tech support
dept.  The ISP had a lot of elderly customers on one of their POPs.  A
lot of these customers would call and complain there were no messages
for them and they usually received a few every day.  A lot of
questions later I realized they were referring to spam.  Some of these
folks would check their mail hourly when they received only spam.
They looked forward to it.

There is no method of filtering for spam which is 100% accurate so the
ISP is forced to not filter as if they make one mistake they can be
sued.  Plus, some users look forward to the spam and some folks even
buy the crap spammers sell.  There was a newspaper article in recent
weeks about a spammer who sold penis enlargement kits and got busted
for fraud in Arizona.  Lots of money in the bank, lots of big ticket
assets like property and autos.  As long as spam is rewarding it will
always be a problem.  The only way to stop spam is for people to
ignore it and the spammers give up when there is no reward.

In my personal opinion the only filtering an ISP should be doing is
when they see messages coming in for John, JohnA, JohnB, etc.  This is
an obvious spammer attack.  The problem for the ISP is there is
nothing more they can do without fear of offending someone.

There is nothing to stop an ISP from offering a spam filtering service, 
where customers opt-in (and pay more), in which the ISP explicitly 
states the terms of service.  I believe most of these services are web 
based and the customers have a chance to review the spam folder 
before deleting.  I have no idea how this could be handled if the 
customer picked up messages via POP.

Outlook Express can be very painful to support.  The problem you
mentioned is very common and can be very troublesome for dialup users
connecting through a congested point of presence.

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

From: David Green 
Subject: Re: One ISP Who Refuses to Deal with Spam
Date: Tue, 8 Oct 2002 14:09:27 -0700


I hate junk mail too, but I also don't like the idea of my provider
deciding what mail am going to get what I don't.  Seems if a big
problem then I would handle it at my door through a firewall proxy.  I
know for my self I see a lot ads that drive me nuts, I also get a lot
of ads or information from companies I want.  I do buy a lot on the
net so I get mail from companies.  I know in outlook express I turned
on there filter for junk mail but it to filtered mail I wanted and
needed.

I don't know what the answer is but I would prefer my provider
erroring on the not blocking side and leave it to the user to decide
what it junk.

One thing that large file am surprised that happened since most
providers to limit the size of attachments.  One thing I do is I have
a email address just for dealing with companies on line so if I get on
some list I can dump that address without worrying about new address
for important stuff.  I then send all mail that comes in on that
address to it's own folder so it doesn't junk up my in box.  I also do
the same thing for newsletters I get from companies.

I feel your pain but I don't trust SBC to know what is junk.

IMHOB

"TELECOM Digest Editor"  wrote in message
news:telecom22.67.2@telecom-digest.org:

> I found out earlier today that SBC/Prodigy (or whatever they call
> themselves these days) flatly refuse to do anything about spam.  What
> happened is this: I use Outlook Express to get my personal
> mail. Outlook Express does POP to sbcglobal.net and a couple other
> places where I can (but rarely do) get any mail. Like most sites I use
> including Massis, I have to call daily or more often and begin
> scooping out the spam buckets at a time. Well, I failed to check the
> personal mail at all on Sunday at sbcglobal.net and when I called in
> early today there were 90 + pieces of mail, of which 89 or so were
> pure spam.

> This has happened before, where my Outlook Express got a 'wedge' in
> it from the volume of mail. The first forty or so letters came out,
> but around letter 41 or so, sbcglobal.net could not deliver it. It
> turns out that wedged email was a big, humongous virus thing. Then
> the first 39 or so spams started redelivering themselves again, and
> again. Never could get item 41 out. The sbcglobal tech I spoke with
> suggested going direct to http://swbgobalprodigy.net and getting the
> mail from there and I did that. I then got all the mail; threw it
> all out except the one thing from my brother I wanted to see.

> Then I had to go back to Outlook Express and start bailing it all out
> to the trash bin there, all 400 or so (by now) pieces of spam. I
> called back to sbcglobal and told them I want to change my name and
> ditch the old account, and why. The tech said explicitly, we do not
> filter spam at all. His argument was essentially what one person
> considers spam another person considers important mail. I asked him
> what about all the chain letter 'opportunities' and all the 'you can
> enlarge your thing several sizes', etc. He said in his personal email
> he gets all those things also but the company specifically said they
> do not intend to be in the business of 'censoring email'. He claims
> SWBell got sued once by someone whose email they filtered out who lost
> an important piece of email as a result so SWB/Prodigy decided to quit
> doing it; besides which since Prodigy got sued as a 'publisher' of a
> mailing list once they now stick totally to the common carrier
> business, refusing to filter anything at all.

> I tried to call his bluff; I said I would in that case cancel my
> account totally if they were not going to make any effort at all to
> screen out spam. I told him I also have an account for email at Yahoo
> and they at least make a half-assed attempt to set the real mail one
> place and the spam in another. He said, and I quote, 'not for much
> longer on Yahoo. We own them also now, or they own us.' He claimed
> that when you pick up email using a POP mechanism like Outlook Express
> there is no way to do it. He did say he could set me up with a second
> username  but not cancel the main one, since the main one is a control
> on the whole thing. Then, he said, also install the new name in
> Outlook Express as well, and call with POP twice on them to get mail;
> and 'let the original name and box just go to hell, fill up with
> spam until it finally starts bouncing, and on your second pass using
> the new name, get the real mail you want from there.' So I took the
> new name he established for me, then I went back to Outlook Express
> and created a new POP thing there called 'mail.sbcglobal.net' and
> titled it 'SBC Mail-2'. So far it has worked good, but I suppose the
> spammers will ruin that one eventually also.

> Have you ever heard of an ISP who *refuses* to do any spam filtering
> at all for fear of getting sued by users?

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

Subject: Re: One ISP Who Refuses to Deal with Spam
From: JDS 
Organization: Prodigy Internet http://www.prodigy.com
Date: Tue, 08 Oct 2002 22:00:10 GMT


When you ask your ISP to filter e-mail, you are asking them to examine
the content of all your incoming messages, and discard those according
to some criteria set by the ISP.  I don't think you want them to do
that.  I don't want my ISP reading my mail!

In any case, the ISP can't divert incoming POP3 messages to a
different "folder" - folders are managed by your mail client.  Perhaps
they could modify the content and add priority or classification
header ... but why bother?

The Web e-mail services (like the free Yahoo service) can filter
dubious e-mail because they reserve censorship rights as part of their
sponsored service.

Junk e-mail is a terrible annoyance, but demanding that ISPs screen 
incoming e-mail for offensive content is not the right solution.
For better ideas, visit www.cauce.org.

> ... Outlook Express ...

I don't use this product.  Surely people in this newsgroup and help
you take advantage of many UCE filters available already, and help you
clear out the inbasket on the server.

Finally, SBC does not own Yahoo and as far as I know has zero
financial investment in Yahoo.  It is unlikely that the regulators
would allow SBC to acquire Yahoo.  Yahoo is now a non-exclusive
reseller of SBC DSL, and the two companies compete in many other
marketplaces.

Another point ...  You said that SBC/Prodigy "flatly refuse to do
anything about spam."  I am quite certain that this is not true, and
is not fair to the many people at SBC/Prodigy who do their best to
fight unsolicited commercial e-mail (UCE, or "spam").

If you find out that a Web site which is hosted by SBC/Prodigy is
being advertised with UCE, and you notify SBC/Prodigy, then I predict
they will pull the plug on that Web site within minutes.

This is the most effective way to fight UCE - if sending junk e-mail
merely results in your Web site being shut down immediately, there
isn't much reason to send out junk e-mail.

For most Web sites, whois.arin.net will identify the sponsoring ISP.
If the Web site actually owns its own network (unlikely), you may be
able to use traceroute to find out the legitimate ISP that gives them
connectivity.

[TELECOM Digest Editor's Note: I do not know who owns what. All I know
is that as part of my subscription to SWBell telco's DSL offering
called 'sbcglobal.net' I received a CD in the mail from SBC/Prodigy
with a letter saying 'here is your new browser for use on the net'. It
*strongly* resembles the browser peddled by Microsoft Network (not to
be confused with Microsoft Corporation's services, although owned by
the parent Microsoft.) This new browser has SBC and Yahoo! logos all
over it with a heavy emphasis on the features of Yahoo such as radio
stations, the Yahoo banking feature which competes with PayPal, things
like MyYahoo and Yahoo search engine, all on easy to click buttons;
just punch the desired button. The accompanying letter from SBC/Yahoo
jointly gives installation instructions, and in the installation
process one choice is 'we notice that IEXPLORE is your default browser
right now. Would you like to make my.yahoo.com your new home page and
have this new browser be your default browser?' And the 'mail' feature
on this new browser defaults to Yahoo Mail but acknowledges Outlook
Express and wants to know if I want to keep Outlook instead of Yahoo
mail. 

The other thing I know is that when I asked the tech/help-desk person
at SWBglobalprodigy.net about something to filter out all the trash
I was told SWB and Prodigy do not filter for spammers. So I guess
you are wrong in saying they bounce any spammers they find. I do not
think they give a damn either way about it. I would love to ditch
swbglobal.net *if* I could find someone to take over without any
interupptions in service, etc, that is, simply take over my pairs and
continue my service as is. AOL offers 'high-speed internet service'
here in Independence, but I think all they actually do is resell SWB
service, which would be okay with me if they did it without any
hitches or other complications. I am not sure that would happen.  PAT]

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

From: Gail M. Hall 
Subject: Re: One ISP Who Refuses to Deal with Spam
Date: Tue, 08 Oct 2002 01:20:05 -0400
Reply-To: gmhall@apk.net


I will try to have SOME telecom comments in this reply.  :-)

On Mon, 7 Oct 2002 18:58:45 EDT, in comp.dcom.telecom, you (TELECOM
Digest Editor ) wrote:

> I found out earlier today that SBC/Prodigy (or whatever they call
> themselves these days) flatly refuse to do anything about spam.  

I agree with their plan to not "take care of spam" without customer
input.  This is what some other services are doing, and there are just
too many false positives!!  If we can't send non-spam e-mail to our
friends and families, then the usefulness of e-mail goes down the
tubes.

Ideally, they should let you set up a "whitelist" that will let in
your brother's messages as well as let you set up blacklists for NEVER
let these in and "Maybe" lists when you want to check first.

How would you like it if the PHONE COMPANY decided to go along with
our ideas of not letting telemarketers call us but did not let US
decide what is a telemarketing call and what isn't.  What if your
mother or your wife calls more than x times a day and the phone
company decides to call that a "spam-call" without telling you or the
person who is trying to call you?

The phone company has no right to decide for us what calls we should
get and what calls we shouldn't get.

> What happened is this: I use Outlook Express to get my personal
> mail. Outlook Express does POP to sbcglobal.net and a couple other
> places where I can (but rarely do) get any mail. Like most sites I use
> including Massis, I have to call daily or more often and begin
> scooping out the spam buckets at a time. 

If you're using Outlook, are you setting up the rules to send spam to
other folders or junk them?

If OE doesn't let you refine the rules well enough for you, switch to
Forté Agent or another good mail reader where filtering can be done
not only on sender and subject but on contents of other headers in the
message.

> Well, I failed to check the
> personal mail at all on Sunday at sbcglobal.net and when I called in
> early today there were 90 + pieces of mail, of which 89 or so were
> pure spam.

Ideally, if they don't want to help you create your own "blacklist" to
filter out spam and zap it at the server, they should increase the
amount of space allowed for storing your mail.  A person should be
able to miss a day or even several days without having to worry about
their mailbox getting full.

With KLEZ and now this new "bugbear" worm endemic in cyperspace, ISPs
should take more interest in scanning for viruses and worms themselves
and clean up the messages BEFORE they get sent to customers.

Yes, we'll still get lots of spam, but I think viruses and worms are MUCH
more problematic.

> This has happened before, where my Outlook Express got a 'wedge' in
> it from the volume of mail. 

I don't know what a wedge is, but by your description, it sounds like
some kind of corrupted file.

> The first forty or so letters came out,
> but around letter 41 or so, sbcglobal.net could not deliver it. It
> turns out that wedged email was a big, humongous virus thing. 

My sister got an account at hotmail, and she said they don't let
people delete messages there without opening them first.  I hope that
isn't true!

> Then the first 39 or so spams started redelivering themselves again, and
> again. Never could get item 41 out. The sbcglobal tech I spoke with
> suggested going direct to http://swbgobalprodigy.net and getting the
> mail from there and I did that. I then got all the mail; threw it 
> all out except the one thing from my brother I wanted to see. 

I do think that every good ISP should include virus scanning at their
end.  I know one that does this at no extra cost.  I agreed to pay
extra (very nominal price) for virus scanning at their server, and so
far it is working OK.

> Then I had to go back to Outlook Express and start bailing it all out
> to the trash bin there, all 400 or so (by now) pieces of spam. I
> called back to sbcglobal and told them I want to change my name and
> ditch the old account, and why. 

You are lucky you could find someone to talk to!  I haven't found any
phone numbers on Yahoo! to call about such problems.

When I have problems with my telephone, they have those automated
systems, but they also say to press 0 to get a live human to talk to
if you can't get what you need from their automated system.  I was
tempted to do that when I got one question and "Press 1 if yes, press
2 if no."  But they don't say what to press for "I don't know."  I
decided to answer "no" whatever didn't work just so they would be
impressed by whatever it was not working.  Anyway, it all turned out
OK in the end.  They could do some testing and see there WAS trouble.

> The tech said explicitly, we do not
> filter spam at all. His argument was essentially what one person
> considers spam another person considers important mail. I asked him
> what about all the chain letter 'opportunities' and all the 'you can
> enlarge your thing several sizes', etc. He said in his personal email
> he gets all those things also but the company specifically said they
> do not intend to be in the business of 'censoring email'. He claims
> SWBell got sued once by someone whose email they filtered out who lost
> an important piece of email as a result so SWB/Prodigy decided to quit
> doing it; besides which since Prodigy got sued as a 'publisher' of a
> mailing list once they now stick totally to the common carrier
> business, refusing to filter anything at all.

I expect that a free mail service would provide minimal help for you
because they depend on advertising for their income.  But if you are
paying for this mail service, then I think you need to shop around to
find a better ISP that can provide better support for helping you set
up spam filtering.

> Have you ever heard of an ISP who *refuses* to do any spam filtering
> at all for fear of getting sued by users?

Sure! In the years I have been with my ISP, their attitude has
shifted.  For quite a while they said they would not filter spam.
Later they tried to use a blacklist from some service and would not
accept mail from certain domains without regard if it was spam or not.
I complained about that because I had people I wanted to hear from at
one of the banned domains.  Their answer was that if people knew they
were subscribing to a spam-friendly service, being banned would
pressure them to change services.  But it didn't take long for them to
stop banning based on domain.

Now they do not accept mail from any domain with an open relay.  They
have also instituted USER CONFIGURABLE spam filtering.  The users must
be the ones to set up who they want in or not.  This is the best plan.

But spammers use methods like telemarketers do.  Once telemarketers
find out you will not answer calls from "unknown" numbers, they will
put fake numbers in your caller ID.

Spammers fake their return addresses, use multiple names and
addresses, and use innocuous subjects that could just as easily come
from friends.  I never write "Hi there" in a subject any more.

When a company finds that misuse causes them problems, they will do
something about it.  I am glad that phone companies have set up limits
to how long a phone can be allowed to ring.  It used to be that if
someone dialed a number that didn't answer and didn't hang up long
enough before making a second call, the phone "thought" you were
dialing to get a third party on the line.  When they were hooked up to
our dictating system and did not press the 5 key to disconnect, the
dictation equipment stayed connected.  Next morning we would get to
work and find hours and hours of the sound of the phone ringing
somewhere because that party wasn't there.  Now after a certain number
of rings, the phone system somewhere stops the calling attempt and
disconnects the caller's line.  This frees up telecom equipment as
well as keeps the recording equipment for the dictation system free of
such garbage.

Maybe you can see if you can find a "mom & pop" run ISP in your area
that will give you better service.  Some of them do include dsl
service.

Here we are seeing lots of advertising to get SBC/Yahoo highspeed
internet service.  But there are local services here that also provide
high-speed service.  The phone lines might be provided by SBC
Ameritech, but the Internet part, the e-mail, news, etc., will be run
by the net-savvy ISP people, not some far-off national company who
still gets most of their income from advertising.

Gail from Ohio USA

[TELECOM Digest Editor's Note: Our local ISP here in Independence is a
firm called 'Terra World' located in the Arco Corporate Center on 9th
and Main Streets. I have a dial-up account with terraworld.net and in
fact worked there for a few months back in 2000 before my troubles
started. I still have my 56 K modem card in the computer, and dial up
through them now and then. My Outlook Express POPs over to them for
mail at the same time as checking sbcglobal.net and indy.ks.net. The
trouble is my speed is much faster using DSL and I don't have to give
up my phone line as happens with the local ISP. Terra World does
filter for spam however, using what they call 'SpamGuard'. Each user
can toggle it on or off as desired.  Toggling it on causes messages
considered spam to be put in a 'bulk mail' folder. You can go through
and zap it all instantly, after a cursory examination.

Terra World serves Independence and Coffeyville and the other little
towns around here. When I worked there for a few months in 2000, I
worked in the switchroom with a bunch of eighteen and nineteen year
old guys which made me feel out of place. There were four or five of
us on each shift, day and evening, taking help-desk calls from
customers. I understand Terra World has since been sold to some outfit
out of Kansas City, but they kept all the local servers and help-desk
functions here in Independence as they always had been, but the guys
now operate by remote control via the Kansas City office for many
functions.

What I need: good, reliable high speed service, and a filter which
will work with Outlook Express. Any ideas? Also, I have a very good
thing here called 'Proxomitron' which sits on port 8080 and totally
zaps advertising and pop-ups when using my Internet Explorer browser
or my Opera browser or the new SBC/Yahoo browser. But guess which web
site won't have anything to do with it: Yahoo, or any of its family
including my.yahoo, pictures.yahoo, news.yahoo, etc. Yahoo absolutely
throws a fit when I come around using Proxomitron, because it says
I won't accept cookies. If I knew Proxomitron better, supposedly I can
adjust it to accept cookies from Yahoo only. But these days I get too
tired, too easily and lose patience trying to figure those things
out. Oh how I wish I still had my brains like I used to!  PAT] 

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

TELECOM Digest is an electronic journal devoted mostly but not
exclusively to telecommunications topics. It is circulated anywhere
there is email, in addition to various telecom forums on a variety of
networks such as Compuserve and America On Line, 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: 620-870-9697
                        Fax 1: 775-255-9970
                        Fax 2: 775-306-8390
                        Fax 3: 775-642-0603
                        Fax 4: 530-309-7234
                        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 second 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)

Email <==> FTP:  telecom-archives@telecom-digest.org 

      Send a simple, one line note to that automated address for
      a help file on how to use the automatic retrieval system
      for archives files. You can get desired files in email.

*************************************************************************
*   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.
Access to Premium (P) links requires upgrade to a paid subscription.

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

Only subscribers or registered users of ICB Toll Free News web site
will be able to access all or some of the full text of URLs provided.

LEGAL STUFF: TELECOM Digest (sm) is owned by Patrick Townson.
Copyright 2000 ICB, Inc. and TELECOM Digest. All rights reserved.
Our attorney is Bill Levant, of Blue Bell, PA.

   ---------------------------------------------------------------
    
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 twenty 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 V22 #68
*****************************
    
    
From editor@telecom-digest.org Tue Oct  8 23:56:06 2002
Received: from localhost (localhost [[UNIX: localhost]])
	by massis.lcs.mit.edu (8.11.3nb1/8.11.3) id g993u6223361;
	Tue, 8 Oct 2002 23:56:06 -0400 (EDT)
Date: Tue, 8 Oct 2002 23:56:06 -0400 (EDT)
From: editor@telecom-digest.org
Message-Id: <200210090356.g993u6223361@massis.lcs.mit.edu>
X-Authentication-Warning: massis.lcs.mit.edu: ptownson set sender to editor@telecom-digest.org using -f
To: ptownson
Approved: patsnewlist
Subject: TELECOM Digest V22 #69

TELECOM Digest     Tue, 8 Oct 2002 23:56:00 EDT    Volume 22 : Issue 69

Inside This Issue:                           Editor: Patrick A. Townson

    AT&T Billing Disaster (Dr. Joel M. Hoffman)
    Re: Squirrels (busbar)
    Re: Squirrels (Howard S Wharton)
    Re: Squirrels (Kenneth P. Stox)
    News Headlines of Interest 10/8/02 (Monty Solomon)
    Re: One ISP Who Refuses to Deal with Spam (Dave Phelps)
    Re: One ISP Who Refuses to Deal with Spam (Jim Thompson)
    Re: Advice on Small Business Phone System (Danny Ocean)
    Re: 1-800-CALLLAT (Steven J. Sobol)
    Re: 800-555-TELL (was Last Laugh / BAD User Interfaces) (Steven J. Sobol)
    Re: Motorola's Symphony Digital Radio Chipset (Scott Dorsey)

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. WE DO NOT PERMIT NAME/EMAIL ADDRESS
HARVESTING FROM THIS JOURNAL. 'SALTED' EMAIL ADDRESSES APPEAR
HEREIN TO VERIFY THIS. YOU GET SUED IN SMALL CLAIMS COURT IF YOU
GET CAUGHT SPAMMING OR SENDING VIRUSES. DON'T DO IT.

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

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

Subject: AT&T Billing Disaster
Organization: Excelsior Computer Services
From: joel@exc.com (Dr. Joel M. Hoffman)
Date: Tue, 08 Oct 2002 16:52:09 GMT


In September I wrote that AT&T quoted me one rate when I signed up for
a calling plan, and then charged me another, much higher rate.  The
difference was about $500 this summer.  The episode has ended, and the
short story is that AT&T didn't call me back about the dispute, and
then, even though the charges are in dispute, cut off my service.

In more detail:

1.  I called customer service and told them I was disputing the
    charges.

2.  I asked to speak to a supervisor, and was told none was available,
    but that someone would call me within 24 hours.

3.  No supervisor ever called.

4.  I got a phone call from AT&T collections.  I told them I was
    disputing the charges.  They asked me if I had told customer
    service, and I told them I had.  They said that's all they needed
    to know.

5.  In spite of the facts that :

	A.  the charges are in dispute;
        B.  customer service knows the charges are in dispute;
	C.  AT&T collections knows the charges are in dispute;
	D.  AT&T has not returned my calls.

    AT&T cut off my service this morning.

6.  I paid the charges because I want to convenience of +1 LD dialing.

They win, as usual, even if by theft.


-Joel

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

From: busbar 
Subject: Re: Squirrels
Organization: Prodigy Internet http://www.prodigy.com
Date: Mon, 07 Oct 2002 23:16:17 GMT


http://www.powerlineman.com/pictures/2002/july/berg/berg8.MVC-009S.jpg
http://gashog.net/imag/squirbit.jpg
http://www.powerlineman.com/pictures/2001/romain/Jay%20&%202.BigBird.jpg
http://www.powerlineman.com/pictures/2001/september/xbird.jpg

s falke

Gail M. Hall  wrote in message
news:telecom22.66.3@telecom-digest.org:

> I wonder how many telephone repairpeople have jobs today because of the
> work of squirrels.

> If there were no squirrels to chew the wires up, how many telephone
> repairpersons would be laid off?

> Maybe this is just an Ohio thing.  Well, no, but how often do you hear
> people talking about the squirrel problem.

> My "data" phone went dead.

> When I called repair using another phone, the recorded announcement
> informed me that I could find out about the status of my trouble
> report by going on the Internet.  Uh, right!  IF I plug my modem into
> another phone line.  Some people have only one phone line, though.
> Are they encouraging us to sign up for cable access?   hiding>

> Over the years it seems the main reason for my having to call repair
> turned out to be squirrels.

> I wonder what it is about phone lines that is so tasty to squirrels.
> We have tons of nuts and acorns and such goodies they can choose from.
> So why chew on those skinny little phone lines?

> Give them half a chance, and squirrels will eat a hole right into your
> house and make themselves at home there.  Getting rid of them is more
> than an annoyance.  Repairing the damage they do can be expensive.

> They are not as numerous or as troublesome as rats, but they are
> related.

> To give [SBC] Ameritech credit where credit is due, I want to say that
> they had the person here to repair the phone within the time promised
> over the phone when I called.  And the man sounded and acted like he
> knew what he was doing.  He was also very good at communicating what
> he was doing each step of the way.

> I wonder when scientists will invent a coating for telephone wires
> that will taste so bad to squirrels that they will never want to chew
> on them again.

> I know that this is not just an Ohio problem.  One of the drivers of
> the Internet Tourbus has encountered them down in Alabama and even
> named his web site for squirrels.  Check this out.

> His sig is best seen with a monospaced font.

>
> =========== [ Quote ] ============================
>
>            .~~~.  ))
>  (\__/)  .'     )  ))       Patrick Douglas Crispen
>  /o o  \/     .~
> {o_,    \    {              crispen@netsquirrel.com
>   / ,  , )    \           http://www.netsquirrel.com/
>   `~  '-' \    } ))    AOL Instant Messenger: Squirrel2K
>  _(    (   )_.'
> '---..{____}                  Warning: squirrels.
>
>
> ======= [ End Quoted Text ] =========================

> Gail from Ohio USA

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

From: Howard S Wharton 
Subject: Re: Squirrels
Date: Mon, 7 Oct 2002 20:55:28 -0400
Organization: University at Buffalo


They also love cable TV lines. Few years ago they chewed through the
coating on the fiber on the main line running along my backyard. Lost
my high end channels for three months till they fixed the problem. YEP ...
my cable company is Adelphia and that problem was three years ago.


Howard S. Wharton
Fire Safety Technician
Occupational and Environmental Safety Services
State University of New York at Buffalo

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

From: Kenneth P. Stox 
Subject: Re: Squirrels
Date: Mon, 07 Oct 2002 22:44:49 -0500
Organization: Imaginary Landscape, LLC.


Gail M. Hall wrote:

> My "data" phone went dead.  

Data phone, that explains it, the squirrels were after the tasty bits. ;->

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

Date: Tue, 8 Oct 2002 00:35:22 -0400
From: Monty Solomon 
Subject: News Headlines of Interest  10/8/02


EchoStar, Hughes to offer antitrust changes

WASHINGTON, Oct 7 (Reuters) - EchoStar Communications Corp. and 
Hughes Electronics told regulators on Monday offered to make "major 
revisions" to their proposed merger in an effort to win approval from 
the U.S. Justice Department.

In a letter to the U.S. Federal Communications Commission asking that 
agency to hold off its own verdict on the deal, the companies said 
they plan further meetings with the with Justice Department to 
discuss additional antitrust "remedies" to make the deal palatable to 
regulators.

http://finance.lycos.com/home/news/story.asp?story=28983184

(Another version of same story).

     EchoStar, Hughes Ask FCC for Delay

By ROBERT GEHRKE
Associated Press Writer
  
  WASHINGTON (AP) - EchoStar Communications Corp. and Hughes
Electronics asked federal regulators Monday to delay a decision on
their proposed $26 billion merger, which would create the largest
pay-TV service in the country.

  In a letter to Michael Powell, chairman of the Federal
Communications Commission, the companies asked for more time to
discuss the possibility of major revisions with the Justice
Department, which is reviewing the merger for antitrust
implications.

  It says the companies have agreed to submit proposed remedies
which will be discussed with the Justice Department on Oct. 28.
Company spokesmen would not elaborate what types of changes are
being contemplated.

 http://finance.lycos.com/home/news/story.asp?story=28985927


     Feds Probe Digital TV Piracy Furor


By SETH HETTENA
Associated Press Writer
  
  SAN DIEGO (AP) - The Justice Department is investigating
allegations that a company controlled by Rupert Murdoch's News
Corp. hacked a rival's protection technology and distributed the
information on the Internet.

  The U.S. Attorney's office in San Diego served employees of NDS
Americas, Inc. in Newport Beach with 31 subpoenas for documents
last week, officials said Monday.

  The Justice inquiry mirrors claims made earlier this year in a
federal lawsuit filed in San Jose by Vivendi Universal's
Paris-based Canal Plus Group, NDS said in a statement. Justice
officials declined comment.

  In a statement, NDS called the allegations 'baseless' and blamed
them on rivals seeking to harm the company. NDS officials said they
intend to cooperate fully with federal investigators.

  According to the complaint, NDS spent millions to crack the software
in Canal Plus' smart cards, which, when installed in top-set boxes,
allow subscribers to watch scrambled digital TV signals.

     - http://finance.lycos.com/home/news/story.asp?story=28985959

              TiVo Raises $25 Million in Common Stock Offering

    - Sells shares at a 3% premium to market
    - Potential for additional investment at $5.00 per share

    SAN JOSE, Calif., Oct. 7 /PRNewswire-FirstCall/ -- TiVo Inc.,
(NASDAQ:TIVO) the creator of and leader in television services for
digital video recording, today announced that it signed a definitive
agreement for the sale of $25 million of common stock to institutional
investors.  TiVo will sell 6.96 million shares at $3.59 per share, a
price based on a 3% premium to the trailing 10-day average closing
price.  In addition, TiVo will issue warrants to purchase 2.6 million
shares of common stock at an exercise price of $5.00 per share.  The
investors are Crosslink Capital, an institutional investor focused on
growth equity, and New Enterprise Associates, one of TiVo's founding
investors.

http://finance.lycos.com/home/news/story.asp?story=28987285


FCC seen blocking Hughes deal  EchoStar's $18 billion purchase in jeopardy
By Yochi J. Dreazen and Andy Pasztor
THE WALL STREET JOURNAL

Oct. 7 - Federal regulators are poised to block EchoStar
Communications Corp.'s $18 billion acquisition of rival Hughes
Electronics Corp. in a vote that could take place as early as Monday,
according to people familiar with the matter.

        BARRING A MAJOR, last-minute concession from the two
satellite-television providers - a prospect that many industry
officials over the weekend said still was possible - at least three of
the four members of the Federal Communications Commission are set to
cast votes rejecting the deal, according to people knowledgeable about
the matter. FCC Chairman Michael Powell is among those opposing the
deal, these people said.

        The FCC staff recommended two weeks ago that the commissioners
block the proposed transaction, arguing that allowing the creation of
a virtual monopoly in direct-to-home satellite broadcasting would
reduce consumer choice and wouldn't be in the public interest.
Mr. Powell, in a television interview Friday, said the agency's
decision on the deal was "imminent," though he declined to confirm the
commission's intention to block it. He added that the decision "could
be days away."

http://www.msnbc.com/news/818133.asp

NBC nears deal for Bravo channel; 
To swap stake of Rainbow Media for full ownership

By Robert Frank, Emily Nelson and Peter Grant
THE WALL STREET JOURNAL

NEW YORK, Oct. 7 - Cablevision Systems Corp. is nearing an agreement 
to sell the Bravo entertainment channel to NBC for about $1.2 billion 
in a deal that could end a spat between the two companies, people 
familiar with the matter say.

        THE DISCUSSIONS, WHICH have periodically gained and lost 
momentum, still may not result in a deal, these people cautioned. The 
Dolan family, which controls Cablevision, has been close to selling 
Bravo and other assets in the past but backed out at the last minute.

       Under the scenario currently being discussed, General Electric
Co.'s NBC wants to swap all or part of its stake in Rainbow Media
Holdings, a Cablevision programming subsidiary, for ownership of the
Bravo channel. In a filing with the Securities and Exchange Commission
Friday, NBC stated that it "from time to time considers various
strategic transactions" with its shareholding in Cablevision,
including sales and acquisitions of selected Cablevision assets. It
stated that "there is no certainty that any transaction involving
[Cablevision] will occur." NBC and Cablevision declined to comment.

http://www.msnbc.com/news/818116.asp

Wireless phone use in Boston seen high

By Peter J. Howe, Globe Staff, 10/8/2002

Boston ranks as one of the most wired cities in the United States, 
with more than three out of five people owning a cellphone, according 
to a survey released yesterday by Telephia Inc., an independent San 
Francisco research firm.

At 61 percent, Boston's level of cellphone ownership is 10 percentage 
points higher than the nationwide average of 51 percent in 44 large 
metropolitan areas surveyed by Telephia. Several cities in the South 
led the list, topped by Greenville, S.C., which ranked number one 
with 68 percent of all residents carrying a cellphone, followed by 
Atlanta, St. Louis, Raleigh, N.C., and Orlando, Fla.

Total US metropolitan market penetration ranges from 68 to 44 percent,
but Telephia does not break out numbers for all cities or identify any
below the national average. Washington, D.C., tied with Boston at 61
percent.

Survey leaders and industry analysts cited several possible
explanations for Boston's high wireless usage, including its large
numbers of college students and high-tech workers - groups that are
especially avid wireless users - and above-average disposable income
allowing more people to afford a cellphone.



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

From: Dave Phelps 
Subject: Re: One ISP Who Refuses to Deal with Spam
Date: Tue, 8 Oct 2002 22:19:48 -0500
Organization: Posted via Supernews, http://www.supernews.com


In article , a_user2000@yahoo.com 
says:

> If you have made it this far - the program is called MailWasher, and
> for as little as $3.00 you can get it licensed with free updates.

> [TELECOM Digest Editor's Note: Where do I get this?  Do you have any
> address for them or a web site?  Will it work on Windows XP with 
> Outlook Express?   PAT]

Yes, I'm using it with XP and OE. There are quite a few features that 
could be added, but I like it enough to continue using it. 


Dave Phelps
Phone Masters Ltd.
deadspam=tippenring

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

From: Jim Thompson  
Subject: Re: One ISP Who Refuses to Deal with Spam
Date: Wed, 09 Oct 2002 02:29:38 GMT
Organization: Cox Communications


On Mon, 07 Oct 2002 22:51:40 -0500, Gordon S. Hlavenka 
 in article: ,
wrote the following:

> TELECOM Digest Editor wrote:

>> Have you ever heard of an ISP who *refuses* to do any spam filtering
>> at all for fear of getting sued by users?

> I'd rather not have my ISP do any filtering of incoming mail.  Much as
> I hate spam (and I do!) I don't trust someone else to be making that
> decision for me.  More than once I've had email fail ot go through
> because of an ISP's spam filter -- in fact the last 4 or 5 things I've
> submitted to TELECOM Digest have simply vanished into the ether with
> no autoack from your scripts.

> What I WOULD like to see is some way to trivially and accurately locate
> the PERSON (not just the account) who sends an email.  Senders could
> (for "privacy" reasons) choose not to include this information and I
> could choose to trash any anonymous mail.

> Gordon S. Hlavenka               O-             nospam@crashelex.com

I agree ... I just dumped my ISP for over-doing their SPAM filtering.

What I think might work is some kind of system where every link in the
chain checks the origination address for validity ... E-mail with
illicit addresses get trashed.  That would narrow down the local
(receiving end) SPAM filtering to a manageable level.


|  James E.Thompson, P.E.                           |    mens     |
|  Analog Innovations, Inc.                         |     et      |
|  Analog/Mixed-Signal ASIC's and Discrete Systems  |    manus    |
|  Phoenix, Arizona            Voice:(480)460-2350  |             |
|  Jim-T@analog_innovations.com  Fax:(480)460-2142  |  Brass Rat  |
|       http://www.analog-innovations.com           |    1962     |

            For proper E-mail replies SWAP "-" and "_"
             
I love to cook with wine.      Sometimes I even put it in the food.             
------------------------------

From: vipvideo@onebox.com (Danny Ocean)
Subject: Re: Advice on Small Business Phone System
Date: 8 Oct 2002 20:09:48 -0700
Organization: http://groups.google.com/


David  wrote in message:

> Our office phone system is 11 years old (NEC Electra 824) and has
> never skipped a beat. There hasn't really ever been a reason to
> upgrade; as they say "If it aint broke, then don't fix
> it. 

And ... when your out-dated, out-moded, un-repairable NEC Electra 824
skips its final beat at the beginning of a busy work-week? What will
you do ... what WILL you do?


D. Ocean
Miami, FLA

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

From: sjsobol@JustThe.net (Steven J. Sobol)
Subject: Re: 1-800-CALLLAT
Date: Tue, 08 Oct 2002 18:48:20 -0000
Organization: JustThe.net LLC


> From 'JimWeiss@aol.com' :
> Date: Fri, 17 May 2002 16:51:51 -0400
> From: "cgbnews" 
> Subject: CGB NEWS

> The Consumer & Governmental Affairs Bureau has recently posted a
> consumer alert on what has become known as *fat finger dialing*.

> Fat finger dialing is a new scheme that can result in consumers paying
> several times more than expected.  The scheme goes something like
> this: You place a collect call from a public phone or payphone,
> intending to use a service like 1-800-CALL-ATT or 1-800-COLLECT.  But
> you misspell or hit an incorrect button when dialing.  You
> accidentally dial something like 1-800-CALLLAT.

My favorite mistake, or at least the one I make most often, is
1-800-255-5288 which gets me another long distance carrier other than
ATT. 800-callATT is 800-2*2*5-5288.


Steve Sobol, CTO  JustThe.net LLC, Mentor On The Lake, OH
http://JustTheNetLLC.com/ http://JustThe.net/ 888.480.4NET (4638)
Verizon Nokia 3285 for sale; six months old, runs perfectly. Also
should work fine on Alltel. Lots of goodies for $100 obo-e-mail for details.

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

From: sjsobol@JustThe.net (Steven J. Sobol)
Subject: Re: 800-555-TELL (was Last Laugh / BAD User Interfaces)
Date: Tue, 08 Oct 2002 18:56:05 -0000
Organization: JustThe.net LLC


> From 'Mark J Cuccia' :

> Ummm, Pat ...

> As much as I *DESPISE* Pilgrim Tel and similar tele-sleaze/etc., the
> 800- number that DarkFiber refers to, 800-555-8355, is *NOT* *NOT*
> *NOT* a number of any "service"(?) from Pilgrim Tel.

> 800-555-8355 (8355 = TELL), is a number of a *** BONA-FIDE / LEGIT ***
> information service (weather, stock quotes, etc.etc.) from an entity
> called "Tell-Me". The 800 routing is provided by AT&T, and I think
> that Tell-Me has either become a subsidiary of AT&T or else it is some
> kind of joint venture involving AT&T.

I tried 800-555-Tell recently within the past few weeks as an
alternative to Moviefone, which sucks. (I'm tired of calling and
spending two minutes listening to AOL's branding idiocy. And I have
to either call long distance from home, and pay for the call, or call
from the cell and pay for the call if it's not on a weekend.)

It actually worked, and I even ordered over movie tickets the phone.
It was quick, and much easier than Moviefone.

I'll keep an eye on my phone bill, as I always do, for bogus charges.
But I hope that 555-Tell is 100% legitimate, because I'd like to use
it again.

> I don't know if the 800-555-8355 services are ad/sponsor supported or

Radio ads that have run here suggest sponsor-supported.

Pat, was your routing to Pilgrim, perhaps, a problem with your local
telco?


Steve Sobol, CTO  JustThe.net LLC, Mentor On The Lake, OH
http://JustTheNetLLC.com/ http://JustThe.net/ 888.480.4NET (4638)
Verizon Nokia 3285 for sale; six months old, runs perfectly. Also
should work fine on Alltel. Lots of goodies for $100 obo-e-mail for details.

[TELECOM Digest Editor's Note: It may have been a problem with SWB or
it may have been 'fat finger dialing'.  PAT]

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

From: kludge@panix.com (Scott Dorsey)
Subject: Re: Motorola's Symphony Digital Radio Chipset
Date: 8 Oct 2002 14:25:30 -0400
Organization: Former users of Netcom shell (1989-2000)


Ed Ellers   wrote:

> Scott Dorsey  wrote:

>> If people really wanted better signal reception, why not make radios
>> with decent RF sections instead?

> Perhaps because signal strength often isn't the problem?

When low signal strength isn't the problem, high signal strength causing
overload and adjacent-channel interference is.

>> As far as AM audio quality goes, it's horrifying to hear how bad
>> most modern radios sound compared with the cheapest of old
>> All-American Five sets from the fifties.

> Mostly because of narrow bandpass, to keep down the chatter from
> stations on adjacent channels, which has been getting worse and worse
> over the past few decades (with a few exceptions).

Partly, and partly it's because the bandpass filters used in most
radios really stink.  They aren't very sharp, so they wind up having
serious audible effects well below the cutoff point.  This is because
tunable IF stages require chokes that cost money.

>> It's also very interesting to compare them at the ability to pick up
>> marginal signals.

> Most solid-state AM radios (aside from car radios) use a ferrite-core loop
> (this used to be called a "Loopstick," which was someone's trademark, I've
> forgotten who), while tube radios often used a much larger loop which
> therefore had a larger capture area.

No, the old AA-5 radios used a similar loopstick design.  A little bit
physically larger, but not by much.  What made the AA-5 radios better
was improved sensitivity and selectivity and there is NO EXCUSE for
that.  The AA-5 sets were the cheapest of the cheap radios in the
fifties and sixties and there is no reason for radios today to be so
much worse.


scott
"C'est un Nagra.  C'est suisse, et tres, tres precis."

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

TELECOM Digest is an electronic journal devoted mostly but not
exclusively to telecommunications topics. It is circulated anywhere
there is email, in addition to various telecom forums on a variety of
networks such as Compuserve and America On Line, 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: 620-870-9697
                        Fax 1: 775-255-9970
                        Fax 2: 775-306-8390
                        Fax 3: 775-642-0603
                        Fax 4: 530-309-7234
                        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 second 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)

Email <==> FTP:  telecom-archives@telecom-digest.org 

      Send a simple, one line note to that automated address for
      a help file on how to use the automatic retrieval system
      for archives files. You can get desired files in email.

*************************************************************************
*   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.
Access to Premium (P) links requires upgrade to a paid subscription.

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

Only subscribers or registered users of ICB Toll Free News web site
will be able to access all or some of the full text of URLs provided.

LEGAL STUFF: TELECOM Digest (sm) is owned by Patrick Townson.
Copyright 2000 ICB, Inc. and TELECOM Digest. All rights reserved.
Our attorney is Bill Levant, of Blue Bell, PA.

   ---------------------------------------------------------------
    
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 twenty 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 V22 #69
*****************************
    
    
From editor@telecom-digest.org Wed Oct  9 01:44:31 2002
Received: from localhost (localhost [[UNIX: localhost]])
	by massis.lcs.mit.edu (8.11.3nb1/8.11.3) id g995iV024327;
	Wed, 9 Oct 2002 01:44:31 -0400 (EDT)
Date: Wed, 9 Oct 2002 01:44:31 -0400 (EDT)
From: editor@telecom-digest.org
Message-Id: <200210090544.g995iV024327@massis.lcs.mit.edu>
X-Authentication-Warning: massis.lcs.mit.edu: ptownson set sender to editor@telecom-digest.org using -f
To: ptownson
Approved: patsnewlist
Subject: TELECOM Digest V22 #70

TELECOM Digest     Wed, 9 Oct 2002 01:45:00 EDT    Volume 22 : Issue 70

Inside This Issue:                           Editor: Patrick A. Townson

    Western Electric or Northern Electric 555 Switchboard (John Arnold)
    Re: 25 Cent Verizon Payphones Return to NYC (Steven J. Sobol)
    Re: The Neighborhood All-in-One Service (Steven J. Sobol)
    BULLJIVE: Telemarketer Claims 99+% Public Support (M. J. Poirier)
    Panda.com (Joey Lindstrom)
    Re: AntiSpam Screening Algorithm (Wes Leatherock)
    Re: AntiSpam Screening Algorithm (Ross Oliver)
    Re: Norstar ICS 4.0 and Music on Hold (Dave Phelps)
    Re: Mail, Phone, Fax Forwarding Services? (Name Withheld)
    Re: Ze Death Of Ze Net (Kenneth Becker)
    Last Laugh!  Another Jesus Joke (Danny Ocean)

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. WE DO NOT PERMIT NAME/EMAIL ADDRESS
HARVESTING FROM THIS JOURNAL. 'SALTED' EMAIL ADDRESSES APPEAR
HEREIN TO VERIFY THIS. YOU GET SUED IN SMALL CLAIMS COURT IF YOU
GET CAUGHT SPAMMING OR SENDING VIRUSES. DON'T DO IT.

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

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

Subject: Western Electric or Northern Electric 555 Switchboard
From: John.Arnold@Certegy.Com
Date: Tue, 8 Oct 2002 07:53:42 -0400


Good morning!

My name is John Arnold and I ran across your web site while searching
with Netscape.  I am a amateur antique telephone collector.  I have
been since I was a small child.

Here in the past few years I have become increasingly more interested
in switchboards.  I acquired a WE 555 board, however it had been
gutted and is beyond repair.

I also acquired a GTE TAS switchboard, that has never been placed in
service.

My questions for you:

Do you know of anyone or company in the Florida that does repair work
to these boards?

Also, do you know where I could purchase a reconditioned WE/NE 555
switchboard?

I have been both to ACTA and TCI, I did not have any luck with either
one of them.  I also went to TPofA, and found someone locally, however
he proved to be less than reliable.

As far as the boards are concerned, I located a man named Bruce at
Cargil Switchboard in Canada, and paid for a board, then he canceled
the order because he was not able to refurbish the board due to lack
of staff.

Any information that you could provide would be great!  Thanking you
in advance for your assistance!


Personal regards,

John Arnold


[TELECOM Digest Editor's Note: Well John, let's check with the readers
and see if any can offer any suggestions.   PAT]

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

From: sjsobol@JustThe.net (Steven J. Sobol)
Subject: Re: 25 Cent Verizon Payphones Return to NYC
Date: Tue, 08 Oct 2002 18:49:44 -0000
Organization: JustThe.net LLC


'Daniel Salomon'  wrote:

> Verizon has decided to lower the cost of local pay phone calls back to
> 25 cents, from 50 cents, at many locations in New York City.  It seems
> they realized that the way to handle increased competition is not to
> raise prices.  Phones at airports and hotels will remain at 50 cents.

 ... where they can get away screwing cell-less people out of their
money because the majority of those people won't or can't leave the
airport to go somewhere else to make a call.

Effin' phone companies ...


Steve Sobol, CTO  JustThe.net LLC, Mentor On The Lake, OH
http://JustTheNetLLC.com/ http://JustThe.net/ 888.480.4NET (4638)
Verizon Nokia 3285 for sale; six months old, runs perfectly. Also
should work fine on Alltel. Lots of goodies for $100 obo-e-mail for details.

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

From: sjsobol@JustThe.net (Steven J. Sobol)
Subject: Re: The Neighborhood All-in-One Service - was Re: News Headlines
Date: Tue, 08 Oct 2002 19:01:48 -0000
Organization: JustThe.net LLC


'Gail M. Hall'  wrote:

> I wonder how SBC feels about this.  We are in SBC-land (we are in
> Ameritech, formerly Ohio Bell territory) and what happens if we are a
> subscriber to The Neighborhood service regarding repairs.  Who comes
> out and repairs the wires when the squirrels chew them up again or a
> wind storm blows limbs on the lines and breaks them?

Corecomm, which resells Ameritech, beats the hell out of Ameritech
until they fix your line. Probably the same with AT&T. And any given
reseller will have much more of a say in what Ameritech does than an
individual. I don't know if AT&T or MCI, the other local providers in
Cleveland, resell Ameritech or not. I know for a fact that Corecomm
does.


Steve Sobol, CTO  JustThe.net LLC, Mentor On The Lake, OH
http://JustTheNetLLC.com/ http://JustThe.net/ 888.480.4NET (4638)
Verizon Nokia 3285 for sale; six months old, runs perfectly. Also
should work fine on Alltel. Lots of goodies for $100 obo - e-mail for details.
------------------------------

From: M. J. Poirier 
Subject: BULLJIVE: Telemarketer Claims 99+% Support for Prerecorded Calls
Date: Tue, 08 Oct 2002 12:11:46 -0700
Organization: Posted via Supernews, http://www.supernews.com


Mark Crispin wrote:

> In a letter dated September 25, 2002, OneSetPrice, an Orlando FL based
> telemarketer which uses prerecorded calls to advertise "seminars" for
> "business opportunity programs" or "seller assisted marketing plans",
> says that "a very few people, a very small fraction of 1%, objects to
> the manner in which it is doing business."

BULLJIVE!

[TELECOM Digest Editor's Note: In this family-oriented Digest, I 
decided to replace a common ephitat which begins with 'bull----'
and use the more acceptable bulljive instead. But you may replace
bulljive with the word which was there if you wish.   PAT]
------------------------------

From: Joey Lindstrom 
Date: Tue, 08 Oct 2002 17:23:00 -0600
Subject: Panda.com
Reply-To: joey@garynuman.info


On Mon, 7 Oct 2002 18:04:31 -0400 (EDT), Mark Crispin wrote:

> Date: Sat, 5 Oct 2002 20:49:21 -0700
> From: Mark Crispin 
> Subject: Telemarketer Claims 99+% Public Support for Prerecorded Calls
> Organization: Pandamonium Reigns



I tried to reply to you via private email, but the panda.com mail
server seems to be rejecting all email.  I've tried from three of my
own servers plus four others, all of which are "secure".  The
rejection message says to consult www.dsbl.org, but none of the IP's
of any of these servers is in that blackhole database, leading me to
conclude that panda.com is having the same problem that Earthlink had
a week or two back (and which got some mention in this forum): due to
a configuration foulup, everybody's getting blocked, spammer or no.

Since your question touched on whether or not your host would protect
your interests, and since your ISP isn't allowing your mail to come
through (btw: they are blocking long before my servers tell them who
the mail is from or to, the blocking is happening before the EHLO),
you definitely might want to consider moving elsewhere.

Given that your site is definitely one that I'd like to support, I'm
certainly interested in volunteering to host it (free of charge).  If
you'd like a reference, feel free to get in touch with Dave Leibold,
who runs the World Telephone Numbering Guide at:

http://www.wtng.info

(which I also host here)

/ From the desk of Joey Lindstrom

/ "Unix is the answer, but only if you phrase the question very carefully."
/         --lidl@eng.umd.edu

[TELECOM Digest Editor's Note: And you see, Joey, not everyone has the 
patience you have to try and figure out these foulups. So, ze death of
ze net will come when enough people get burned out and quit trying to
outwit the people who try to outwit the spammers. No one thing will be
enough to give the death pronouncement, just all sorts of little
things like perfectly good messages getting turned away from perfectly
good servers while the proprietors try to fight spam. For instance, I
am going to attempt, tonight, to install the MailWasher thing that 
someone mentioned in the last issue. If tomorrow here, I am nervous
and figidty, you'll know the reason why. I am still trying to get
Proxomitron to work correctly at getting me back to 1994 style web 
browsing, maybe I should leave MailWasher for another day, or is it
to much to expect email and web browsing to remain as I remember them?
PAT]

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

From: wesrock@aol.com (Wes Leatherock)
Date: 09 Oct 2002 01:59:33 GMT
Organization: AOL http://www.aol.com
Subject: Re: AntiSpam Screening Algorithm


Pat wrote:

> [TELECOM Digest Editor's Note: That's why most large telemarketers
> located themselves in Iowa, Missouri or Kansas. All they want for
> workers are people with very plain, bland middle America voices.
> No 'black' accents; some people hate Negroes. No 'southern' accents;
> some people might be prejudiced against that. No 'eastern' accents, for
> example people from Massachusetts or Maine; some people don't like
> that either. If you have a bland 'middle-America' accent, then the
> telemarketer doesn't have to repeat him/herself over and over; they
> can make their pitch in a hurry. Besides which, years ago, being 
> located in Omaha, Nebraska got them very cheap rates for WATS
> lines. PAT]

     We have plenty of them in Oklahoma, too, for both of the reasons
you mention.

     The "accent" you speak of, or some call it "accentless," is also
"Broadcast English," the accent, or lack thereof, that is more or less
at the midpoint of the various speech patterns common in the U.S.A.

     St. Louis is more or less an exception, but otherwise the band
where that speech pattern is usual extends into most parts of Illinois
and Indiana.  The Dictionary of American Regional English, and many
other works on speech in the U.S.A., have maps which generally are
pretty well in agreement as to the area in which this speech pattern
is the dominant native speech.

      As to WATS rates being a major factor, remember that rates were
mileage based in the early days of WATS, and so a location midway
between coasts was the most cost effective.  Not only Omaha, but
everywhere in Nebraska, Kansas and Oklahoma had this cost advantage,
which among other things is why the Hertz and Avis call reservations
centers are in Oklahoma, and National not too far from the middle part
of the country in Minneapolis.


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

[TELECOM Digest Editor's Note: Some of the young'uns here would not
remember this, but back in the sixties (when WATS was started as a
marketing tool for the old Bell System) and clear up into the early
seventies, both inbound WATS (800 numbers) and outbound WATS were set
up in 'bands', or rough circles. Band One were the states on any side
of your own state; Band Two were the next bunch of states outward, and
so on up to Band Six which was the entire USA except for Alaska and
Hawaii. There was no Band Seven that I know of, and Band Eight was
intra-state, but outside your local calling area. They eventually
consolidated six into five and introduced a new Band Six which took in
Alaska, Hawaii, Puerto Rico, Guam and a couple other such places. A
six could be used to call a one zone, etc but a one zone got
intercepted if attempting to reach a higher number. Of course you paid
at the six rate even if your call terminated in a cheaper band. And
above all, you NEVER were to call a/c-555-1212 using a WATS
line. Under WATS those calls still used your minutes of time, where if
you dialed using regular POTS they were free. In the offices I worked
in, we were instructed to NEVER use a larger WATS (Wide Area Telephone
Service) band than absolutely necessary. We all had these colored maps
with red, yellow, blue, green and white colors on the states in each
zone, which were provided by the telephone company.  If your call was
urgent, then use the next band up, i.e. a two instead of waiting for a
one to become available, etc. Never use a six unless everything less
than that was full or you otherwise needed a six. We had beehive lamps
on the wall which would illuminate when all the outbound trunks in a
group of WATS lines was busy. People would sit and stare at those
beehive lamps waiting for the six light to go out, then they would
grab the reciever and punch '86' to get a Band Six WATS line before
a slower person got to it first and kept it tied up. The idea was
always keep the WATS lines packed with calls in order for the company
to get its money's worth on these flat rate lines. Contrary to popular
knowledge, WATS lines were not free ... to the caller/callee they were
'free', but companies paid plenty for them. 

Incoming WATS was set up the same way:  800-621-xxxx for example would
work from anywhere in Illinois Band One, but a person in Oklahoma
calling Illinois would get intercepted with a recorded message that
the number was 'outside the scope of the called party's service'. So 
companies had to have various published inbound WATS numbers; one for
the state they were in, and one for all other places at the very
least.  PAT]

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

From: reo@roscoe.airaffair.com (Ross Oliver)
Subject: Re: AntiSpam Screening Algorithm
Date: 08 Oct 2002 01:13:11 GMT
Organization: Concentric Internet Services


On Fri, 04 Oct 2002 04:21:57 GMT, Sid Zafran 
wrote:

> Would a spam blocking algorithm be more effective if it used an
> additional parameter such as the number of identical messages received
> in a given time interval? For example, an internet service provider
> (ISP) would flag all messages from the same sender having the same
> subject appear more than 100 times in a 5 minute period. It is my
> opinion that a 5 minute screening period would not be objectionable,
> and that bulk mailers are likely to be sending many simultaneous
> messages.  Legitimate e-mail, such as newsletters, could be passed
> through after further review of the flagged messages.

The problem with this method is you still take the resource hit for
receiving each spam message.  A preferrable approach would be an email
connection limiter.  If a site is not on my whitelist, then my
incoming email server automatically limits that site to, say, 1 SMTP
connection per hour.  (or per 6 hours, or per day, depending on the
volume of incoming email).  This would clog up the bulk mailers at the
sending side while still letting through the few legitimate messages
from previously unseen sites.  Legitimate newsletters should not be
affected if they are smart and send only one copy of their email
message per site, letting the receiving site expand the list of local
recipients.

If there are any large sites out there who would like to implement
this, I would be happy to do so at no charge in exchange for owning
the finished code and rights to publish.


Ross Oliver
reo@tech-mavens.com

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

From: Dave Phelps 
Subject: Re: Norstar ICS 4.0 and Music on Hold
Date: Tue, 8 Oct 2002 01:10:12 -0500
Organization: Posted via Supernews, http://www.supernews.com


You can try F920 I believe. I think Minuet uses F920 thru F923. It
isn't installed by default. It comes on a floppy. There are
installation instructions with it.

In article , Overdrive79@hotmail.com 
says:

> According to the company that installed this system back in 2000, the
> voice mail app didn't ship with Minuet at that time.  I don't know if
> these guys know much about anything since they left the guy before me
> with a real mess of a system.  (They didn't even leave him any
> documentation) Is there any way that I could check to see if the
> Minuet software is there?

> Dave Phelps  wrote in message
> news::

>> In article , Overdrive79@hotmail.com 
>> says:

>>> I probably sound stupid but what is ACD?  Is there an inexpensive
>>> module that can queue callers or does the whole voice mail module have
>>> to be replaced?

>> As Pat said, ACD is Automatic Call Distribution. Now, ACD is software, 
>> just like AA/VM.

Dave Phelps
Phone Masters Ltd.
deadspam=tippenring

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

From: Name Withheld 
Subject: Re: Mail, Phone, Fax Forwarding Services?
Date: Tue, 08 Oct 2002 00:25:08 -0600


Pat: Please post this anonymously, too. Thanks.

On Mon, 07 Oct 2002 08:00:57 -0600, TELECOM Digest noted in response
to Name Withheld :

> On cell phones, use a prepaid cell phone in combination with a prepaid
> calling card. The caller ID delivered to the caller in almost
> meaningless in those cases.  The caller ID and any investigation
> conducted will show the number used by the prepaid calling card as the
> outbound loop around for the calling card's customer, which appears to
> be some bogus name.  If the calling card people bother to trace it
> back from there, they will see they receieved the call from 'Wireless
> Call' at xxx-xxx-xxxx which is the number assigned to the prepaid
> cellphone you bought with cash at the Walmart store. 

Thanks. I had no idea that the prepaid cell phones would be effective
in hiding your location. Would it make any difference whether I
purchased the phone and phonecard from a non-local store?

> What do you have planned?  (wink!) Can you cut me in on it? (wink).

Nothing illegal. Pretty mundane, actually. I'm assisting a friend who
is dealing with a divorce who would like to keep his location unknown.

> Are the above ideas good for starters?  PAT]

I was hoping there would be some businesses that would do fax and
snail mail forwarding for a reasonable fee. Is this something that a
Postnet or MBE would do?

[TELECOM Digest Editor's Note: There are. In most large communities
there are 'remail services' which will take your bundle of outgoing
mail sent to them in a larger envelope, rip the (larger) envelope
open, drop the already stamped envelopes enclosed into a mailbox and
pocket the five or ten dollars you enclosed for the service. When the
recipient gets the mail with no return address *and* postal indicia
 from an out of town location, he does not know what to think. Look
in the National Enquirer, the Tattler, the Star and similar papers and
note the little one or two line classified ads which say 'Remails from
San Francisco, $1 each, PO Box xxxx, San Francisco CA' for example. 
Put all your *stamped, ready to be mailed* letters in a large envelope,
enclose the requested fee in cash and mail him your stuff. He'll see
to it that it gets in a mailbox there in his town. 

You can also use the company called 'Mailboxes, Etc' to get your very
own private box and all the comforts of your 'office' somewhere. They 
have fax machines to use also. And please, no more requests for anony-
mous postings, okay? I really don't like doing this.   PAT]

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

From: Kenneth Becker 
Subject: Re: Ze Death Of Ze Net
Date: Tue, 08 Oct 2002 11:55:07 -0400
Organization: Lucent Technologies, Indian Hill


Ed Ellers wrote:

> Kenneth Becker  wrote:

>> Pat, CB has a limited number of channels. It is also a broadcast
>> service.

> I believe the FCC would disagree on that last point.

Umm ... sorry. "Broadcast" in the sense that when you wiggle the
electrons on the antenna wire, the photons get "broadcasted" (as in
broadcasting seeds, for example) into the universe. Not "Broadcasting"
as in NBC, ABC, et. al. Bad choice of words, there.


Ken Becker

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

From: vipvideo@onebox.com (Danny Ocean)
Subject: Last Laugh!  Jesus Joke
Date: 8 Oct 2002 19:58:19 -0700
Organization: http://groups.google.com/


A drunk staggers past a church congregation getting baptised in the
river. The minister stops what he is doing and asks the drunk to come
to the river. The drunk walks to the river's edge where the minister
asks "Are you saved?". The drunk, with a puzzled look on his face
says, "No". The minister grabs the drunk by the collar and dunks him
under the water. After pulling him up, the minister asks "Have you
found Jesus?". "Hic ... No" answers the drunk. Without hesitation, the
minister again, dunks the drunk ... this time holding him under a
little longer. "Have you found Jesus?" the minister asks again.  "Err
 ... No" mumbles the drunk. Frustrated, the minister holds the drunk
under for one full minute. "NOW, have you found Jesus, Son?"  yells
the minister.  To which the drunk replies "Are you sure this is where
he fell in?"


D. Ocean
Miami, FLA

[Reverend Bob Dobbs Note: That was totally blasphemous, just like the
one yesterday about the guys at the bar. Tsk, tsk, tsk. Let's drop the
Jesus jokes. I have a new joke concept:  jokes about lawyers. That's
a new and original concept isn't it?  No one has ever done that before
I don't think. Send in your lawyer jokes, but they have to be clean,
not filthy or obscene. This is a family-oriented Digest after all, and
I do not want it to get rated XXX and screened out on Library terminals.
PAT]

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

TELECOM Digest is an electronic journal devoted mostly but not
exclusively to telecommunications topics. It is circulated anywhere
there is email, in addition to various telecom forums on a variety of
networks such as Compuserve and America On Line, 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: 620-870-9697
                        Fax 1: 775-255-9970
                        Fax 2: 775-306-8390
                        Fax 3: 775-642-0603
                        Fax 4: 530-309-7234
                        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 second 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)

Email <==> FTP:  telecom-archives@telecom-digest.org 

      Send a simple, one line note to that automated address for
      a help file on how to use the automatic retrieval system
      for archives files. You can get desired files in email.

*************************************************************************
*   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.
Access to Premium (P) links requires upgrade to a paid subscription.

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

Only subscribers or registered users of ICB Toll Free News web site
will be able to access all or some of the full text of URLs provided.

LEGAL STUFF: TELECOM Digest (sm) is owned by Patrick Townson.
Copyright 2000 ICB, Inc. and TELECOM Digest. All rights reserved.
Our attorney is Bill Levant, of Blue Bell, PA.

   ---------------------------------------------------------------
    
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 twenty 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 V22 #70
*****************************
    
    
From editor@telecom-digest.org Wed Oct  9 19:02:49 2002
Received: from localhost (localhost [[UNIX: localhost]])
	by massis.lcs.mit.edu (8.11.3nb1/8.11.3) id g99N2nY28943;
	Wed, 9 Oct 2002 19:02:49 -0400 (EDT)
Date: Wed, 9 Oct 2002 19:02:49 -0400 (EDT)
From: editor@telecom-digest.org
Message-Id: <200210092302.g99N2nY28943@massis.lcs.mit.edu>
X-Authentication-Warning: massis.lcs.mit.edu: ptownson set sender to editor@telecom-digest.org using -f
To: ptownson
Approved: patsnewlist
Subject: TELECOM Digest V22 #71

TELECOM Digest     Wed, 9 Oct 2002 19:02:00 EDT    Volume 22 : Issue 71

Inside This Issue:                           Editor: Patrick A. Townson

    Minn. Public Utilities Commission: Phone Firm Illegal (Hudson Leighton)
    Re: One ISP Who Refuses to Deal with Spam (John R. Myers)
    Re: One ISP Who Refuses to Deal with Spam (Gail M. Hall)
    Re: One ISP Who Refuses to Deal with Spam (Justin Time)
    Re: One ISP Who Refuses to Deal with Spam (Dave Mausner)
    Re: One ISP Who Refuses to Deal with Spam (John Shriver)
    Re: One ISP Who Refuses to Deal with Spam (Steven J. Sobol)
    Re: One ISP Who Refuses to Deal with Spam (John Higdon)
    Re: Panda.com (Mark Crispin)
    Re: Squirrels (Herb Stein)
    Re: Squirrels (Clarence Dold)
    Re: Squirrels (Dave Garland)
    Re: Advice on Small Business Phone System (Shaun Ewing)
    Re: Advice on Small Business Phone System (Scott Dorsey)

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. WE DO NOT PERMIT NAME/EMAIL ADDRESS
HARVESTING FROM THIS JOURNAL. 'SALTED' EMAIL ADDRESSES APPEAR
HEREIN TO VERIFY THIS. YOU GET SUED IN SMALL CLAIMS COURT IF YOU
GET CAUGHT SPAMMING OR SENDING VIRUSES. DON'T DO IT.

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

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

From: hudsonl@skypoint.com (Hudson Leighton)
Subject: Minn Public Utilities Commission: Phone Firm Operating Illegally
Date: Wed, 09 Oct 2002 17:41:58 -0500
Organization: MRRP


A small Brooklyn Park telephone company that has a short but unusual
past has been charged with illegally doing business in Minnesota.

http://www.startribune.com/stories/535/3353459.html


http://www.skypoint.com/~hudsonl

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

Date: Wed, 09 Oct 2002 13:31:33 -0700
From: John R. Myers 
Subject: Re: One ISP Who Refuses to Deal with Spam


Gordon speaks for me. The first PERSON on my list is the one who sent
some trash to my kids. I want to speak with you in PERSON, sir or
madam chicken.

I have no truck with those "law enforcement" types who find anonymous
mail useful, either. Accountability is the issue and let's not lose
sight of it.  To those who might assert that the nation's founding
fathers used anonymous speech: I reply that the founding fathers took
risks -- put your neck on the line.

BTW, I don't mind having my ISP flagging and storing some of my
e-mail. I check in and clean up my mailbox every week. My various body
parts are ok by me, I'm no poorer than yesterday, and that note from
Nigeria was not the best proposition to come in today.

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

From: Gail M. Hall 
Subject: Re: One ISP Who Refuses to Deal with Spam
Date: Wed, 09 Oct 2002 17:24:53 -0400
Reply-To: gmhall@apk.net


On Tue, 08 Oct 2002 22:00:10 GMT, in comp.dcom.telecom, Pat wrote:

> [TELECOM Digest Editor's Note: I do not know who owns what. All I know
> is that as part of my subscription to SWBell telco's DSL offering
> called 'sbcglobal.net' I received a CD in the mail from SBC/Prodigy
> with a letter saying 'here is your new browser for use on the net'. It
> *strongly* resembles the browser peddled by Microsoft Network (not to
> be confused with Microsoft Corporation's services, although owned by
> the parent Microsoft.) This new browser has SBC and Yahoo! logos all
> over it with a heavy emphasis on the features of Yahoo such as radio
> stations, the Yahoo banking feature which competes with PayPal, things
> like MyYahoo and Yahoo search engine, all on easy to click buttons;
> just punch the desired button. The accompanying letter from SBC/Yahoo
> jointly gives installation instructions, and in the installation
> process one choice is 'we notice that IEXPLORE is your default browser
> right now. Would you like to make my.yahoo.com your new home page and
> have this new browser be your default browser?' And the 'mail' feature
> on this new browser defaults to Yahoo Mail but acknowledges Outlook
> Express and wants to know if I want to keep Outlook instead of Yahoo
> mail. 

That all sounds like good news to me!  They told you what they offer
and they ASK you what you would like to do.  You are FREE to accept
their browser and their choice of home page or keep your current ones.

I think that your suspicion that Yahoo "owns" or partly owns your ISP
service because you found lots of buttons and advertising for that
service is like assuming the advertisers in your telephone book own an
interest in the phone company.

Companies like Yahoo.com and Amazon.com are very active in encouraging
other companies to "partner" with them.  I don't know what financial
arrangements are made or IF any are made for these "partnerships."

I think that the people who set up your account and made that CD are
doing the right thing.  They have the COURTESY to ASK you what YOU
want to do.

Yahoo makes money from advertising.  One way they can get more money
for their ads is to increase the number of people who will see those
ads.  TV companies do the same thing by working hard to put on shows
that more people will watch, especially people who have money to
spend.

I had a problem with my sister's ISP calling my messages spam.  Now
ALL the messages I send to people at that ISP go into the bit bucket
(without notice to either sender or addressee) UNLESS their subscriber
specifically writes to them and asks for my address to be allowed in.
I was NOT sending spam!

Anyway, when I went to their web site to get their contact info for my
ISP, I found they had a button for Yahoo.com but not Google.com.  I
have to think that just maybe Yahoo.com has made some kind of business
arrangement with that ISP.  In no way does Yahoo own any part of that
mom-and-pop ISP.

Of course, it is also possible that Yahoo.com is better known and
preferred by the people who set up their web pages.

I have noticed that in recent years more and more ads are in the white
pages of our phone book.  Since the phone books are still supposed to
be free to phone customers (although it is harder to get them on time
here), I took it that the publisher of the books or the phone company
needed to get some extra income to produce the books.

If you do choose to make MyYahoo.com your home page, you can "edit"
that page as you desire.  People who do not know how to create their
own HTML file to make their own custom home page may find this very
convenient.  It also saves your own ISP from having to hire people to
set up a "home page" for their customers.

I think, Pat, that you were the victim of an incompetent tech support
person.  I know you got these impressions from the contents of the CD,
but in an earlier post you indicated that the tech support person at
your ISP said something about Yahoo owning the DSL service or the
other way around.

If he had been more competent, he could have told you that the ISP
does not filter spam for you but should have directed you to some of
the filtering applications available to people.

You mentioned using SpamAssissin at the Telecom site.  Is that not
available to ordinary users to use under Windows and with OE?  I use
another reader and my ISP has another spam filtering feature available
to subscribers that USERS configure, so I haven't looked into
SpamAssassin.


Gail from Ohio USA

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

From: a_user2000@yahoo.com (Justin Time)
Subject: Re: One ISP Who Refuses to Deal with Spam
Date: 9 Oct 2002 07:56:47 -0700
Organization: http://groups.google.com/


a_user2000@yahoo.com (Justin Time) wrote in message
news::

> TELECOM Digest Editor  wrote in message
> news::

>> I found out earlier today that SBC/Prodigy (or whatever they call
>> themselves these days) flatly refuse to do anything about spam.  

>              << Big pair of scissors applied >>

>> Have you ever heard of an ISP who *refuses* to do any spam filtering
>> at all for fear of getting sued by users?

> Pat,

> I picked up a piece of shareware that is excellent at filtering my
> e-mail.  It is not the same type of software as your "SpamAssasin", as
> this does no filtering on its own.  What it does do is go out through
> my ISP and look at the mail as it resides on the server, brings back
> the subject, sender etc. and then asks me what I want to do with it.

         <>

> If you have made it this far - the program is called MailWasher, and
> for as little as $3.00 you can get it licensed with free updates.

> [TELECOM Digest Editor's Note: Where do I get this?  Do you have any
> address for them or a web site?  Will it work on Windows XP with 
> Outlook Express?   PAT]

Try www.mailwasher.net.  I am running it on XP-Pro at the house, W2K
at the office, and I have had friends run it on W98.

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

Reply-To: Dave Mausner 
From: Dave Mausner 
Subject: Re: One ISP Who Refuses to Deal with Spam
Organization: Prodigy Internet http://www.prodigy.com
Date: Wed, 09 Oct 2002 14:59:36 GMT


Regarding the viral wedge problem. You can solve this by telnetting to
your pop server and deleting the wedge without actually reading it.

run  [use your pop server address]
enter  [use your account username]
enter  [use your password]
enter  [you'll see two columns of figures: message number and message
length]
enter  [use the message number of the wedge message, the big one]
enter 


Dave Mausner / v.+1-708-848-2775 / f.+1-708-848-2569 / c.+1-312-wake-my-i
TELECOM Digest Editor  wrote in message
news:telecom22.67.2@telecom-digest.org:

> This has happened before, where my Outlook Express got a 'wedge' in
> it from the volume of mail. The first forty or so letters came out,
> but around letter 41 or so, sbcglobal.net could not deliver it.

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

From: John Shriver 
Subject: Re: One ISP Who Refuses to Deal with Spam
Date: Wed, 09 Oct 2002 09:04:17 -0400
Organization: Sockeye Networks


> [TELECOM Digest Editor's Note: Is there a *good* DSL provider in
> Independence, KS other than SWBell Telco?  AOL now offers DSL in this
> echange area, but I am a little leary of them; all they do, it seems,
> is broker SWBell's DSL subject to the same geographic conditions, etc.
> I *must have* DSL or maybe cable modem (but the local cable [Time-
> Warner]) does not offer it here. I do not want to be without high-
> speed modem service for even one day. PAT]

There is no reason that you have to use the same provider for e-mail 
services and Internet access.  Yes, consumer ISPs provide e-mail 
accounts, partly because they have to set up an authentication 
infrastructure anyways.  But you don't have to use it.

So long as your DSL ISP isn't filtering your outgoing traffic to
prevent you from accessing an off-ISP SMTP server, you can buy your
e-mail service from anyone you want.  This may not prove
cost-effective, but it's your choice.  But you will have to search
hard to find an e-mail provider with all the value-added services you
want (virus scanning, SPAM filtering).  Why?  Because these services
are compute-intensive, they will be able to support a far smaller
number of accounts per mail server.  It's a small market, too.  I
wouldn't be surprised if this cost $25 a month or more.

Now, some ISP's do block outgoing access to SMTP servers, so that you
can't use their accounts to send SPAM to an open SMTP relay server
somewhere.  This is partly well-intentioned, but mostly hopelessly
naive, and is mostly infuriating.


To reply, replace "chinook" with "sockeye" in From: address.

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

From: sjsobol@JustThe.net (Steven J. Sobol)
Subject: Re: One ISP Who Refuses to Deal with Spam
Date: Wed, 09 Oct 2002 04:53:40 -0000
Organization: JustThe.net LLC


> From 'Gordon S. Hlavenka' :
> TELECOM Digest Editor wrote:

>> Have you ever heard of an ISP who *refuses* to do any spam filtering
>> at all for fear of getting sued by users?

> I'd rather not have my ISP do any filtering of incoming mail.  Much as
> I hate spam (and I do!) I don't trust someone else to be making that
> decision for me. 

Since it is tough to not have at least the occasional "false
positive," any spam filtering needs to allow the end-user ultimate
control.


Steve Sobol, CTO  JustThe.net LLC, Mentor On The Lake, OH
http://JustTheNetLLC.com/ http://JustThe.net/ 888.480.4NET (4638)
Verizon Nokia 3285 for sale; six months old, runs perfectly. Also
should work fine on Alltel. Lots of goodies for $100 obo-e-mail for details.

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

From: John Higdon 
Subject: Re: One ISP Who Refuses to Deal with Spam
Organization: Green Hills and Cows
Date: Tue, 08 Oct 2002 22:03:06 -0700


In article , Jim Thompson
 wrote:

> What I think might work is some kind of system where every link in the
> chain checks the origination address for validity ... E-mail with
> illicit addresses get trashed.  That would narrow down the local
> (receiving end) SPAM filtering to a manageable level.

While it is trivial to check a sender's address for routability (and 
many MTAs do just that, including mine) there is no easy means to 
determine if the sender's address is really the sender's (the problem 
with 99.999% of spam), nor is there a means to determine (short of a 
partial SMTP conversation with the alleged sender's MTA) if the address 
is fully valid.

My site already refuses to accept any email with an unroutable sender 
address, but most spammers circumvent that by using something like 
"suzie2345@aol.com" ... which is perfectly routable, but probably not 
valid, and most certainly not the sender's real address.

 
John Higdon     | Email Address Valid | SF:  +1 415 428-COWS
+1 408 264 4115 |     Anytown, USA    | FAX: +1 408 264 4407

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

From: Mark Crispin 
Subject: Re: Panda.com
Date: Wed, 9 Oct 2002 09:21:24 -0700
Organization: Networks and Distributed Computing


I appreciate Joey's offer to host the telesleaze web page.  Joey, and
everybody else, is welcome to copy the http://panda.com/telesleaze web
page.  As far as I am concerned, it is a gift to the community.  I
would not mind if it became a public resource, maintained by multiple
individuals and hosted at multiple sites, to record all episodes of
illegal automated telemarketer activity and to "out" the individuals
involved in automated telemarketing.

I am sorry that Joey's attempts to contact me by email were blocked.

The blocking is not done by my ISP; it is done by *my* system.  My ISP
does not provide any web hosting or SMTP services; they just provide
me with a /29.  I run my web and SMTP servers.  There's no reason for
my ISP to cave in to the threats.  I hope they won't.  I haven't heard
anything; and if I never do, this should be considered to be a
recommendation of my ISP as one that protects its customers'
interests.

On the other hand, homestead.com (a web hosting provider) caved in to
the threats and forced another individual to edit his page against
automated telemarketers.

The lesson here is: run your own web server.  If you must use a web
hosting provider, don't use homestead.com.

It is unfortunate that I have to resort to aggressive blocking
measures, but with incoming spam attempts running in the hundreds each
day (and I have had some 1000+ spam attempt days) it was necessary to
regain control.

I found three attempts that seemed to be from Joey.  Two were blocked
because the reverse-DNS name of the SMTP client was a DSL name. The
third was from mail.nucleus.com, whose IP address 207.34.93.23 is
definitely in the DSBL multihop blacklist.

The way that I see the evolution going is not "death of the net", but
rather the creation of a secure subnet in which people get their email
work done without dealing with the spam, worms, and viri that go on in
the open net.

It will probably soon be the case that blacklisting will cease entirely in
favor of whitelisting, meaning that only approved persons and sites can
send mail within the secure subnet.

I do not see this as a good thing.  I see it as a sadly inevitable thing.


 -- Mark --

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

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

From: Herb Stein 
Subject: Re: Squirrels
Date: Wed, 9 Oct 2002 10:14:24 -0500


Kenneth P. Stox  wrote in message
news:telecom22.69.4@telecom-digest.org:

> Gail M. Hall wrote:

>> My "data" phone went dead.

> Data phone, that explains it, the squirrels were after the tasty bits. ;->

Years ago my (analog) cable TV signal got very noisy. The cable
company came out and ended up replacing the aerial drop. Seems one of
the squirrels had crawled out in the middle and eaten the outer
insulation, the shield and the inner dielectric right down to the
copper center conductor. It was bare for 6 or 8 inches.

They also eat through the vinyl under my eaves and enter the attic
for the winter. They cost me about $500/year to repair the damage.


Herb Stein
The Herb Stein Group
www.herbstein.com
herb@herbstein.com
314 952-4601

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

From: dold@13.usenet.us.com
Subject: Re: Squirrels
Date: Wed, 9 Oct 2002 15:22:23 UTC
Organization: a2i network


Gail M. Hall  wrote:

> I wonder how many telephone repair people have jobs today because of the
> work of squirrels.

Perhaps they have learned that drip irrigation hoses carry water, and
they can't tell the difference between drip irrigation and telephone
cable.

My neighbor has lots of drip irrigation, and it is constantly suffering
from leaks due to rodent attacks.

I had a case of motor oil on the floor of a shed, and some critters
chewed into most of the bottles.

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

From: Dave Garland 
Subject: Re: Squirrels
Organization: Wizard Information
Date: Wed, 09 Oct 2002 01:24:53 -0500


It was a dark and stormy night when Howard S Wharton
 wrote:

> They also love cable TV lines. 

And other similar things.  Twice this summer I've been jolted by the
sound of a nearby explosion (louder than a gunshot), accompanied by my
UPS alarms going off.  In both cases, the explodee was a squirrel who
had stepped (or chewed) on the wrong place on the pole transformer
outside my house, and killed not only himself but power to my end of
the block.

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

From: Shaun Ewing 
Subject: Re: Advice on Small Business Phone System
Date: Wed, 9 Oct 2002 15:25:13 +1000


> And ... when your out-dated, out-moded, un-repairable NEC Electra 824
> skips its final beat at the beginning of a busy work-week? What will
> you do ... what WILL you do?

I have a backup KSU available. In the event the currently operating
one fails, all it takes is a matter of a few minutes to hang the new
one on the wall and plug in the lines and extensions so it's ready to
roll.

Failing that - I'll patch the phone lines through to the sockets and
put standard phones on them while I go have a new system express
shipped to me to install :-)


Shaun

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

From: kludge@panix.com (Scott Dorsey)
Subject: Re: Advice on Small Business Phone System
Date: 9 Oct 2002 11:08:28 -0400
Organization: Former users of Netcom shell (1989-2000)


In article , Danny Ocean
 wrote:

> David  wrote in message:

>> Our office phone system is 11 years old (NEC Electra 824) and has
>> never skipped a beat. There hasn't really ever been a reason to
>> upgrade; as they say "If it aint broke, then don't fix
>> it. 

> And ... when your out-dated, out-moded, un-repairable NEC Electra 824
> skips its final beat at the beginning of a busy work-week? What will
> you do ... what WILL you do?

Install a nice reliable 1A2 key system with standard 5-button phones!


scott
"C'est un Nagra.  C'est suisse, et tres, tres precis."

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

TELECOM Digest is an electronic journal devoted mostly but not
exclusively to telecommunications topics. It is circulated anywhere
there is email, in addition to various telecom forums on a variety of
networks such as Compuserve and America On Line, 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: 620-870-9697
                        Fax 1: 775-255-9970
                        Fax 2: 775-306-8390
                        Fax 3: 775-642-0603
                        Fax 4: 530-309-7234
                        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 second 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)

Email <==> FTP:  telecom-archives@telecom-digest.org 

      Send a simple, one line note to that automated address for
      a help file on how to use the automatic retrieval system
      for archives files. You can get desired files in email.

*************************************************************************
*   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.
Access to Premium (P) links requires upgrade to a paid subscription.

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

Only subscribers or registered users of ICB Toll Free News web site
will be able to access all or some of the full text of URLs provided.

LEGAL STUFF: TELECOM Digest (sm) is owned by Patrick Townson.
Copyright 2000 ICB, Inc. and TELECOM Digest. All rights reserved.
Our attorney is Bill Levant, of Blue Bell, PA.

   ---------------------------------------------------------------
    
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 twenty 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 V22 #71
*****************************
    
    
From editor@telecom-digest.org Wed Oct  9 22:35:56 2002
Received: from localhost (localhost [[UNIX: localhost]])
	by massis.lcs.mit.edu (8.11.3nb1/8.11.3) id g9A2ZuP00495;
	Wed, 9 Oct 2002 22:35:56 -0400 (EDT)
Date: Wed, 9 Oct 2002 22:35:56 -0400 (EDT)
From: editor@telecom-digest.org
Message-Id: <200210100235.g9A2ZuP00495@massis.lcs.mit.edu>
X-Authentication-Warning: massis.lcs.mit.edu: ptownson set sender to editor@telecom-digest.org using -f
To: ptownson
Approved: patsnewlist
Subject: TELECOM Digest V22 #72

TELECOM Digest     Wed, 9 Oct 2002 22:35:00 EDT    Volume 22 : Issue 72

Inside This Issue:                           Editor: Patrick A. Townson

    Panasonic TG2740S bs TG2000B (Chris Cope)
    Re: AT&T Billing Disaster (Jeff Grossman)
    Re: Western Electric or Northern Electric 555 Switchboard (Scott Dorsey)
    Re: BULLJIVE: Telemarketer Claims 99+% Support for Prerecorded (S Dorsey)
    Caller ID From Other Area Codes (M Wentworth)
    Help Wanted! Looking for a Data Engineer (Shannon Underhill)
    Re: Advice on Small Business Phone System (John Higdon)
    SBC/Yahoo! (Wes Leatherock)
    Re: I Have Sinus 42 AB (ken)
    Re: Panda.com (johna@onevista.com)
    Re: One ISP Who Refuses to Deal with Spam (Doug)
    One Message per Hour (Joey Lindstrom)
    News Headlines of Interest  10/9/02(Monty Solomon)
    More About Spam Email (temp7@thewolfden.org)
    Re: Norstar ICS 4.0 and Music on Hold (Justin)
    Wit and Wisdom of FCC Chairman Michael Powell (Danny Burstein)

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. WE DO NOT PERMIT NAME/EMAIL ADDRESS
HARVESTING FROM THIS JOURNAL. 'SALTED' EMAIL ADDRESSES APPEAR
HEREIN TO VERIFY THIS. YOU GET SUED IN SMALL CLAIMS COURT IF YOU
GET CAUGHT SPAMMING OR SENDING VIRUSES. DON'T DO IT.

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

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

From: lootman@beer.com (Chris Cope)
Subject: Panasonic TG2740S bs TG2000B
Date: 8 Oct 2002 22:28:12 -0700
Organization: http://groups.google.com/


I am considering both of these phone systems.  The 2000B's can be had
on Ebay for about the same price as the 2740's retail price.  The only
difference I can see in features is that the 2740 has a room monitor
and the 2000B has more mailboxes.  I'm a bit suspicious of the 2000B
since there is a glut on Ebay.  Bad phone or dotcommers gone bust
getting rid of stuff?

What is important to me:

1) range, durability, and battery life;
2) being able to check mailboxes with handset while one or two other
   handsets are in use with outside calls;
3) intercom between handsets and between handsets and base unit;
4) backup for mailbox data during power failure.

Thanks for any advice.

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

From: Jeff Grossman 
Subject: Re: AT&T Billing Disaster
Organization: Stikman.com
Date: Wed, 09 Oct 2002 14:15:39 GMT


Dr. Joel M. Hoffman  wrote:

> In September I wrote that AT&T quoted me one rate when I signed up for
> a calling plan, and then charged me another, much higher rate.  The
> difference was about $500 this summer.  The episode has ended, and the
> short story is that AT&T didn't call me back about the dispute, and
> then, even though the charges are in dispute, cut off my service.

> In more detail:

> 1.  I called customer service and told them I was disputing the
>    charges.

> 2.  I asked to speak to a supervisor, and was told none was available,
>    but that someone would call me within 24 hours.

> 3.  No supervisor ever called.

> 4.  I got a phone call from AT&T collections.  I told them I was
>    disputing the charges.  They asked me if I had told customer
>    service, and I told them I had.  They said that's all they needed
>    to know.

> 5.  In spite of the facts that :
> 
>        A.  the charges are in dispute;
>        B.  customer service knows the charges are in dispute;
>        C.  AT&T collections knows the charges are in dispute;
>        D.  AT&T has not returned my calls.

>    AT&T cut off my service this morning.

> 6.  I paid the charges because I want to convenience of +1 LD dialing.

> They win, as usual, even if by theft.

You should contact your local Public Utilities Commission and report
this situation.  These are the kinds of things which will get AT&T
fines and possibly lose service in certain areas.


Jeff Grossman (jeff@stikman.com)

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

From: kludge@panix.com (Scott Dorsey)
Subject: Re: Western Electric or Northern Electric 555 Switchboard
Date: 9 Oct 2002 11:10:15 -0400
Organization: Former users of Netcom shell (1989-2000)


 wrote:

> My questions for you:

> Do you know of anyone or company in the Florida that does repair work
> to these boards?

I do not, but Phoneco in Janesville, Wisconsin probably will.

> Also, do you know where I could purchase a reconditioned WE/NE 555
> switchboard?

Again, I would try Phoneco.

> As far as the boards are concerned, I located a man named Bruce at
> Cargil Switchboard in Canada, and paid for a board, then he canceled
> the order because he was not able to refurbish the board due to lack
> of staff.

Sadly this is the case everywhere.  Finding wiremen these days who can
do good work is not easy.  I do a lot of that myself now, and I hate it.


scott

"C'est un Nagra.  C'est suisse, et tres, tres precis."

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

From: kludge@panix.com (Scott Dorsey)
Subject: Re: BULLJIVE: Telemarketer Claims 99+% Support for Prerecorded Calls
Date: 9 Oct 2002 11:13:45 -0400
Organization: Former users of Netcom shell (1989-2000)


M. J. Poirier   wrote:

> Mark Crispin wrote:

>> In a letter dated September 25, 2002, OneSetPrice, an Orlando FL based
>> telemarketer which uses prerecorded calls to advertise "seminars" for
>> "business opportunity programs" or "seller assisted marketing plans",
>> says that "a very few people, a very small fraction of 1%, objects to
>> the manner in which it is doing business."

> BULLJIVE!

I can believe that a very small fraction of 1% vocally objects to the
point where the telemarketer finds out about it.  

Just like the fact that it takes a run of 10,000 spam messages on the
average to get a single complaint, even though everybody hates spam.


scott
"C'est un Nagra.  C'est suisse, et tres, tres precis."

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

From: mfwentworth@rcn.com (M Wentworth)
Subject: Caller ID From Other Area Codes
Date: 9 Oct 2002 09:32:12 -0700
Organization: http://groups.google.com/


Hi -

I just got Caller ID recently, and am surprised by the number of calls
coming in from legitimate companies where the caller name is listed as
"UNAVAILABLE", "UNKNOWN NAME" or just the name of the state, such as
"OHIO."

I live in the 781 area code in the Boston area and get these results
with my Verizon and RCN phone lines.

I called Verizon to ask, but the customer service rep said he was
surprised, since most calls that would show "UNAVAILABLE" are from
telemarketers' autodialers. (Well, I know these companies, and I know
they are not telemarketers!) He then speculated that it might be due
to incompatibilities between POTS and Centrex lines.

Reading through posts to this group, I'm very hopeful that I can get a
more useful answer here!

Thanks in advance!

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

From: Shannon Underhill 
Subject: Help Wanted! Looking for a Data Engineer
Date: Wed, 9 Oct 2002 14:51:48 -0400
Organization: Snelling Personnel Services


My name is Shannon Underhill and I am an Executive Recruiter located
in Savannah, GA.  I specialize in the recruitment and placement of
Information Systems professionals all over the country.  I am in need
of some assistance and am hoping you can help me.  I have been
contracted by a client of mine in the Southwest to help find a Data
Engineer.  This is the reason for my e-mail.  I am wondering if you
know of anyone who might be willing to talk to me about a possible
opportunity in the Southwest.  Here is a little information about the
company and qualifications.  Any assistance you can provide would be
of great value to me.  My contact information follows the
descriptions.  I am willing to talk to anyone who would be interested
or who might know of someone.  Thanks in advance for your assistance.
Professional networking is what it is all about and I am hoping you
feel the same way!

Company:   My client is a telecommunications company with one of the 
highest-capacity and most reliable broadband delivery networks in the 
world.  They are among the nation's largest broadband communications 
companies, serving 6 million customers in more than 20 states.  Very 
strong, stable, ethical company!

Position:  2 Positions Available

High Speed Data Engineer - In this position you will be responsible
for analyzing CMTS signal to noise ratios to identify network issues,
plant or RF problems.  Perform change management on all metropolitan
network elements, (node move, node changes, node split, add new
network elements, etc.).  Submit NOC tickets, change management
tickets including methods of procedure.  Performs tier 3/4 level
troubleshooting to include routing changes and data collection for
troubleshooting and root-cause analysis.  Perform on call duties.

Perform tier 3/4 level troubleshooting; requires the ability to ensure
network design complies with company standard.  Perform complex
network fault isolation.  Perform outage troubleshooting and
escalation.  Verify, assist in network conversions.  Perform router
and switch configurations as well as perform routine backup and
installations of those files, Ability to troubleshoot escalated
customer issues.  Assist corporate in the evaluation and selection of
vendor products dealing with cable modems and RF.  Participate in the
design and definition of network and system architectures.  This
includes planning for node combining and assisting in the integration
of data services with other service provisioning in the case of an
integrated delivery platform.  

Responsible for all aspects of local network management and network
management devices.  Analyze flap list and use show commands to
proactively identify network issues.  Qualifications - 5 years of
experience in relevant field.  CCNA, CCDA or comparable industry
recognized certification preferred.  Solid understanding of network
protocols ( TCP, SNMP, RMON) required.  Solid understanding of routing
protocols (RIP, OSPF, IGRP, BGP) required.  Good understanding of
event monitoring (alerting, diagnostics, solutions).  A demonstrated
hand-on understanding of the digital network technologies, protocols,
vendors and future vision of the data network arena.  Proficient in
using and instructing the use of standard hardware and software
systems.  Experience with cable broadband technology required.  5
years of exp. with digital network technologies including routers, MLS
(Multi-layer switches), and CMTS (Cable Modem Termination System)
preferred.  experience with network management, SNMP and HP Openview.

I will talk to anyone about this opportunity and welcome any
questions.  If you know of anyone please send them in my direction.
Thank you in advance for your assistance.


Shannon Underhill
Executive Recruiter
1-888-356-4909  x206
Shannonu@snelling-search.com

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

From: John Higdon 
Subject: Re: Advice on Small Business Phone System
Organization: Green Hills and Cows
Date: Wed, 09 Oct 2002 17:00:24 -0700


In article , kludge@panix.com
(Scott Dorsey) wrote:

> Install a nice reliable 1A2 key system with standard 5-button phones!

Where do you find a "nice reliable 1A2 key system"? The last one I 
installed for a radio station was a maintenance nightmare. Line cards 
went bad. Interrupter card went bad. Power supply went bad. Back when 
the Bell System installed Genuine Bell, it all worked. But now with 
SanBar, ITT, and gawd-knows what else, it is horrible.


John Higdon     | Email Address Valid | SF:  +1 415 428-COWS
+1 408 264 4115 |     Anytown, USA    | FAX: +1 408 264 4407

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

From: wesrock@aol.com (Wes Leatherock)
Date: 10 Oct 2002 00:36:28 GMT
Organization: AOL http://www.aol.com
Subject: SBC/Yahoo!


    Ok, I was wrong.  SBC did not buy Yahoo!


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

[TELECOM Digest Editor's Question: Well then, did Yahoo! buy SBC?  Did 
Yahoo! buy Prodigy or the other way around?  All I seem to see nowdays
is those three are all very cozy with each other.    PAT]

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

From: ken 
Subject: Re: I Have Sinus 42 AB
Date: Wed, 9 Oct 2002 20:00:21 +0100
Organization: ntlworld News Service


umer akbar  wrote in message
news:telecom22.65.9@telecom-digest.org:

> Dear Editor,

> I have German telephone, telekom sinus 42 AB, and I don't have its
> operation manual, can you plz plz help me how can I get its manual
> book, so that I can have its full use of all its functions, and if I
> lost the codes in the set how can I break the codes. Does this set
> have its master code?  Sir, plz help me, I'm very dissappointed, and
> it will be very nice if the manual will be in English. Sir, kindly
> solve my problem because my expensive set is now useless.

> Regards,

> umer akbar popalzai

You could try here:
http://www.telekom.de/dtag/faq2/frage/0,10303,822-2579-1,00.html

I don't see a 42, but perhaps the other models are similar.  Unfortunately,
only in German.

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

From: johna@onevista.com
Subject: Re: Panda.com
Date: Thu, 10 Oct 2002 01:30:18 GMT


In article ,
Mark Crispin   wrote:

> I found three attempts that seemed to be from Joey.  Two were blocked
> because the reverse-DNS name of the SMTP client was a DSL name. The
> third was from mail.nucleus.com, whose IP address 207.34.93.23 is
> definitely in the DSBL multihop blacklist.

You are blocking email from sites just because the reverse DNS
includes the string 'dsl'? Not because that subdomain has sent spam?
It seems you are building an email wall around yourself. Whatever,
it's your site.  All sites are capable of sending spam.  Why are you
not blocking all sites?  Feel free to respond to this via email but I
won't be able to respond the same way.  Your loss.


johna

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

From: Doug 
Subject: Re: One ISP Who Refuses to Deal with Spam
Date: Wed, 9 Oct 2002 21:37:40 -0400
Organization: Totally disorganized


Gail M. Hall  wrote in message
news:telecom22.68.8@telecom-digest.org:

> My sister got an account at hotmail, and she said they don't let
> people delete messages there without opening them first.  I hope that
> isn't true!

I've had a Hotmail account for a couple of years.  I go into it about
once a week and globally mark every message for deletion, then look
through to see if I want to save any.  THEN I click the Delete button.
They're gone.  Goodbye!  I only open the ones left in my Inbox after
I've deleted all the garbage.


Doug in Delaware

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

From: Joey Lindstrom 
Date: Wed, 09 Oct 2002 13:32:06 -0600
Reply-To: Joey Lindstrom 
Subject: One Message per Hour


On Wed, 9 Oct 2002 01:44:31 -0400 (EDT), Ross Oliver wrote:

> The problem with this method is you still take the resource hit for
> receiving each spam message.  A preferrable approach would be an email
> connection limiter.  If a site is not on my whitelist, then my
> incoming email server automatically limits that site to, say, 1 SMTP
> connection per hour.  (or per 6 hours, or per day, depending on the
> volume of incoming email).  This would clog up the bulk mailers at the
> sending side while still letting through the few legitimate messages
> from previously unseen sites.  Legitimate newsletters should not be
> affected if they are smart and send only one copy of their email
> message per site, letting the receiving site expand the list of local
> recipients.

> If there are any large sites out there who would like to implement
> this, I would be happy to do so at no charge in exchange for owning
> the finished code and rights to publish.

Ross, I'm going to rant a little bit here.  A small bit of it is
aimed at you, but to a larger degree I'm ranting at how far things
have gone lately -- so don't take it too personally ok?  :-)

I'm confused as to exactly what good your proposal is going to do.
Let's take two fictional individuals, John The Mailing List Guy and
Joe The Spammer.  John runs a mailing list and has ten subscribers on
your server.  You're going to insist that he configure his mail server
(which may require an expensive upgrade) to send only one copy of each
message to your server, with that one single message containing the
ten email addresses of the legitimate subscribers to that list.

All in the name of stopping bad ol' Joe The Spammer from spewing
forth upon your users.  Yeah, this scheme will stop Joe The
Spammer ... until Joe The Spammer realizes that he, too, can simply
send ONE copy of the spam to your server, which contains the email
addresses of HUNDREDS of your subscribers (none of which want this
crap).

Result: John has gone to considerable headache and possibly expense
to comply with this rather-silly requirement, and Joe is still
merrily spamming away.  No spam is being blocked, but you've now
effectively begun blocking legitimate mail.

What am I missing here?

I don't have experience with a wide range of mail servers so I don't
know how common a feature it is to have mailing lists send single
copies of a message to multiple users at the same domain, for the
receiving server to expand.  The mail server I run, MDaemon 6, has
this feature.  It's optional and defaults to OFF (actually it has the
opposite feature: "crack mailing list messages" is set to ON by
default).  MDaemon costs thousands of dollars.  If someone's in a
situation where their software cannot handle this feature and cannot
be upgraded or replaced easily or not at all, then your stated policy
is to say "screw them" and not accept their mail.  The reasons for
doing so are extremely flimsy at best (sending individual copies is
certainly legitimate and doesn't violate any RFC I'm aware of) and
downright elitist at worst.

Yes, elitist.  "I don't want to communicate with anybody who doesn't
measure up to my high expectations, and who can read my mind as to
how I expect their mail server to behave".  Elitist, like panda.com,
rejecting my mail because my server happens to be connected to a DSL
line.  Not a dialup line.  Not a dynamic IP line.  A static,
business-class DSL line, the IP of which is listed in my MX records. 
But hey, I'm using DSL so I must be spammer, thus my mail isn't
accepted.

Elitist, elitist, elitist.  Pat, you say this is one of the signs of
the downfall of the net.  Maybe so, but I'm convinced that there's
going to be enough people like me saying "enough of this horseJIVE!"
to keep the pendulum from swinging too far the other way.  Yes,
small-time mail servers like panda.com and others may continue to
block just about all incoming mail and that's totally up to them, but
the larger operations WILL NOT because their users, the ones who see
email as a utility much like phone service, simply won't put up with
it.

Rant off.  :-)


Joey Lindstrom - Laird's Flooring
joey@lairdsflooring.com

[TELECOM Digest Editor's Note: All I wish to say in response to you
on this is that many us who got on the net back in the early to
middle 1980's because we were enthusiastic about the potential and
excited about about what we saw are beginning now to say 'this isn't
fun anymore'. Enthusiasm goes a long way around here with our
creativity, etc. As the enthusiasm and interest for things of the net
begin to wane, the net will suffer. I for one can sincerly say, 'this
is no longer fun' ... the spammers have caused that to happen. When
things get to the point that the pioneers around here; those who have
held it together for years and years eventually say 'this is no longer
fun' and begin to drop out, then you will see the 'death of the net'.
And you can say thank you very much to the spammers who have helped
it get to that point. But in fairness I should begin accepting the
fact that my aneurysm caused substantial neurological damage in me,
resulting in me being so weak and tired much of the time. PAT]

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

Date: Wed, 9 Oct 2002 08:54:18 -0400
From: Monty Solomon 
Subject: News Headlines of Interest  10/9/02


Environmentalists Identify New Menace: Discarded Cellphones
By ANAHAD O'CONNOR

As the nation's fondness for cellphones grows, the environmental 
effects do, too.

According to industry figures, cellphone use in the United States has
surged, to more than 128 million subscribers last year from 340,000 in
1985. Typically, each phone is used for 18 months before being dropped
for a newer model.

That is starting to add up to a huge amount of waste, says Inform, an 
environmental organization that issued a report this year on old 
phones. The Environmental Protection Agency helped finance the study.

By 2005, the report estimates, 130 million cellphones will be thrown 
out each year. Counting the phones, batteries and chargers, that 
comes to 65,000 tons a year, the report said. Although some phones 
may just stay unused in desk drawers, the report said, most will end 
up in landfills or being incinerated.

http://www.nytimes.com/2002/10/08/science/08PHON.html


Report: Wi-Fi Networks Too Risky
By Elisa Batista

Starbucks customers who like surfing the Net wirelessly as they sip 
lattes might be surprised to hear that the federal government 
considers the practice dangerous.

In a recently released report, the government asked federal agencies 
to exercise extra caution when using a wireless local area network 
(LAN) for Internet access.

The government suggested that agencies implement a system that 
constantly checks for unauthorized wireless Internet users and that 
they install more encryption than necessary on a wired-line network.

Last month, the office of the Secretary of Defense released a 
memorandum prohibiting the use of many wireless technologies in the 
Pentagon and much of the Army, Navy and Air Force until the military 
develops a wireless security strategy.

http://www.wired.com/news/business/0,1367,55556,00.html


     Motorola Stock Hits 10-Year Low
     - Oct 9, 2002 05:13 PM (AP Online)

By DAVE CARPENTER
AP Business Writer
  
  CHICAGO (AP) - Motorola Inc. stock plunged 15 percent to a
10-year low Wednesday amid pessimistic speculation about the tech
giant's earnings report due out next week.

  The company's stock fell $1.45 to $8.30 a share Wednesday in
nearly triple the average daily volume on the New York Stock
Exchange, hitting its lowest level since November 1992. More than
29 million shares changed hands, making it one of the market's
hottest-trading issues.

     - http://finance.lycos.com/home/news/story.asp?story=29017111

     Tech Darling Ousted From Own Company
     - Oct 9, 2002 06:29 PM (AP Online)

By GARY GENTILE
AP Business Writer
  
  LOS ANGELES (AP) - Henry Yuen's fall from brilliant visionary of
the digital television revolution to ousted chief executive of
Gemstar-TV Guide, the company he founded, has the makings of a
Shakespearean tragedy.

  There's Yuen, who never once backed off from his belief in the
power of his patents and the rightness of his cause, even as his
company lost important legal challenges and was forced to restate
earnings because of accounting irregularities.

  Then there's media mogul Rupert Murdoch, whose News Corp. was
rebuffed when it tried to buy Gemstar in 2000. The global titan
then sold his stake in TV Guide to the upstart Yuen for a 42
percent stake in Gemstar-TV Guide.

  Murdoch played the part of silent partner, letting Yuen run the
show until continuing losses and a plunging stock price forced
Murdoch to install his own management team and consign Yuen to a
smaller role.

     - http://finance.lycos.com/home/news/story.asp?story=29018249

Mormon-held Utah station passes on penis talk show
9 Oct 2002, 6:56pm ET

SALT LAKE CITY, Oct 9 (Reuters) - Salt Lake City viewers hoping to 
watch the stars of "Puppetry of the Penis" be interviewed on 
Wednesday night on the "Tonight Show' will not find it on the local 
NBC affiliate, KSL-TV, which is owned by the Mormon Church.

Instead, local rival KUWB-TV will air the program when Jay Leno plays 
host to two men who are famous worldwide for shaping their penises 
into such unlikely shapes as hamburgers and the Eiffel Tower.

KSL-TV Vice President and General Manager Jim Yorgason said from 
everything he could gather the genital contortionists were not 
appropriate fare for the Salt Lake City community. "It was a decision 
made on content," he said and without any input from the station's 
owners, the Mormon Church.

http://finance.lycos.com/home/news/story.asp?story=29018542

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

Date: Wed, 09 Oct 2002 00:33:10 -0500
From: temp7@thewolfden.org
Subject: More About Spam Email


On Mon, 07 Oct 2002 22:51:40 -0500, Gordon S. Hlavenka wrote:

>> What I WOULD like to see is some way to trivially and accurately locate
>> the PERSON (not just the account) who sends an email. Senders could
>> (for "privacy" reasons) choose not to include this information and I
>> could choose to trash any anonymous mail.

That would be the From: field.  Oh, they fake that?  Well let's add
another field; surely they won't fake the new field, would they?

James E.Thompson wrote:

> What I think might work is some kind of system where every link in the 
> chain checks the origination address for validity ... E-mail with illicit 
> addresses get trashed. That would narrow down the local (receiving end) 
> SPAM filtering to a manageable level.

And for a long while, the domains set up specifically for spamming
(Spamford, et. al.) had all "legal" originating email addresses.  Now,
nobody probably actually checked email sent back to them, and the
systems took care of throwing most of the responses away, but they
were real, legal email addresses set up on the spam systems.  And this
won't stop a spammer's sendmail that contacts the destination
directly, which I bet is a lot.

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

From: Overdrive79@hotmail.com (Justin)
Subject: Re: Norstar ICS 4.0 and Music on Hold
Date: 9 Oct 2002 05:40:01 -0700
Organization: http://groups.google.com/


Thanks for all of your help.  It seems that I don't have it.

Dave Phelps  wrote in message
news::

> You can try F920 I believe. I think Minuet uses F920 thru F923. It
> isn't installed by default. It comes on a floppy. There are
> installation instructions with it.

> In article , Overdrive79@hotmail.com 
> says:

>> According to the company that installed this system back in 2000, the
>> voice mail app didn't ship with Minuet at that time.  I don't know if
>> these guys know much about anything since they left the guy before me
>> with a real mess of a system.  (They didn't even leave him any
>> documentation) Is there any way that I could check to see if the
>> Minuet software is there?

>> Dave Phelps  wrote in message
>> news::

>>> In article , Overdrive79@hotmail.com 
>>> says:

>>>> I probably sound stupid but what is ACD?  Is there an inexpensive
>>>> module that can queue callers or does the whole voice mail module have
>>>> to be replaced?

>>> As Pat said, ACD is Automatic Call Distribution. Now, ACD is software, 
>>> just like AA/VM.

> Dave Phelps
> Phone Masters Ltd.
> deadspam=tippenring

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

From: danny burstein 
Subject: Wit and wisdom of FCC Chairman Michael Powell
Date: Wed, 9 Oct 2002 15:19:53 -0400
Organization: PANIX Public Access Internet and UNIX, NYC


(from his speech at Goldman Sachs 02-Oct-2002, discussing telecom
issues):

[ ... ]

And when the first signs of trouble from the dot com crash surfaced,
capital went running scared.  It is sort of like a group of high
school kids that break into a pool to skinny dip at night.  They all
know they are not supposed to be there, but came nonetheless for some
quick thrills.  The second, however, that someone screams, "COPS" the
group flees at light speed.  When investors saw the first sign of
trouble in this sector, they did the same.  They fled, leaving the
poor guy they pressured to let them in holding the bag.

[ ... ]

http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DOC-226929A1.doc


Knowledge may be power, but communications is the key
		     dannyb@panix.com
[to foil spammers, my address has been double rot-13 encoded]

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

TELECOM Digest is an electronic journal devoted mostly but not
exclusively to telecommunications topics. It is circulated anywhere
there is email, in addition to various telecom forums on a variety of
networks such as Compuserve and America On Line, 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: 620-870-9697
                        Fax 1: 775-255-9970
                        Fax 2: 775-306-8390
                        Fax 3: 775-642-0603
                        Fax 4: 530-309-7234
                        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 second 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)

Email <==> FTP:  telecom-archives@telecom-digest.org 

      Send a simple, one line note to that automated address for
      a help file on how to use the automatic retrieval system
      for archives files. You can get desired files in email.

*************************************************************************
*   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.
Access to Premium (P) links requires upgrade to a paid subscription.

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

Only subscribers or registered users of ICB Toll Free News web site
will be able to access all or some of the full text of URLs provided.

LEGAL STUFF: TELECOM Digest (sm) is owned by Patrick Townson.
Copyright 2000 ICB, Inc. and TELECOM Digest. All rights reserved.
Our attorney is Bill Levant, of Blue Bell, PA.

   ---------------------------------------------------------------
    
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 twenty 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 V22 #72
*****************************
    
    
From editor@telecom-digest.org Thu Oct 10 15:48:36 2002
Received: from localhost (localhost [[UNIX: localhost]])
	by massis.lcs.mit.edu (8.11.3nb1/8.11.3) id g9AJmak04911;
	Thu, 10 Oct 2002 15:48:36 -0400 (EDT)
Date: Thu, 10 Oct 2002 15:48:36 -0400 (EDT)
From: editor@telecom-digest.org
Message-Id: <200210101948.g9AJmak04911@massis.lcs.mit.edu>
X-Authentication-Warning: massis.lcs.mit.edu: ptownson set sender to editor@telecom-digest.org using -f
To: ptownson
Approved: patsnewlist
Subject: TELECOM Digest V22 #73

TELECOM Digest     Thu, 10 Oct 2002 15:47:00 EDT    Volume 22 : Issue 73

Inside This Issue:                           Editor: Patrick A. Townson

    Re: Free Market and Phone Service was Re: Sprint RIPOFF (Herb Stein)
    Programming Cable for Panasonic KX-TD816? (Philip)
    Re: More About Spam Email (Steven Lichter)
    Re: SBC/Yahoo! (Michael D. Sullivan)
    Re: SBC/Yahoo! (Steven J. Sobol)
    Re: Mail, Phone, Fax Forwarding Services? (Gordon S. Hlavenka)
    Third Party Mailboxes (Joey Lindstrom)
    Unroutable Mail (Joey Lindstrom)
    Re: Squirrels (Howard S Wharton)
    Re: One ISP Who Refuses to Deal with Spam (James Carlson)
    Shannon Underhill (Joey Lindstrom)
    Avaya Definity Question (TennJed)
    Re: Panda.com (Scott Dorsey)

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. WE DO NOT PERMIT NAME/EMAIL ADDRESS
HARVESTING FROM THIS JOURNAL. 'SALTED' EMAIL ADDRESSES APPEAR
HEREIN TO VERIFY THIS. YOU GET SUED IN SMALL CLAIMS COURT IF YOU
GET CAUGHT SPAMMING OR SENDING VIRUSES. DON'T DO IT.

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

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

From: Herb Stein 
Subject: Re: Free Market and Phone Service was Re: Sprint RIPOFF Alert
Date: Wed, 9 Oct 2002 15:55:16 -0500


Thomas A. Horsley  wrote in message
news:telecom22.66.7@telecom-digest.org:

>> Why should  I have to pay  extra in my  phone bill (or in  taxes) to
>> cover that ten miles of copper wire?

> I suppose the answer to that might depend on how often you want to
> talk to someone who lives in a rural area. One of the reasons phone
> service is valuable is because it reaches practically everywhere.

> >>==>> The *Best* political site  >>==+
>       email: Tom.Horsley@worldnet.att.net icbm: Delray Beach, FL      |
>  Free Software and Politics <<==+

We all make choices in life. I live where:

- real estate values are appreciating
- there is a good school district
- taxes are appropriate for what I get in return
- DSL and/or cable access is available (a major point)
- employment is available
- reasonable commute to work
- acceptable crime rate
- etc.

If someone want to live in the boondocks and have the advantages
of that lifestyle, fine. But recognize that there is potentially a
downside. They need to get used to the fact that telephone service
costs more. I'm sure that the difference between my real estate tax
bill and theirs would more than pay for that 10 miles of copper.
I am personally opposed to any system that takes money from me
and gives it to someone else just because of  decisions they made
that they may now see a downside to.


Herb Stein
The Herb Stein Group
www.herbstein.com
herb@herbstein.com
314 952-4601

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

From: Philip 
Subject: Programming Cable for Panasonic KX-TD816?
Organization: MediaCom High Speed Internet
Date: Thu, 10 Oct 2002 03:07:52 GMT


CLICK for Windows Software
 
ANALOG

The analog 308, 616 and 624 can be programmed only from a display
phone (KX-T7030, 7130, 7135, 7335 or earlier generation).

The serial ports on the 308, 616 and 624 can send data to a PC or a
printer, but can not accept programming commands from a PC.

The analog KX-T123211D can be programmed from a PC. However, the
software is old and a bit primitive, and is NOT supported by
Panasonic. Apparently, most of Panasonic's techies have never even
seen it.

The new (2001) analog KX-TA1232 can not be programmed by PC, but it
can be backed up and restored with a PC, using proprietary Panasonic
software.

DIGITAL

The digital 308, 816 and 1232 can be programmed from an analog or
digital display phone, or from a PC.  

Panasonic's own software is dirty old DOS, but it works. We highly
recommend the Programmator Windows software.

Complex programming tasks, like entering lots of names for speed
dialing or setting up a big "DIL1:N" ringing table, are easier to do
from a PC than from a phone. For simple stuff, like changing from
daylight time to standard time, or changing someone's last name,
there's no need to bother connecting a PC.

If you have an extra PC, even an old slow PC, you can keep it
connected permanently for spur-of-the moment programming, and to view
call data as each call is completed.

You can also program a digital 816 or 1232 system remotely, if it is
connected to a modem.

The installation manuals have diagrams for making a cable to connect a
PC to the 25-pin serial port in the D816 and D1232, and 9-pin port in
the D308. It's easier to use an AbleComm ProCable, or a serial cable
and null-modem adapter from Radio Shack.

VOICE PROCESSORS

The KX-TVS50, TVS75, TVS80, TVS100, TVS110, TVS200 and TVS300 are
programmed from a PC. 

They CAN'T be programmed from a phone, but some adjustments can be
done from a phone after the initial setup, even remotely.

They do NOT need special software. You can use almost any general
purpose PC communications software, such as Windows HyperTerminal to
access the software embedded in the voice processor. There's also a
great Windows program. CLICK for info and free demo download of Voice
Mail Master.

The installation manuals have diagrams for making a cable to connect a
PC to the unit's serial port. It's easier to use an AbleComm ProCable,
or a serial cable and null-modem adapter from Radio Shack. The
KX-TVS50, 75 and 80 have 9-pin connectors; the 100, 200 and 300 have
25-pin connectors.

You can also use a Mac, with a basic Mac comm's program. 
 
If you can't connect:

Make sure to set Flow Control to OFF or NONE.  Make sure you have
selected the proper serial port.  Be wary of adapters that go from 9
pins to 25 pins and gender changers -- the fewer connections you have,
the better your chances of successful connections.

Try both 9,600 and 19,200 speeds. 

On Voice Processing Systems with rotary switches, shut power off, turn
rotary switch from zero to one, turn power back on, turn rotary switch
back to zero. (Thanks to Panasonic tech wizard Denton for this
life-saver.)  On Voice Processing Systems with DIP switches instead of
rotary switches, shut off the power, move the "DIP" switches to right,
left, left, left, turn the power back on, and move the switches to
left, left, left, left. (Thanks to Frank at Panasonic for this.)  On
Panasonic phone system control units, do a system clear and reset.
(You will lose all programming and return to default settings.)  Try
another computer (really).

AbleComm's new ProCables have been tested with all the Panasonic phone
systems and voice processing systems we sell, using HyperTerminal,
Programmator and VoiceMail Master. They are priced about $4 less than
an equivalent cable and adapter from Radio Shack and about $13 less
than the "wholesale" price charged by another company. CLICK to order
online, or call 1 888 ABLE 999.
  
I need info on creating a cable.  The cable is used to program a
panasonic KX-TD816 system using Programmator.  My goal is to run a
cable from my pc upstairs down to the KSU and program and tweak the
system form this remote location.  The following information was
copied and pasted from: http://www.ablecomm.com/before.htm , where it
shows how to make this cable. 

We are very pleased to share with you a wiring plan for making your
own programming cable, developed by Debra Canfield. Debbie's design
will allow you to use 8-pin "RJ-45" connectors, so you can program
from a PC located many feet from the phone equipment, using normal
4-pair wire instead of a thick serial cable. Thanks very much, Debbie.
The following chart shows the 25 pin phone system or voice processor
connector on the left and a 9 pin PC connector on the right.

SD    2   2  RD 
RD    3   3  TD 
CTS   5   7  RTS 
DSR  6   4  DTR 
SG     7   5  GND 
DTR  20  6  DSR 


This works with Windows HyperTerminal and Flow Control of None. Other
settings are as described in the manuals or in the software.

In my case, I didn't really make a "cable." I configured modular RS232
to RJ45 connectors with the necessary pin configuration and attached
the two with a 4 pair patch cord.
_________________________________________________________

My questions are as follows:

1. Can you use RJ-45 connectors on both ends of the wire?  If yes, I
assume you connect to your computers ethernet card, but where do you
connect to the KSU?

2. I assume I can use Cat5e cable for this?

3. I am a newbie to wiring, I do not understand the pin diagram.  Does
this represent two RJ-45 plugs facing each other.  What do the letters
and numbers represent.  Please answer this with relation to a Cat5e
cable. 

Thanks so much for your help.

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

From: stevenl11@aol.com (Steven Lichter)
Date: 10 Oct 2002 04:25:27 GMT
Organization: AOL http://www.aol.com
Subject: Re: More About Spam Email


I noticed someone posted about using the filtering on Eudora.  I'm
using it on my POP account with Earthlink.  So far I have not received
any spam.  Earthlink has a filtering option, I turned it on today and
am now wondering if it will kill e-mail I want.  So far anything I
have coming managed to get to me.  I'm worried on notices I get
telling me I have an electronic bill. since I using electronic banking
and get most of my statements in my e-mail or am told they are ready
on the web site.  Does anyone have an idea on how to set the filtering
on Eudora, and either just delete the mail with key words or bounce
it.  I used Spam Arrest on an old account and it worked fine once I
got it going, but it took time to ok some mail when they could not
tell if it was spam and besides, I'm not sure I want anything other
then my system to check my mail.


Apple Elite II 909-359-5338. Home of GBBS/LLUCE, support for the 
Apple II 24 hours  2400/14.4.  An OggNet Server.

The only good spammer is a dead one!!!  Have you hunted one down today?  (c)
Kill Spammers, Inc. A Hope You Roast In Hell Company.

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

From: Michael D. Sullivan 
Subject: Re: SBC/Yahoo!
Date: Thu, 10 Oct 2002 06:23:10 GMT


On 10 Oct 2002 00:36:28 GMT, Wes Leatherock posted the following to 
comp.dcom.telecom:

>     Ok, I was wrong.  SBC did not buy Yahoo!

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

> [TELECOM Digest Editor's Question: Well then, did Yahoo! buy SBC?  Did 
> Yahoo! buy Prodigy or the other way around?  All I seem to see nowdays
> is those three are all very cozy with each other.    PAT]

SBC didn't buy Yahoo! and Yahoo! didn't buy SBC.  They have a
marketing alliance.  SBC uses a Yahoo! portal for its customers, and
Yahoo! gets to resell SBC's broadband service.  There's probably more
in the same vein.  SBC owns Prodigy, as far as I can recall.  Does
anyone still use Prodigy, or did SBC shut it down and sell the
customers to Yahoo!?


Michael D. Sullivan
Bethesda, MD, USA
(delete NOSPAM from address to mail me)

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

From: sjsobol@JustThe.net (Steven J. Sobol)
Subject: Re: SBC/Yahoo!
Date: Thu, 10 Oct 2002 14:00:56 -0000
Organization: JustThe.net LLC


 From 'Wes Leatherock' :
>    Ok, I was wrong.  SBC did not buy Yahoo!

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

> TELECOM Digest Editor's Question: Well then, did Yahoo! buy SBC?  Did 
> Yahoo! buy Prodigy or the other way around?  All I seem to see nowdays
> is those three are all very cozy with each other.    PAT]

SBC bought Prodigy a while ago. AFAIK, SBC and Yahoo are just
marketing co-branded services together.


Steve Sobol, CTO  JustThe.net LLC, Mentor On The Lake, OH
http://JustTheNetLLC.com/ http://JustThe.net/ 888.480.4NET (4638)
Verizon Nokia 3285 for sale; six months old, runs perfectly. Also
should work fine on Alltel. Lots of goodies for $100 obo-e-mail for details.

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

Date: Thu, 10 Oct 2002 01:27:05 -0500
From: Gordon S. Hlavenka 
Organization: Crash Electronics, Inc.
Subject: Re: Mail, Phone, Fax Forwarding Services?


Name Withheld wrote:

> I was hoping there would be some businesses that would do fax and
> snail mail forwarding for a reasonable fee.

Can't help you with snail mail, but you can visit "efax" (at the obvious
URL) and sign up for their "free trial" -- this gives you a non-local
fax number, with all faxes sent as attachments to an email address you
provide.  You need their proprietary viewer app to read the faxes, but I
have heard that if you say you're running linux they just send them as
TIFFs, readable by a zillion different programs.

You could set up a hotmail (or whatever) account, and use that to
receive your (e)faxes anyplace there's internet connectivity.

AFAIK, there's no expiration date on the free trial; I've been using
mine for about four years now.


Gordon S. Hlavenka               O-             nospam@crashelex.com
                               Burma!

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

From: Joey Lindstrom 
Date: Thu, 10 Oct 2002 10:40:53 -0600
Reply-To: Joey Lindstrom 
Subject: Third Party Mailboxes


On Wed, 9 Oct 2002 19:02:49 -0400 (EDT), John Shriver wrote:

> There is no reason that you have to use the same provider for e-mail 
> services and Internet access.  Yes, consumer ISPs provide e-mail 
> accounts, partly because they have to set up an authentication 
> infrastructure anyways.  But you don't have to use it.

> So long as your DSL ISP isn't filtering your outgoing traffic to
> prevent you from accessing an off-ISP SMTP server, you can buy your
> e-mail service from anyone you want.  This may not prove
> cost-effective, but it's your choice.  But you will have to search
> hard to find an e-mail provider with all the value-added services you
> want (virus scanning, SPAM filtering).  Why?  Because these services
> are compute-intensive, they will be able to support a far smaller
> number of accounts per mail server.  It's a small market, too.  I
> wouldn't be surprised if this cost $25 a month or more.

I hope I'm not too out of line here, but one of the services I offer,
as a means of offsetting my costs, is exactly what you've just
outlined.  It's a "full-featured" email service (your domain name or
mine): POP3, SMTP, web-accessible (or will work with your mail
client), virus-scanning, spam-filtering, etc.  Yes, it's a very small
market, and yes, these things do cost money to provide, so I do charge
a fee: $15 CAD per month (about $10 USD).  If anyone's interested,
contact me via private email.

> Now, some ISP's do block outgoing access to SMTP servers, so that you
> can't use their accounts to send SPAM to an open SMTP relay server
> somewhere.  This is partly well-intentioned, but mostly hopelessly
> naive, and is mostly infuriating.

Darn rights it is.  I have more than a few customers here who've left
one or more ISP's and moved to another because their existing ISP
started blocking outgoing SMTP.  The problem is that the number of
people who want/need this are such a small minority, that ISP's are
most likely just going to write off the loss (of losing this customer)
since it's cheaper than the headaches that result when, as you say,
spammers come along and buy a throwaway account to use for spamraping.


Joey Lindstrom - Laird's Flooring
joey@lairdsflooring.com

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

From: Joey Lindstrom 
Date: Thu, 10 Oct 2002 10:44:19 -0600
Reply-To: Joey Lindstrom 
Subject: Unroutable Mail


On Wed, 9 Oct 2002 19:02:49 -0400 (EDT), John Higdon wrote:

> My site already refuses to accept any email with an unroutable sender 
> address,

 ... not to mention perfectly routable but politically incorrect
addresses, like for example every .info address on the net ...

> but most spammers circumvent that by using something like 
> "suzie2345@aol.com" ... which is perfectly routable, but probably not 
> valid, and most certainly not the sender's real address.

I like your idea of a partial SMTP conversation with the "alleged"
MTA responsible for the "alleged" sender address - that might cut
down some spam in the short term, at least until the spammers figure
this out and start using some of their verified victims' email
addresses in the "from".  Won't that be a lot of fun, huh?


Joey Lindstrom - Laird's Flooring
joey@lairdsflooring.com

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

From: Howard S Wharton 
Subject: Re: Squirrels
Date: Thu, 10 Oct 2002 14:53:34 -0400
Organization: University at Buffalo


Back in October of 1990, when I was on active duty for Desert Shield
at Plattsburg (NY) AFB. A critter managed to committ suicide on a buss
bar at the main substation. Managed to knock out power to the entire
base.

Howard S. Wharton
Fire Safety Technician
Occupational and Environmental Safety Services
State University of New York at Buffalo

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

From: James Carlson 
Subject: Re: One ISP Who Refuses to Deal with Spam
Date: 10 Oct 2002 11:34:50 -0400
Organization: Sun Microsystems Inc. - BDC


David Green  writes:

> I hate junk mail too, but I also don't like the idea of my provider
> deciding what mail am going to get what I don't.

I don't, either, but *tagging* it by adding an appropriate header (and
then allowing me to choose what to discard) would be great.  See:

        http://www.rhyolite.com/anti-spam/dcc/


James Carlson, Solaris Networking         
SUN Microsystems / 1 Network Drive         71.234W   Vox +1 781 442 2084
MS UBUR02-212 / Burlington MA 01803-2757   42.497N   Fax +1 781 442 1677

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

From: Joey Lindstrom 
Date: Thu, 10 Oct 2002 10:50:02 -0600
Reply-To: Joey Lindstrom 
Subject: Shannon Underhill


On Wed, 9 Oct 2002 22:35:56 -0400 (EDT), editor@telecom-digest.org
wrote:

 
 From: Shannon Underhill 
 Subject: Help Wanted! Looking for a Data Engineer
 Date: Wed, 9 Oct 2002 14:51:48 -0400
 Organization: Snelling Personnel Services

> My name is Shannon Underhill and I am an Executive Recruiter located
> in Savannah, GA.  I specialize in the recruitment and placement of

This person is spamming everybody whose address has appeared in the
Digest and/or the newsgroup.  Keep it in mind the next time this
cretin sends you another missive.


Joey Lindstrom - Laird's Flooring
joey@lairdsflooring.com

[TELECOM Digest Editor's Note: Thanks for the heads-up on this guy. I
had thought he was just a regular guy trying to get decent engineers
for the firms he represents. I did not realize he was going around
spamming the whole net.  :(   Oh well, live and learn, I guess.   PAT]

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

From: absolutedead2002@yahoo.com (TennJed)
Subject: Avaya Definity Question
Date: 10 Oct 2002 11:20:17 -0700
Organization: http://groups.google.com/


Hi all,

I have a quick question/request.

Have any of you had experience with Avaya Definity's Downloadable
Reliable Session-Layer Protocol Tool (RSP Tool) for the PC?

This tool should connect via TCP/IP to the C-Lan and hence the switch
and be able to download call detail recording records for rudimentary
call accounting.

I haven't been able to download it from Avaya as their downloads page
is 'under construction.'

Any help would be appreciated.

Thanks,

A

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

From: kludge@panix.com (Scott Dorsey)
Subject: Re: Panda.com
Date: 10 Oct 2002 14:36:53 -0400
Organization: Former users of Netcom shell (1989-2000)


In article ,  wrote:

> Mark Crispin   wrote:

>> I found three attempts that seemed to be from Joey.  Two were blocked
>> because the reverse-DNS name of the SMTP client was a DSL name. The
>> third was from mail.nucleus.com, whose IP address 207.34.93.23 is
>> definitely in the DSBL multihop blacklist.

> You are blocking email from sites just because the reverse DNS
> includes the string 'dsl'? Not because that subdomain has sent spam?
> It seems you are building an email wall around yourself. Whatever,
> it's your site.  All sites are capable of sending spam.  Why are you
> not blocking all sites?  Feel free to respond to this via email but I
> won't be able to respond the same way.  Your loss.

It is pretty much standard practice to refuse to accept mail from
dialup lines, and in fact a lot of dialup providers block port 25.
This mail is apt to be spam, since legitimate mail should be sent
through the ISP's mail server, not directly from the dialup address.
So, it cuts out a lot of spam without cutting any legitimate mail.

Some people are also blocking mail from DSL lines, for the same
reason.  This has a lot of false positive problems since there are a
lot of legitimate mail servers run by businesses with DSL service, as
well as a lot of spammers with home DSL service.  


scott -- "C'est un Nagra.  C'est suisse, et tres, tres precis."

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

TELECOM Digest is an electronic journal devoted mostly but not
exclusively to telecommunications topics. It is circulated anywhere
there is email, in addition to various telecom forums on a variety of
networks such as Compuserve and America On Line, 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: 620-870-9697
                        Fax 1: 775-255-9970
                        Fax 2: 775-306-8390
                        Fax 3: 775-642-0603
                        Fax 4: 530-309-7234
                        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 second 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)

Email <==> FTP:  telecom-archives@telecom-digest.org 

      Send a simple, one line note to that automated address for
      a help file on how to use the automatic retrieval system
      for archives files. You can get desired files in email.

*************************************************************************
*   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.
Access to Premium (P) links requires upgrade to a paid subscription.

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

Only subscribers or registered users of ICB Toll Free News web site
will be able to access all or some of the full text of URLs provided.

LEGAL STUFF: TELECOM Digest (sm) is owned by Patrick Townson.
Copyright 2000 ICB, Inc. and TELECOM Digest. All rights reserved.
Our attorney is Bill Levant, of Blue Bell, PA.

   ---------------------------------------------------------------
    
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 twenty 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 V22 #73
*****************************
    
    
From editor@telecom-digest.org Thu Oct 10 17:21:56 2002
Received: from localhost (localhost [[UNIX: localhost]])
	by massis.lcs.mit.edu (8.11.3nb1/8.11.3) id g9ALLu406901;
	Thu, 10 Oct 2002 17:21:56 -0400 (EDT)
Date: Thu, 10 Oct 2002 17:21:56 -0400 (EDT)
From: editor@telecom-digest.org
Message-Id: <200210102121.g9ALLu406901@massis.lcs.mit.edu>
X-Authentication-Warning: massis.lcs.mit.edu: ptownson set sender to editor@telecom-digest.org using -f
To: ptownson
Approved: patsnewlist
Subject: TELECOM Digest V22 #74

TELECOM Digest     Thu, 10 Oct 2002 17:20:00 EDT    Volume 22 : Issue 74

Inside This Issue:                           Editor: Patrick A. Townson

    More News Headlines of Interest 10/10/02 (Monty Solomon)
    Stephen Forrette, Please (TELECOM Digest Editor)
    Unroutable Mail (John Higdon)
    Blocking Port 25 (Joey Lindstrom)
    Lawyer Jokes (Joey Lindstrom)
    As Requested - Lawyer Joke (Joe Wineburgh)
    Last Laugh! Lawyer Jokes (Bill Levant)
    Lawyer Joke (long) (Gordon S. Hlavenka)
    Re: Last Laugh!  Jesus Joke (Kenneth P. Stox)
    Lawyer Jokes (TELECOM Digest Editor)

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. WE DO NOT PERMIT NAME/EMAIL ADDRESS
HARVESTING FROM THIS JOURNAL. 'SALTED' EMAIL ADDRESSES APPEAR
HEREIN TO VERIFY THIS. YOU GET SUED IN SMALL CLAIMS COURT IF YOU
GET CAUGHT SPAMMING OR SENDING VIRUSES. DON'T DO IT.

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

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

Date: Thu, 10 Oct 2002 01:38:25 -0400
From: Monty Solomon 
Subject: More News Headlines 10/10/02


Critical US satellites could be hacked
NewScientist.com news service

Commercial satellites used by the US military, secret service and 
Federal Aviation Authority could be hijacked or disabled by computer 
hackers, a new government report has warned.

The satellites are typically used for non-critical communications, as 
well as tracking and telemetry. The report was produced by the US 
General Accounting Office, an investigative governmental body, and 
states that the command channels used to control these commercial 
satellites are insufficiently protected against misuse.

http://www.newscientist.com/news/news.jsp?id=ns99992905

The Digital Divide or the Digital Connection: A U.S. Perspective
by Beverly P. Lynch

Contents

The Digital Divide Defined
The Digital Divide Measured
U.S. Reports: Falling Through the Net
The Internet and U.S. Communication Policy
Public Libraries and the Internet
Public Library Connectivity in the U.S.
Measurement and Evaluation of Libraries
Conclusion

http://firstmonday.org/issues/issue7_10/lynch/

Hacktivists or Cyberterrorists? The Changing Media Discourse on Hacking
by Sandor Vegh

Abstract

This paper scrutinizes the language of government reports and news 
media sources to shed light on their role in forming a negative image 
of politically motivated hacking in general, and online political 
activism, in particular. It is argued that the mass media's portrayal 
of hacking conveniently fits the elite's strategy to form a popular 
consensus in a way that supports the elite's crusade under different 
pretexts to eradicate hacking, an activity that may potentially 
threaten the dominant order.

Contents

Introduction
Discourse on hacktivism
The media's role
Conclusion


http://firstmonday.org/issues/issue7_10/vegh/


The Internet in India and China
by Larry Press, William Foster, Peter Wolcott, and William McHenry


Abstract

This article compares the diffusion of the Internet in China and
India. Using a six-dimension framework for characterizing the state of
the Internet in a nation, we observe that, while both nations have
made significant progress since our last comparison (in 1999), China
enjoys a substantial lead over India.

We also examine determinants of Internet diffusion. We find that the
Chinese Internet has benefited from economic and trade reform begun in
the late 1980s, a strong government commitment to the Internet,
complementary human and capital resources, etc. The two nations have
very different governments and policies, leading to differing
approaches to the introduction of telecommunication competition and
infrastructure development. China has pursued a strategy of
competition among government-owned organizations while India has set
policy via recommendations of publicly visible task forces. It remains
to be seen whether India's relatively transparent and market driven
approach to Internet policy (and access) will prove effective in the
long run.

India and China have approximately 40 percent of the world population,
and most of their inhabitants live in rural villages that lack basic
telephone service. If the Internet is to succeed in raising the level
of human development and curtailing migration to teeming urban
centers, it must succeed in India and China. What we learn there may
enable us to provide communication and information to the world's 1.5
million unconnected villages.


Contents

Introduction
Comparison along our Dimensions
Determinants of Internet Diffusion
Conclusion


http://firstmonday.org/issues/issue7_10/press/

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

Date: Thu, 10 Oct 2002 15:59:51 -0400 (EDT)
From: TELECOM Digest Editor 
Subject: Stephen Forrette, Please


Would Stephen Forrette please get in touch with me ASAP?  You sent me
something and I want to talk to you about it.  Thanks.

PAT

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

From: John Higdon 
Subject: Re: Unroutable Mail
Organization: Green Hills and Cows
Date: Thu, 10 Oct 2002 13:02:40 -0700


In article , Joey Lindstrom
 wrote:

> On Wed, 9 Oct 2002 19:02:49 -0400 (EDT), John Higdon wrote:

>> My site already refuses to accept any email with an unroutable sender 
>> address,

>  ... not to mention perfectly routable but politically incorrect
> addresses, like for example every .info address on the net ...

Actually, I have since removed that restriction, but if you want to
keep the grudge alive, so be it. I'm not surprised after that last
exchange with you.

> I like your idea of a partial SMTP conversation with the "alleged"
> MTA responsible for the "alleged" sender address - that might cut
> down some spam in the short term, at least until the spammers figure
> this out and start using some of their verified victims' email
> addresses in the "from".  Won't that be a lot of fun, huh?

Some already do that. Another common tactic (now) is to use the spammed 
address in both the To: and From: headers.


John Higdon     | Email Address Valid | SF:  +1 415 428-COWS
+1 408 264 4115 |     Anytown, USA    | FAX: +1 408 264 4407

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

From: Joey Lindstrom 
Date: Thu, 10 Oct 2002 14:21:48 -0600
Reply-To: Joey Lindstrom 
Subject: Blocking Port 25


On Thu, 10 Oct 2002 15:48:36 -0400 (EDT), Scott Dorsey wrote:

> It is pretty much standard practice to refuse to accept mail from
> dialup lines, and in fact a lot of dialup providers block port 25.
> This mail is apt to be spam, since legitimate mail should be sent
> through the ISP's mail server, not directly from the dialup address.
> So, it cuts out a lot of spam without cutting any legitimate mail.

As we've discussed probably to death, this idea that "legitimate mail
SHOULD be sent through the ISP's mail server" (emphasis mine) is an
interesting assumption, but only that: an assumption.  There are a
large number of third-party email services out there, including
myself (on a very small scale), including MailBank, etc., which let
you bypass your ISP - particularly if you want value-added services
like spam-filtering, virus-scanning, etc. (or if you want to BYPASS
such services that your ISP puts on your account without giving you
the option to disable).  

I've had more than a few customers switch ISP's because not only were
they blocking port 25, they also were not allowing customers to route
mail through their SMTP server.  The mail in question had neither a
FROM or TO in the domain of the ISP, thus it was ruled ineligible for
transport.  3web comes to mind as a good example of this behaviour.
Anyone using an ISP like this CANNOT use a third-party email system
(unless they're willing to use only a web-based interface).

> Some people are also blocking mail from DSL lines, for the same
> reason.  This has a lot of false positive problems since there are a
> lot of legitimate mail servers run by businesses with DSL service, as
> well as a lot of spammers with home DSL service.  

I can see blocking dynamic DSL lines - indeed, there's a few popular
"dial-up blackhole" lists available that server operators can filter
against.  These lists only include those DSL lines with dynamic IP's
(as well as most dial-up lines, which are also dynamic).  They do NOT
include DSL lines with static IP's (ie: "business class" lines), which
spammers are far less likely to use (given that the rates are much
higher and you often have to pay a year in advance, etc.)  In the
example cited above, the server simply did a reverse lookup on the IP
and came up with this string:

dsl-ebprk-208-38-10-98-cgy.nucleus.com

The presence of "dsl" in that string was enough to trigger the block.
The IP address did NOT fail a database dip against a dial-up
blackhole list, but it got blocked anyways.

Basically what this whole thing comes down to is: just how far do we
want to take the war against spam?  Are we willing to over-filter and
risk missing legitimate mail (possibly a large amount of it)?  Or do
we prefer to under-filter, which results in SOME spam getting through
but yields a much lower false positive rate?  I much prefer the latter
approach, and based on what I've been reading here (from those who've
spoken up on the issue), I think a slight majority agrees.  There are
those, however, who advocate the former approach - Mark, John Higdon,
et al.  Hey, it's their call to make, I just happen to disagree -
rather vocally.  :-)


Joey Lindstrom - Laird's Flooring
joey@lairdsflooring.com

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

From: Joey Lindstrom 
Date: Wed, 09 Oct 2002 13:35:24 -0600
Reply-To: Joey Lindstrom 
Subject: lawyer Jokes


On Wed, 9 Oct 2002 01:44:31 -0400 (EDT), editor@telecom-digest.org
wrote:

> [Reverend Bob Dobbs Note: That was totally blasphemous, just like the
> one yesterday about the guys at the bar. Tsk, tsk, tsk. Let's drop the
> Jesus jokes. I have a new joke concept:  jokes about lawyers. That's
> a new and original concept isn't it?  No one has ever done that before
> I don't think. Send in your lawyer jokes, but they have to be clean,
> not filthy or obscene. This is a family-oriented Digest after all, and
> I do not want it to get rated XXX and screened out on Library terminals.
> PAT]

Q: What do you call a thousand lawyers at the bottom of a lake?
A: A pretty good start ...

Q: What's the difference between a lab rat and a lawyer?
A: You can grow attached to a lab rat ...

Q: What's the difference between a catfish and a lawyer?
A: One's a scum-sucking bottom-feeder, and the other's a fish ...


Joey Lindstrom - Laird's Flooring
joey@lairdsflooring.com

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

From: Joe Wineburgh 
Subject: As Requested - Lawyer Joke
Date: Wed, 9 Oct 2002 16:24:21 -0400


And it's even telecom related!

#JOE (not related to the joe in the joke)

Joe grew up in a small town, then moved away to attend college and law
school. He decided to come back to the small town because he could be
a big man in this small town. He really wanted to impress everyone. So
he returned and opened his new law office.

The first day, he saw a man coming up the sidewalk. He decided to make
a big impression on this new client when he arrived. As the man came
to the door, Joe picked up the phone. He motioned the man in, all the
while talking.

"No. Absolutely not. You tell those clowns in New York that I won't
settle this case for less than one million. Yes. The Appeals Court has
agreed to hear that case next week. I'll be handling the primary
argument and the other members of my team will provide support. Okay.
Tell the DA that I'll meet with him next week to discuss the
details. "  This sort of thing went on for almost five minutes. All
the while the man sat patiently as Joe rattled instructions. 

Finally, Joe put down the phone and turned to the man. "I'm sorry for
the delay, but as you can see, I'm very busy. What can I do for you?"
The man replied, "I'm from the phone company. I came to hook up your
phone."

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

From: Wlevant@aol.com
Date: Wed, 9 Oct 2002 19:03:39 EDT
Subject: Re: Last Laugh! Lawyer Jokes


>  I have a new joke concept:  jokes about lawyers. 

  HEY !!!!!!   

  But if you're looking...

     What do you call 100 lawyers launched on a rocket ship into the sun?
     ---- A good start.

     What does it mean if a lawyer is buried up to his neck in sand ?
     ---- It means you don't have enough sand.


Bill

[TELECOM Digest Editor's Note: And this one came to us from a fellow
who is a lawyer!  Bill Levant, of Blue Bell, PA is the patent attorney
who filed the trade name 'Telecom Digest' on my behalf. Thanks for
your good sense of humor, Bill!    PAT]

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

Date: Thu, 10 Oct 2002 02:01:50 -0500
From: Gordon S. Hlavenka 
Organization: Crash Electronics, Inc.
Subject: Lawyer joke (long)


So this tourist is visiting San Francisco, and he takes a walk through
Chinatown.  On a dusty shelf in the back of one shop, he finds a solid
brass figurine of a rat.  It's exquisitely detailed and for some
reason he takes an instant liking to it.  So, he asks the proprietor
how much it costs.

"Fifty dollars for the statue," says the old man, "but two thousand
dollars for the story of the statue!"

"I don't care about the story," replies the tourist.  He plunks down a
fifty dollar traveler's check and walks out with his new acquisition.

But a strange thing happens: As he steps into the street, three rats
scamper out of a nearby alley and fall into step at his heel.  Moments
later, a dozen more come up through a sewer grate and join in.  People
are beginning to stare...

Each alley, sewer, and trash can he passes disgorges more rats, all
following close behind him.  He's nervous now, and breaks into a trot.
The rats keep pace!  Behind him, the entire street is awash with gray
and brown fur.  Bystanders are screaming -- traffic is a mess -- And
still the rats come from all directions!

He runs.  He sprints!  The rats follow!  At last he reaches the
waterfront, and climbs a wooden telephone pole [OB-Telecom] at the end
of a pier.  Holding on with one arm, he hurls the brass figurine as
far as he can into the depths of the Bay.

For twenty minutes or more, rats stream off the pier into the water
and drown.  Finally, the tourist climbs down the pole and, disheveled
and sweaty, pushes his way through the questioning throng.  Retracing
his steps he returns to the shop in Chinatown, and lays two thousand
dollars worth of traveler's checks on the counter.

"I knew you would return," says the man at the counter.  "You've come
to hear the story.  Don't worry, I promise you it's worth the price."

"I still don't care about the story," said the tourist.  "But I'll pay
you two thousand dollars for a brass figurine of a lawyer."


Gordon S. Hlavenka               O-             nospam@crashelex.com
                               Burma!

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

From: Kenneth P. Stox 
Subject: Re: Last Laugh!  Jesus Joke
Date: Wed, 09 Oct 2002 09:55:33 -0500
Organization: Imaginary Landscape, LLC.


> [Reverend Bob Dobbs Note: That was totally blasphemous, just like the
> one yesterday about the guys at the bar. Tsk, tsk, tsk. Let's drop the
> Jesus jokes. I have a new joke concept:  jokes about lawyers. That's
> a new and original concept isn't it?  No one has ever done that before
> I don't think. Send in your lawyer jokes, but they have to be clean,
> not filthy or obscene. This is a family-oriented Digest after all, and
> I do not want it to get rated XXX and screened out on Library terminals.
> PAT] 

Come on Pat, let's leave the religous and lawyer jokes in the
newsgroups where they belong. I will admit that prayers, and thoughts
of lawyers, have become a part of dealing with telecom, these days,
though. What we really need is ILEC/RBOC jokes! Lucent jokes. Worldcom
jokes. There does seem to be a shortage in these important areas. Of
course, when many of us need a good laugh, we just call customer
service.

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

From: Patrick Townson 
Subject: Lawyer Jokes
Date: Thu, 10 Oct 2002 15:00:00 


So I asked for lawyer jokes, and got several as requested. In this 
issue I decided to just use the clean, non-blasphemous ones I would
not get sued for, that were enough to show to Mother. I will give
my contribution to the bunch:

Three men (a Hindu, a Jew, and a Lawyer) were riding down the highway
together. The car broke down and they had to find a place to stay
overnight. They went up to a farm house and asked the farmer if they
could stay there overnight.

Farmer says, well you can, but I only have two spare bedrooms, so one
of you will have to sleep out in the barn. The three of them discussed
that at some length, and because the Lawyer was considered to be the
most important of them all, chose a bedroom. The other two drew straws
and the Hindu lost, so he headed for the barn. The farmer, the Lawyer
and the Jew retired to their rooms and went to bed. 

They had all settled down in bed for the night when there was a loud
rapping at the door. They all rushed to the door, and there stood the
Hindu. Very indignant, he explained that in the barn he found a cow
laying there. "In my religion, we consider the cow to be very sacred.
I certainly am not going to sleep in the presence of one." They all 
thought about that for a minute, and finally as a show of Brotherly
Love, the Jew agreed to take the Hindu's place in the barn. He gets
all his stuff out of the bedroom, the Hindu moves his stuff into the
bedroom, and the farmer, Lawyer and Hindu go back to bed.

They no sooner have laid down and started to fall asleep, when there
is another rapping at the door. They all rush to the door, and
standing there is the Jew. His Brotherly Love starting to wear a bit
thin, he explains patiently that when he was out in the barn, he 
found a pig there. "In my religion, we are not to eat pork products.
Pigs are considered unclean animals. I certainly am not going to sleep
next to one." They all stood there arguing about this point, and
the Lawyer is getting more and more sleepy, so he agrees to settle
the argument by sleeping in the barn. He gets his stuff out of the
bedroom and heads to the barn. The Jew takes over the Lawyer's
bedroom. They all go back to bed and fall asleep.

They have been in their rooms just five minutes or so and there is 
another commotion at the front door. The farmer (poor guy!), the
Hindu and the Jew all get up and rush to the door. And standing there
at the door are    .....   the pig and the cow.


PAT

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

TELECOM Digest is an electronic journal devoted mostly but not
exclusively to telecommunications topics. It is circulated anywhere
there is email, in addition to various telecom forums on a variety of
networks such as Compuserve and America On Line, 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: 620-870-9697
                        Fax 1: 775-255-9970
                        Fax 2: 775-306-8390
                        Fax 3: 775-642-0603
                        Fax 4: 530-309-7234
                        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 second 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)

Email <==> FTP:  telecom-archives@telecom-digest.org 

      Send a simple, one line note to that automated address for
      a help file on how to use the automatic retrieval system
      for archives files. You can get desired files in email.

*************************************************************************
*   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.
Access to Premium (P) links requires upgrade to a paid subscription.

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

Only subscribers or registered users of ICB Toll Free News web site
will be able to access all or some of the full text of URLs provided.

LEGAL STUFF: TELECOM Digest (sm) is owned by Patrick Townson.
Copyright 2000 ICB, Inc. and TELECOM Digest. All rights reserved.
Our attorney is Bill Levant, of Blue Bell, PA.

   ---------------------------------------------------------------
    
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 twenty 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 V22 #74
*****************************
    
    
From editor@telecom-digest.org Fri Oct 11 01:02:38 2002
Received: from localhost (localhost [[UNIX: localhost]])
	by massis.lcs.mit.edu (8.11.3nb1/8.11.3) id g9B52cZ08757;
	Fri, 11 Oct 2002 01:02:38 -0400 (EDT)
Date: Fri, 11 Oct 2002 01:02:38 -0400 (EDT)
From: editor@telecom-digest.org
Message-Id: <200210110502.g9B52cZ08757@massis.lcs.mit.edu>
X-Authentication-Warning: massis.lcs.mit.edu: ptownson set sender to editor@telecom-digest.org using -f
To: ptownson
Approved: patsnewlist
Subject: TELECOM Digest V22 #75

TELECOM Digest     Fri, 11 Oct 2002 01:02:00 EDT    Volume 22 : Issue 75

Inside This Issue:                            Editor: Patrick A. Townson

    Will Hate Speech Become Fifth Horseman of Apocolypse (1997 Reprint)

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. WE DO NOT PERMIT NAME/EMAIL ADDRESS
HARVESTING FROM THIS JOURNAL. 'SALTED' EMAIL ADDRESSES APPEAR
HEREIN TO VERIFY THIS. YOU GET SUED IN SMALL CLAIMS COURT IF YOU
GET CAUGHT SPAMMING OR SENDING VIRUSES. DON'T DO IT.

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

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

Date: Fri, 11 Oct 2002 00:20:37 EDT
From: TELECOM Digest Editor 
Subject: Will Hate Speech Become Fifth Horseman of the Apocolypse?


Here is a reprint of an article which appeared in TELECOM Digest
about five years ago. It had originally appeared in our sister 
publication *Computer Underground Digest* November 5, 1997. CuD has
been defunct now for a couple years. I thought you might like to
see this item again, now that spam has become more problematic than
ever before. When I first published this article five years ago
here in this space, I introduced it this way:
           
> An interesting perspective on the net as we know it now and its future
> over the next few years. This appeared in an issue of Computer Under-
> ground Digest.


> PAT

     --- Forwarded Message ---

  Date:  05-Nov-97 01:47 CST
  From:  INTERNET:cu-digest@weber.ucsd.edu
  Subj:  Cu Digest, #9.80, Tue 4 Nov 97

  Message-Id: <199711050457.UAA20957@weber.ucsd.edu>
  Date:    Tue, 04 Nov 97 22:56 CST
  To: cu-digest@weber.ucsd.edu
  From: Cu Digest (tk0jut2@mvs.cso.niu.edu)  
  Subject: Cu Digest, #9.80, Tue 4 Nov 97

Computer underground Digest    Tue  Nov 4, 1997   Volume 9 : Issue 80
                           ISSN  1004-042X

       Editor: Jim Thomas (cudigest@sun.soci.niu.edu)
       News Editor: Gordon Meyer (gmeyer@sun.soci.niu.edu)
       Archivist: Brendan Kehoe
       Shadow Master: Stanton McCandlish
       Shadow-Archivists: Dan Carosone / Paul Southworth
                          Ralph Sims / Jyrki Kuoppala
                          Ian Dickinson
       Field Agent Extraordinaire:   David Smith
       Cu Digest Homepage: http://www.soci.niu.edu/~cudigest

CONTENTS, #9.80 (Tue, Nov 4, 1997)

File 1--WILL "HATE SPEECH" BECOME 5th HORSEMAN OF THE  APOCALYPSE?
File 2--Cu Digest Header Info (unchanged since 7 May, 1997)

CuD ADMINISTRATIVE, EDITORIAL, AND SUBSCRIPTION INFORMATION APPEARS IN
THE CONCLUDING FILE AT THE END OF EACH ISSUE.

Date: Tue, 28 Oct 1997 23:58:55 -0500
From: Paul Kneisel 
Subject: File 1--WILL "HATE SPEECH" BECOME 5th HORSEMAN OF THE  APOCALYPSE?

   WILL "HATE SPEECH" BECOME FIFTH HORSEMAN OF THE APOCALYPSE?
                     The Tired Four Horsemen

by tallpaul

     ROPER: So now you'd give the Devil benefit of law!

     MORE: Yes. What would you do? Cut a great road through the law to get
after the Devil?

     ROPER: I'd cut down every law in England to do that!

     MORE: Oh? And when the last law was down, and the Devil turned round
on you--where would you hide, Roper, the laws all being flat? This
country's planted thick with laws from coast to coast--man's laws, not
God's--and if you cut them down--and you're just the man to do it--d'you
really think you could stand upright in the winds that would blow then?
Yes, I'd give the Devil benefit of law, for my own safety's sake.

     --Robert Bolt   "A Man For All Seasons"

You haven't heard much from the Four Horsemen of the Apocalypse recently.

The dreaded "hackers, terrorists, drug dealers and kiddie
pornographers" of cyberspace who once caused Presidents and Prime
Ministers to tremble and mothers to herd their children into their
beds at sundown have been strangely quiet, if only measured by the
absence of significant media reports to the contrary. Perhaps in these
modern times the wages of sin are no longer death but just a really
tired feeling, as comedienne Paula Poundstone comments.

Yet the Four Horsemen once caused millions people off-the-net to call
for all manner of controls on the Global Information Superhighway.

Part I: The Tired Four Horsemen

Concerned parents "cruising the net" to see what their children were
exposed to found little evidence of drug dealing. There is a lot of
spam for $50,000 a week pyramid schemes, but little advertising at web
sites f or Jack's House'O'Crack, Crack Attack, or Crack'n'Smack.

Where are the "terrorists" on the Internet against whom we need
increased government powers? (I use the term here as the government
uses it, not as anti-hate or civil-libertarian forces might.)

Even the most anti-Islamic forces do not charge that we can find web
page s from "Crazy Abdul's" where you can buy AK-47 assault rifles and
C4 plastic explosive at "prices so low they're INSANE!"

The very phrase "terrorist" has a considerable political bias that
makes the whole notion of supporting a cop crackdown on "hate crimes"
exceedingly problematical. Black churches burn up in the South,
abortion clinics blow up, and members of right-wing and fundamentalist
Christian militias are convicted of crimes ranging from multiple
murders down the list of lesser felonies. But not a single such
right-wing individual is identified on the FBI's current "Ten Most
Wanted" list.[1]

Chillingly, *the* "major investigation" for today's FBI does not
involve any of the bank robberies or murders for which right-wing
hate-based forces are suspected.[2] It involves cemetery
desecrations. It's easy to imagine that the investigation centers on
those who spray paint swastikas and Nazi slogans in Jewish cemeteries
since we read so many stories about this in the daily papers. But the
imagination is wrong. Rather the *top-listed* investigation is of
inferentially anti-hate activists for ostensibly desecrating
cemeteries with the phrase ""H[awaii] P[olice] D[epartment] ignores
hate crimes. Ignore this."[3]

Nor is the international scene better. The State Department just
released its own list of "international terrorist organizations."[4]
Only three of the 31 organizations have a recognizable right-wing
orientation. These are the archly anti-Semitic Aum Shinrikyo (AUM)
cult in Japan and the two right-wing-Zionist groups Kach and Kahane
Chai. Not surprisingly, the State Department was unable to find a
single military-based death squad or neo-fascist group in the world to
which it was willing to pin the "terrorist" designation. Nor, with the
exception of those groups ostensibly based in Islam or AUM, is there
a single recognizably-named political (as opposed to religious)
anti-Semitic organization listed.

"Kiddie porn" got a small boost in the past week or so when
international police consortiums charged several people with
trafficking and even got a conviction of one person in the U.S.[5]
Even the power of a conviction to motivate people was offset by
several factors. The first was that it occurred under existing laws
and conditions without any special need for changes. The second was
that the man convicted was already in prison when he used a
prison-based computer to commit the new crime for which he was
convicted, showing that convictions do not forever prevent the crime
from occurring. The third was the release of Methodist minister
Rev. Nathaniel T. Grady after serving ten years for rape, sodomy, and
sexual abuse of six children between three and five years old.[6] An
appeals court ruled that Rev. Grady was falsely convicted in one of
the sexual hysterias sweeping the country.

The hysteria around "kiddie porn" on the net has its own prehistory
beginning over a decade ago with the "missing children" scare that led
to a significant increase in photos appearing on milk cartons. It then
moved to the "Satanic molestations" at day care centers and "recovered
memory therapy" that virtually guaranteed that you, too, could
discover that you were a victim of childhood sexual molestation. The
hysteria culminated wi th J. Quitter's article in _TIME_ magazine
about an ostensible study of "kiddie porn" on the net via Marty Rimm
and Carnegie Mellon University.[7 ]

The cooler heads discovered that most missing children were only
missing to one parent. The other parent, involved in a messy divorce,
has snatched t he child. The Satanic scare, reflected in cases like
McMartin in California and Michaels in New Jersey, started to break
down. Incredibly expensive trials led either to no convictions or
convictions reversed on appeal as saner courts examined the ostensible
evidence and saw none to examine.  "Recovered memories" of sexual
abuse cracked when therapists specializing in such ostensible therapy
started losing big lawsuits to the innocent people they targeted as
molesters. The Rimm study on the Internet soon came under enormous
criticism.[7]

Of course, all of the Four Horsemen (along with every other group in
the world) are on the net. This includes "kiddie pornographers" or at
least those accused of it. It is easy argue that even one convicted
"kiddie porn" trafficker is one too many. The same can be said of
cannibals like Jeffrey Dahmer. But does it justify the creation of a
Kitchen Decency Act where warrentless searches are permitted for fear
that we will have Hannibal Lecter as a dinner guest?

The use of the Horseman to motivate a crackdown on civil liberties
becomes even more problematical as people discover that the arguments
are used to bolster a different politic. "Many of these companies are
using the public's discomfort with new technologies and the hysteria
of easy access to pornography on the Internet to further an anti-gay
agenda," said Loren Javier, GLAAD's Interactive Media Director.[8]

Even the infamous "hacker menace" has lost its ability to motivate
attacks on the U.S. Bill of Rights.

Part of this is due to increased public knowledge of computers and
systems.  Press coverage of _2600_ magazine's recent beyond HOPE
hacker convention in New York City tended to be free from the hysteria
that has marked such coverage in the past.[9]

Another reason why the Four Horsemen lack motivational power for the
crackdown is that the dire predictions made for the past 30 years have
not come true. Leon Festinger, in his book _When Prophecy Fails_,
showed how failed predictions often lead those who made them to cling
to, rather abandon, the prediction. But such actions only pertain to
those actually making the predictions, not the bulk of the citizenry
who only heard the prediction made. Hackerdom has produced events like
the Internet worm a few years ago but even this was not the disaster
that the control-pundits warned about. Despite the horrible
predictions, the average citizen has spent thirty years since Captain
Crunch and the original phone phreaks waiting for the *first*
massively destructive shoe to drop.

No, these Horseman have not produced the Apocalypse from which forces
hostile to the U.S. Bill of Rights want to protect us.

The issue of quality encryption and anonymous remailers has also run
into difficulties as a mass motivator for additional government
control of cyberspace.

When export controls on PGP were in place, the labyrinthine procedures
necessary to get a copy were likely beyond the capability of most new
users. Learning to use it was even more daunting, although considerably
assisted by new books like those from O'Reilly and Associates.[10]

Anonymous remailer systems introduce yet another level of
complexity. By the end of the process, Steve Harris, the author of the
"John Doe" front-end software for PGP and remailers, once estimated
that only 500 people in the world were sophisticated enough to use the
whole system.[11] This represents quite a comedown for a society
reared on the dreaded "Red

Menace" from the former Soviet Union or the hysteria of a millennia-old
Satanic conspiracy sacrificing 50,000 children a year just in the U.S.

The mere existence of highly secure encryption systems that potential
criminals *might* use does not in itself create a global problem. Andy
Oram, an editor at O'Reilly & Associates and the moderator of the
discussion list for Computer Professionals for Social Responsibility,
points out that commercial needs can severely limit the use of
technology of anonymity. "Repressive forces have constantly argued
that they need to control encryption and anonymous remailers in order
to attack pornography. But the vast majority of distributors of
pornography can't hide themselves, because they want payment. They
have to advertise their presence! They're the last people to hide
behind encryption and anonymity."

Nor are the remailer systems all that secure against actions using
existi ng laws and technologies (whether overt or covert.)

 in Finland, the oldest of the systems, shut down after the
own er received a subpoena to deliver the name of a user. The others,
as standar d computer systems, are as vulnerable to individual attack
as any other individual system.

We saw a federal armored combat vehicle gradually demolish the
fortified headquarters of the Branch Davidian compound in Waco,
Texas. Is the notio n of a cyber-siege so outlandish then, where
government computer systems would launch simultaneous SYNC attacks
against a rogue remailer system if the same government deemed it was
actively being used by terrorists? The recent attack by forces
supporting the anti-Basque policies of the Spanish government on the
Institute For Global Communications (IGC) site indicates "no."

Of course the anonymous remailers themselves are not anonymous. The
owners and administrators are subject to the same system of social
defense (or political attack) as all other individuals in society. A
simple court injunction would likely shut them down or result in the
arrest on contempt charges of any administrator who disobeyed.

Any of the Four Horsemen can be used to whip up a short-term
concern. Such hysterias are not difficult to create. Social
psychologists can track the movement of local versions of mass
hysteria across geographic areas as if they were weather fronts.

A gruesome child kidnapping and murder can capture headlines until a
Royal Celebrity dies. Bombing a public building calls for changes in
laws until that story is swept away by news of a large drug raid, only
to have that replaced by a tale of young hackers "reprogramming the
orbits of space satellites."

Even the well-known mass hysterias of the past were so often simply
local upsurges that burned out in one area and then moved on to the
next.  Outbursts of the European Witch Craze might last for decades in
different countries but took the form of waves of short-term hysteria
sweeping through villages and counties. The Salem Witch Trials,
probably the best known hysteria in the U.S., was obviously limited to
the Salem area. Less well known is that by 1692 the major Salem jury,
led by its foreman Thomas Fisk, had recovered and shame-faced, issued
a written apology for their actions to their victims (or to the
community and those victims still alive.)[12] In the language of
today's Internet, the hanging jury confessed they were a group of
"clueless newbies."

None of the short-term "god ain't it horrible" stories about the net
serve to create the type of mass sustained public concern necessary
to rewrite or reinterpret citizen rights to give governments sweeping
new powers to "protect" citizens.

Government claims to protect citizens' privacy with new
anti-encryption proposals are, at best, little more than the pious
wishes of bureaucrats.

This was clearly seen last month when a hacker group intercepted and
published pager communications by White House functionaries.

"We are publicizing this flaw in the hopes that it will finally be
fixed," said Pamela Finkel, one of the organizers of the Hackers On
Planet Earth (HOPE) conference and a lead spokesperson for the
group. "It's an excellent example of why we need encryption to
protect sensitive information.

"I hope that this demonstration causes encryption to be added to the
pager network," Finkel added. "This incident shows that the
President's policy on encryption is so poorly crafted that it could
have even compromised his own personal security."[13]

The totality of pro-regulation arguments around the Four Horseman take
on a separate four related characteristics. "First, the occasional
conviction we get shows that criminal behavior is epidemic on the
net. Second, without new laws we cannot get convictions. Third,
encryption prevents us from getting convictions but the new encryption
rules we propose will let us protect your privacy. Fourth, we cannot
protect our own."

Only the Tooth Fairy lets you have all four at the same price.

This does not stop the forces opposed to civil liberties from pushing
for new laws with new arguments.

It does, however, make their past efforts increasingly problematical
for them, with a character somewhere between the Orwellian and the
humorous.

One central problem -- given the existence of telephones and computers
 -- is the *relative* unimportance of the Internet. The two pre-Inter-
net technologies make the Internet little more that a set of protocols
concerning data. One set, like TCP/IP, determines how data is
transmitted over the phones via computer. The other, like the World
Wide Web and the Usenet news groups, determines how pre-existing data
is stored. The Internet could disappear tomorrow while phones plus
computers would permi t all of the Horseman to continue their
ostensible gallop, either via direc t modem-to-modem connections or
via non-Internet private bulletin board sys tems.

A more Orwellian view was recently expressed by Alan McDonald, "a
senior executive with the FBI," who said "that 'extremist' positions
on electronic encryption are a threat to normal law enforcement and
are elitist and nondemocratic. Insisting that the United States had
remained true to the Constitution and to a system of ordered liberties, 
McDonald says: 'When people don't know much about electronic
surveillance, they are fearful of it. But when they know Congress
passed laws and the Supreme Court reviewed them and that there are
numerous constraints and procedures, then it make s sense to them. It
seems rational and balanced'."[14]

Perhaps the greatest sense of Orwellian doublethink from FBI pundits
here is over the notion of judicial review. The courts have indeed
reviewed cases brought before it by McDonald's "privacy extremists"
and struck down the laws. The Zimmerman case involving the export of
PGP encryption technology was dropped. The Communications Decency Act
was declared unconstitutional. Recent state attempts to control the
Internet by New York and Georgia have similarly been struck down.[15]

Measured even from the standpoint of the U.S. judiciary, the positions
th e FBI denounces as "extremist," elitist, and undemocratic far
better define the actions of the FBI and other branches of the
U.S. executive branch of government than its opponents.

Yet the same executive branch of government funds its own extremism in
these areas with $US 250 million a year. This is a sizeable chunk of
change, but, according to the President's Commission on Critical
Infrastructure Protection, is not sufficient to even "jump start" the
battle against "physical and cyber threats." A dollar just doesn't go
as far these days as it did when J. Edgar Hoover headed the FBI and
Richard Nixon called for Law And Order. Now the Clinton government
wants an additional $US 250 million for 1999 "and $100 million each
succeeding year until they reach $1 billion in 2004."[16]

Some find this effort far more chilling to the well-being of the
citizenry than the mythology of the Four Horsemen themselves.

Something else is required to motivate an increasingly tax-shy
electorate to pop for a billion a year as the Horsemen increasingly
fail to provide sufficient motivation.

Then ... however ... there is the new issue of "hate speech."

FOOTNOTES

[1] Federal Bureau of Investigation: "the FBI's TEN MOST WANTED fugitives
," via: , accessed 13 Oct 97.

[2] Federal Bureau of Investigation: "Major Investigations." via:
, accessed 13 Oct 97.

[3] Federal Bureau of Investigation: "Cemetery Desecration," via:
, accessed 13 Oct 97.

[4] Office of the Co-ordinator for Counterterrorism of the U.S. State
Department, "Foreign Terrorist Organizations," via:
,
accessed 13 Oct 97.

[5] _New York Times_, 5 Sep 97. no author listed in summary via EduPage
, "Minnesota Child Molester Convicted of Cyber
Porn," 7 Sep 97.

[6] David Stout, "Conviction for Child Abuse Overturned 10 Years Later,"
_New York Times,_, 30 Sep 97, p. B3. no on-net source found to cite.

[7] See "The Rimm/Carnegie Mellon University/TIME Cyberporn 'study'
Debate (NIU Sociology 476 - Ethics of Fieldwork Segment)," via:
. accessed 5 Sep 1997
2E

[8] "Disturbing Anti-gay Trend Continues in Cyberspace," "GLAADLines"
electronic news post, 25 Aug 97, Gay & Lesbian Alliance Against
Defamation  and via: .

[9] For examples of the press coverage of "beyondHOPE," see for
example The Cheshire Catalyst's web age via:


[10] Simson Garfinkel, _PGP: Pretty Good Privacy_, (O'Reilly & Associates,
Sebastopol, CA: 1995).

[11] Steve Harris, via: 

[12] Thomas Fisk, Thomas Pearly senior, William Fish, et al. "We confess
that we ourselves were not capable to understand...." quoted by Kurt
Seligman, _The History of Magic and the Occult_ (Harmony Books, New York:
1983) p. 191.

[13] Pamela Finkel, "Media Advisory: Hackers Expose Vulnerability in
White House Security," 16 Sep 97, via:


[14] no author, "FBI says privacy 'extremists' are 'elitist',"
TechWire, 25 Sep 97. summary republished in electronic form by
EduPage, 28 Sep 97 via Edupage Editors .

[15] no author listed, "Internet restrictions overturned in New York
[and ] Georgia," _WiredNews_, 20 Jun 97. summary republished in
electronic form by EduPage, 23 Jun 97.

"In the New York case, a law similar to the federal Communications
Decency Act was declared unconstitutional because it sought to
regulate transactions occurring outside the state's borders, thereby
violating the Constitution's interstate commerce clause. 'The judge
was waiting to hear the Supreme Court's decision on the CDA, but
decided that in any event it doesn't matter because under this
commerce law, it is too burdensome for people to speak at all in this
medium,' says an American Civil Liberties Union attorney. In Georgia,
a federal judge issued a preliminary injuncti on against a law that
made it illegal to use a name that "falsely identifies" the sender of
an electronic message, such as a pseudonym or an anonymous e-mail
address." republished by EduPage, 23 Jun 97.

[16] no author listed, "Cyber threats of concern to presidential
commission," _Washington Post_, 6 Sep 97. republished as summary in
electronic form by EduPage, 7 Sep 97.

                      ++++  PART II   ++++

Unlike the chimera of "kiddie porn," drug dealers, international
terrorists, or nefarious hacker plots worthy of "the Mind of Fu
Manchu," an enormous amount of hate-based propaganda exists on the
net, as do the organizations publishing it.[17]

The terrorists, drug dealers, and "kiddie pornographers" may not have
a very public net presence[18]; the neo-Nazi, K.K.K., and other openly
fascist groups do.[17] The leaders of the Colombian cocaine cartels do
not have personal web pages but you can view web pages like that of
noted Holocaust-Revisionist Arthur Butz. You won't find an enormous
number of documents extolling the positive social virtues of
pedophilia but you can find a veritable _Cliff's Notes_ of
homophobia.[19]

Unlike the myth of the international hacker menace that has to be
periodically created, Auschwitz was real. So are the people on the net
who denied that it happened. So are the people on the net who want it
to happ en again. Other forms of propaganda against the Romis
(Gypsies), illegal immigrants, physically handicapped, and other
targets of Nazi mass extermination are routine occurrences on the web
and in the Usenet news groups.[20]

The question of how to handle net-based and action-oriented hate
propaganda is increasingly asked.

One group argues "nothing." But these people are not the target of
pro-government[21] arguments for intervention against the "Four
Horsemen." Nor is the group composed of many potential victims of
hate-action.

There are a variety of ways in which action concerning the net can be
considered.

The first is the individual/collective dichotomy. Collective action,
in turn, can be directed to produce anti-hate intervention by
corporate ISPs, government, or by grassroots users.

Some urge corporate action against hate on the net. Late in 1995 the
Simon Wiesenthal Center (SWC) called for ISPs to deny fascists web
sites. This did not produce any diminution of the fascist presence. It
did, however, bring strong criticisms against the SWC and defenses of
"free speech for Nazis." Other actions were taken against the K.K.K. 
on America Online and similar attacks against hate-based forces
on .

One problem with such campaigns is that they result in the mantle of
martyrdom falling, not on the victims and survivors of Auschwitz, but
on those defending the very fascist criminals who produced
Auschwitz. The rush to mirror Zundel's web site illustrated this.

Similar public campaigns to pressure ISPs to remove web pages do
nothing to reduce or eliminate other forms of hate-based net behavior
contained in e-mail or on discussion groups.

The corporate-based anti-hate strategy will always fail. There are
tens of thousands of ISPs on the net, and hate-forces will always be
able to locate a home-base on at least one of them. Even when an ISP
is successfully pressured, the offending forces relocate to another
provider.

In a reversal of off-the-net common sense, the net provides a strange
equality among ISPs regardless of size, capitalization, advertising,
or "prestige." The Plaza Hotel at the corner of New York's Central
Park can provide luxury accommodations; the Bed'n'Bite Trailer Motel
on Tobacco Road cannot. Once on the net, however, 
provides web services essentially identical to . In
cyberspace every ISP is as geographically close to the user as every
other ISP; new web sites are just an URL away. Different ISPs'
web-oriented services may be marginally different in upload or
download time but from the end-user's perspective they are
functionally identical because the hardware, software, and operating
protocols are effectively the same.

This also holds for such things as e-mail and ancillary services like
mailing list 'bots. In a reversal of the normal economy of scale, the
smaller provider may even provide better services via things like
user-to-modem ratios or technical support than the biggest carriers.

Successful pressures on ISPs cannot even substantially increase costs
of the hate-based forces. Market mechanisms have reduced basic
"all-you-can-eat" net access to the $US 15-25/month rate.

The next strategy for "kicking hate off the net" relies on the
police/military might of the various states.

This must occur on an international level if it is to be
successful. The cyberpunk slogan that "National borders are just
speedbumps on the global information superhighway" is especially
important here.

In abstract terms, the net is post-internationalist. It has moved to a
globalism that no longer recognizes the very nation states around
which one must be internationalist. For many on the net, such nations
are little more than the "dot two-letter" suffixes on e-mail
addresses and even these disappear as the large ISPs go multinational.
In concrete terms, Dilbert no longer bothers or even thinks about
whether  is located in the U.S. or in Elbonia. Attacks
by one government on E. Zundel's Holocaust Revisionist site resulted
in the site being mirrored in other countries. Cyberpunks took but a
few hours to publish "workarounds" for German users when CompuServe
cut some news groups in its German feed.

In short, calling on national governments to fight internationalized
hate only works if all of the governments participate equally in the
crackdown.[22] In Thomas More's words, we can no longer tear down the
laws of England to get to the devil; we must tear down the laws of
every country to get to the same English devil.

When I leave my house to fight off-the-net actions against fascist-
based hate speech I know I am far more likely to be physically
assaulted by the police protecting the fascists than I am by the
fascists themselves.

Working with the 1960's civil rights movement exposed me to the
actions of both the K.K.K. and the cops. One central difference was
that the cop wore a badge and gun outside his uniform; the Klansman
often wore the same badge and carried the same gun beneath his white
sheet.

Unfortunately this process did not end with the 1960s.

As I write this the national newspapers still cover the case of Abner
Louima, the Haitian man assaulted in a NY police station. Police
decided to "teach him respect" for the law by sodomizing him with a
bathroom plunger doing severe injuries to his colon and other internal
organs, according t o widespread press reports. Then they rammed the
same plunger down his throat, doing even more injury to his mouth and
throat.

This excellent example of how police protect us from hate occurred in
liberal NY. One wonders what cases have gone unreported elsewhere in
the world in geographic locations less interested in "handcuffing" the
police.

Let us not forget other actions by armed state representatives, as when
elite-trained U.S. soldiers stationed further South recently murdered a
black couple.

Nor was the old Southern judiciary necessarily better that the local
sheriff's office. Too often one sensed from legal decisions not to
punish those convicted of hate crimes that we faced not the
metaphorical "hangin g judge" but a literal extra-legal lynching one.

In this sense, the Devil and the law were one and the same. The
judicial black robes of More's Law might have constrained the devil;
relying on the same black-robed figure for protection from the devil
only damned the victims of hate-action that More's Law was to protect.

Hoover's FBI provided the evidence to convict a few hate-activists
during the late civil rights period, largely through paying KKK
informants. But the wrath of Hoover, through programs like COINTELPRO,
was directed at the same forces the Klan targeted. The FBI did not
fight hatred on a broad front; rather it spent money and used its
agents to whip up the very hatred it condemned. Hoover branded
Dr. M.L. King as the "most notorious liar in America" while bugging
his phones, sending him anonymous blackmailing letters designed to
have him commit suicide, and spending covert money to create the image
of another leader of the "Negro struggle." Similar efforts were
directed against the anti-war movement. Even more sustained efforts
were directed against groups like the Black Panther Party. Many Party
members who were convicted under the hate-oriented atmosphere remain
in jail today. In some cases, their unjustified convictions are only
today being overturned as is seen in the case of (Elmer "Geronimo" 
Pratt).[23]

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

[TELECOM Digest Editor's Note: Read it once again, and compare the
conditions of the net in 2002 to how they were in 1996-97. Which
condtions here have improved?  Which have deteriorated?    PAT]

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

TELECOM Digest is an electronic journal devoted mostly but not
exclusively to telecommunications topics. It is circulated anywhere
there is email, in addition to various telecom forums on a variety of
networks such as Compuserve and America On Line, 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: 620-870-9697
                        Fax 1: 775-255-9970
                        Fax 2: 775-306-8390
                        Fax 3: 775-642-0603
                        Fax 4: 530-309-7234
                        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 second 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)

Email <==> FTP:  telecom-archives@telecom-digest.org 

      Send a simple, one line note to that automated address for
      a help file on how to use the automatic retrieval system
      for archives files. You can get desired files in email.

*************************************************************************
*   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.
Access to Premium (P) links requires upgrade to a paid subscription.

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

Only subscribers or registered users of ICB Toll Free News web site
will be able to access all or some of the full text of URLs provided.

LEGAL STUFF: TELECOM Digest (sm) is owned by Patrick Townson.
Copyright 2000 ICB, Inc. and TELECOM Digest. All rights reserved.
Our attorney is Bill Levant, of Blue Bell, PA.

   ---------------------------------------------------------------
    
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 twenty 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 V22 #75
*****************************
    
    
From editor@telecom-digest.org Fri Oct 11 17:16:16 2002
Received: from localhost (localhost [[UNIX: localhost]])
	by massis.lcs.mit.edu (8.11.3nb1/8.11.3) id g9BLGGU13261;
	Fri, 11 Oct 2002 17:16:16 -0400 (EDT)
Date: Fri, 11 Oct 2002 17:16:16 -0400 (EDT)
From: editor@telecom-digest.org
Message-Id: <200210112116.g9BLGGU13261@massis.lcs.mit.edu>
X-Authentication-Warning: massis.lcs.mit.edu: ptownson set sender to editor@telecom-digest.org using -f
To: ptownson
Approved: patsnewlist
Subject: TELECOM Digest V22 #76

TELECOM Digest     Fri, 11 Oct 2002 17:16:00 EDT    Volume 22 : Issue 76

Inside This Issue:                            Editor: Patrick A. Townson

    Book Review: "Computer Networks, Fourth Edition", Tanenbaum (Rob Slade)
    DialPad/Net2phone Replacement? (Diogenes)
    Re: Motorola's Symphony Digital Radio Chipset (Jack Dominey)
    WATS (was Re: AntiSpam Screening Algorithm) (Jack Dominey)
    Re: SBC/Yahoo! (Jeff Grossman)
    Re: Squirrels (Gail M. Hall)
    The Real Cretins - was Re: Shannon Underhill (Gail M. Hall)
    Yet Another Set of Lawyer Jokes (Kenneth P. Stox)
    Re: One ISP Who Refuses to Deal with Spam (Dave Garland)
    Telecom Digest Business Directory Listing (Gordon S. Hlavenka)
    Planned Upgrades to Avaya R11 (Sue Stewart)
    Welcome to the Evolution of Telecom Purchasing (Bill)
    Jamming Camcorders in Movie Theaters (Monty Solomon)
    Re: Will Hate Speech Become Fifth Horseman of the Apocolypse? (Bob Rahe)
    Lawyer Jokes (Doug)

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. WE DO NOT PERMIT NAME/EMAIL ADDRESS
HARVESTING FROM THIS JOURNAL. 'SALTED' EMAIL ADDRESSES APPEAR
HEREIN TO VERIFY THIS. YOU GET SUED IN SMALL CLAIMS COURT IF YOU
GET CAUGHT SPAMMING OR SENDING VIRUSES. DON'T DO IT.

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

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

From: Rob Slade 
Organization: Vancouver Institute for Research into User 
Date: Fri, 11 Oct 2002 12:03:23 -0800
Subject: Book Review: "Computer Networks, Fourth Edition", Andrew Tanenbaum


BKCMPNWK.RVW   20020911

"Computer Networks, Fourth Edition", Andrew S. Tanenbaum, 2003,
0-13-066102-3
%A   Andrew S. Tanenbaum www.cs.vu.nl/~ast ast@cs.vu.nl
%C   One Lake St., Upper Saddle River, NJ   07458
%D   2003
%G   0-13-066102-3
%I   Prentice Hall
%O   800-576-3800 201-236-7139 fax: 201-236-7131
%P   891
%T   "Computer Networks, Fourth Edition"

Tanenbaum's "Computer Networks" is well known as one of the standard
data communications textbooks, and with ample reason.  Using the OSI
(Open Systems Interconnection) layered model, this work gives thorough
coverage to the concepts, and many technical details, of the whole
field of communications.

Chapter one is an introduction to communications as a whole.
Subsequent chapters detail the physical layer, the overworked data
link layer (which gets two), the network layer, the transport layer,
and the applications layer.  (The almost unused session and
presentation layers are subsumed into this last.)  An addition is a
chapter specifically devoted to security.  There is an alphabetical
bibliography, but also an annotated list of "further readings".  I
might argue with a few inclusions, but the bulk of the listings are
good.

The author has not been resting on previous laurels.  This edition
looks at examples from digital cellular, wireless LANs (mention *must*
be made of the pun laden cover art, with a Viking working on a
wireless equipped laptop, having one blue tooth and a tattoo that
reads "Hi!  I'm Harald"), fast ethernet, IPv6, broadband wireless, AES
(Advanced Encryption Standard), streaming audio and Internet radio,
and quantum cryptography.  There is even an insightful examination of
the difference in approach between Java applet and ActiveX security.
(The opinion regarding viruses and advanced operating systems is
somewhat simplistic, but nobody's perfect.)

The book is well structured and the writing is clear and eminently
readable.  Humour is not restricted to the cover: buried in the text
are examples of wry wit that enliven the content without ever
detracting from the topic under discussion.

copyright Robert M. Slade, 1996, 2002   BKCMPNWK.RVW   20020911


======================  (quote inserted randomly by Pegasus Mailer)
rslade@vcn.bc.ca  rslade@sprint.ca  slade@victoria.tc.ca p1@canada.com
Living next to you is in some ways like sleeping with an
elephant: No matter how friendly and even-tempered the beast, one
is affected by every twitch and grunt.   - Pierre Elliott Trudeau
       March 25, 1969, addressing the Press Club in Washington, D.C.
http://victoria.tc.ca/techrev    or    http://sun.soci.niu.edu/~rslade

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

From: Diogenes 
Subject: DialPad/Net2phone Replacement?
Date: Fri, 11 Oct 2002 10:37:41 -0500
Organization: Greek to Me
Reply-To: diogenesAT@ev1DOT.net


Dialpad used to give free L.D. calls in the US.  It was wonderful.
Calls sounded great, delay was negligible.  Then IDT/Net2phone bought
it and it's now as costly as Net2phone, which as far as I can tell has
priced itself out of the market, since a Sam's card gives you
3.4¢/Minute and Dialpad/Net2phone is now 3.9¢/Minute.  So - I'm
looking for an alternative.  Something free of close to it.  I like
making calls over the net, but not so much I'd want to pay more.  Does
anyone know if there are alternatives?

Thanks.

diogenesATev1DOTnet
Spammers Persecuted
Non-Spammers are welcome to email me by
replacing AT and DOT with appropriate punctuation

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

From: Jack Dominey 
Subject: Re: Motorola's Symphony Digital Radio Chipset
Date: Fri, 11 Oct 2002 12:38:26 -0400
Organization: The Maynard G. Krebs Memorial Work(!?)station
Reply-To: look@my.sig


Apologies to Moderator Pat if this is wandering too far from telecomm,
but the thread got me thinking and a quick Google didn't turn up any
more likely place to ask:

Does anyone here have a recommendation for a travel radio?

I spend a few weeks a year in motels around the country, and the room
radios are pretty uniformly cheap.  I enjoy listening to NPR, mostly.

So mainly I'm looking for small size, digital tuning, and good
reception -- and recommendations for improving reception on a small
radio would be welcome.  Good sound is a bonus, but not strictly
necessary.


Thanks.

Jack Dominey
personal mail to jack_dominey (at) email (dot) com

[TELECOM Digest Editor's Note:  Any number of the small, portable
(battery operated) digitally tuning radios you can get from Radio
Shack or any Walmart store usually works well for your purpose. PAT]

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

From: Jack Dominey 
Subject: WATS (was Re: AntiSpam Screening Algorithm)
Date: Fri, 11 Oct 2002 13:12:17 -0400
Organization: The Maynard G. Krebs Memorial Work(!?)station
Reply-To: look@my.sig


> [TELECOM Digest Editor's Note: Some of the young'uns here would not
> remember this, but back in the sixties (when WATS was started as a
> marketing tool for the old Bell System) and clear up into the early
> seventies, both inbound WATS (800 numbers) and outbound WATS were set
> up in 'bands', or rough circles.

A minor correction: Banded service was still in effect at AT&T until
sometime after 1988.  By 1992, AT&T was moving away from dedicated
WATS lines - billing plans were designed around volume and time
commitments.  I feel sure AT&T dumped the tariffs for dedicated WATS
lines (not based on T-1 access) some years ago, but I was long gone
from that side of the business.


Jack Dominey
personal email: jack_dominey (at) email (dot) com

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

From: Jeff Grossman 
Subject: Re: SBC/Yahoo!
Organization: Stikman.com
Date: Thu, 10 Oct 2002 21:45:27 GMT


Wes Leatherock  wrote:
>    Ok, I was wrong.  SBC did not buy Yahoo!

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

> [TELECOM Digest Editor's Question: Well then, did Yahoo! buy SBC?  Did 
> Yahoo! buy Prodigy or the other way around?  All I seem to see nowdays
> is those three are all very cozy with each other.    PAT]

SBC purchased Prodigy.  They were going to use Prodigy to sell their
DSL lines and help their online service.  The SBC online service was
pretty bad.  But, that did not work.  The Prodigy name was not getting
them anything.  So, they decided to co-brand a dial/DSL service with
Yahoo hoping the Yahoo name would draw more people.  Once that
agreement was in place, they started to dismantle Prodigy as a
company.

Michael D. Sullivan  wrote:

> SBC didn't buy Yahoo! and Yahoo! didn't buy SBC.  They have a
> marketing alliance.  SBC uses a Yahoo! portal for its customers, and
> Yahoo! gets to resell SBC's broadband service.  There's probably more
> in the same vein.  SBC owns Prodigy, as far as I can recall.  Does
> anyone still use Prodigy, or did SBC shut it down and sell the
> customers to Yahoo!?

Prodigy has been shut down and all of its customers are being moved
over to the new SBC/Yahoo Dial-up service or DSL service.


Jeff Grossman (jeff@stikman.com)

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

From: Gail M. Hall 
Subject: Re: Squirrels
Date: Thu, 10 Oct 2002 18:33:41 -0400
Reply-To: gmhall@apk.net


On Wed, 9 Oct 2002 10:14:24 -0500, Herb Stein 
posted to comp.dcom.telecom with subject "Re: Squirrels":

> Years ago my (analog) cable TV signal got very noisy. The cable
> company came out and ended up replacing the aerial drop. Seems one of
> the squirrels had crawled out in the middle and eaten the outer
> insulation, the shield and the inner dielectric right down to the
> copper center conductor. It was bare for 6 or 8 inches.

> They also eat through the vinyl under my eaves and enter the attic
> for the winter. They cost me about $500/year to repair the damage.

We had our board where the gutters are replaced with metal to keep them
from doing that more than once.  I forgot the technical name for that
board.

We thought it was a plus to have a brick house, but the bricks are
"fancy textured" and not smooth like most bricks, so the squirrels
have no problem climbing up the walls.

We keep an eye on tree limbs and cut them if they get too close to the
phone lines near our house.  A wind storm could cause branches to
swing and sway and maybe even rub the line and knock them loose.

Of course, we have no control over what people over a few houses do.
Some trees are so thick that people may not think to watch where the
phone wires are.

We have two cable companies in our city, one owned by the phone
company and the other owned by Adelphia.  If we see something awry
with one of the cables, we don't know which cable is for which
company.

We started with the company that Adelphia bought because we had no
problem with their service here.  Although the phone company's cable
had good introductory prices, after 6 months the prices would be more
than what we were paying Adelphia.

Since squirrels seem to like vinyl and whatever else they make phone
lines and cables out of, it would help if scientists could investigate
to see what would make squirrels avoid them.  Squirrels are cut little
critters, but they sure can do a lot of damage!


Gail from Ohio USA

[TELECOM Digest Editor's Note: My cat 'Missy' was on the *roof* of my
house yesterday. How she got up there, I do not know, except I think
with her claws she scrambled up the ladder sitting in my back yard
then leaped over to the nearby roof. I suspect she was chasing a
squirrel or similar. It took me about an hour of coaxing to get her
down. She finally came down when she got hungry and I put her food
dish where she could see it on the ground close by. PAT]

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

From: Gail M. Hall 
Subject: The Real Cretins - was Re: Shannon Underhill
Date: Thu, 10 Oct 2002 18:33:43 -0400
Reply-To: gmhall@apk.net


On Thu, 10 Oct 2002 10:50:02 -0600, in comp.dcom.telecom, you (Joey
Lindstrom ) wrote:

> On Wed, 9 Oct 2002 22:35:56 -0400 (EDT), editor@telecom-digest.org
> wrote:

> From: Shannon Underhill 
> Subject: Help Wanted! Looking for a Data Engineer
> Date: Wed, 9 Oct 2002 14:51:48 -0400
> Organization: Snelling Personnel Services

>> My name is Shannon Underhill and I am an Executive Recruiter located
>> in Savannah, GA.  I specialize in the recruitment and placement of

> This person is spamming everybody whose address has appeared in the
> Digest and/or the newsgroup.  Keep it in mind the next time this
> cretin sends you another missive.

I would filter on the domain name rather than just Shannon's name.  I
wouldn't be surprised if she were just a clerk type person hired to
send out the spam for them.

See if there is a headhunting firm with a name similar to
snelling-search or "Organization: Snelling Personnel Services" and put
them in your cretin list.  Whoever owns that company is the real
cretin!

This is the one type of thing that keeps us from being really, really
rude to telemarketers.  The actual person on the other end of the line
is probably working for minimum wage or a small commission.  I had a
friend who was semi laid off.  They cut her hours to just low enough
that her benefits were totally cut off.  For her to pay for the
medical benefits she had been getting would have cost her one whole
paycheck a month.  She got a job for a telemarketing firm to try to
make ends meet.

She found that even that job did not help make ends meet and she was
very exhausted, so she quit and just prayed a lot that her kids
wouldn't get sick.  At least she was home with the kids in the
evenings.

My husband is a nice guy, so he tells telemarketers, "You will have
better luck calling someone else."  Usually they accept that and hang
up.  If they persist, he says, "Did you hear what I said?"  Only then
if they persist does he hang up on them.


Gail from Ohio USA

[TELECOM Editor's Note: Did you ever have occassion to meet a
telephone marketer in person?  We have a telephone marketing firm
here in Independence in the Arco Corporate Center on 8th and Main.
Most of ours are just young people on their first job in life, and
if I happen to stop in Wagon Wheel or Turbo's (two downtown bars)
about 5 pm any afternoon, there will always be a couple of them in
there and we will chat. Many telemarketers are actually pleasant,
courteous people when off duty. They don't seem to keep the job very 
long, between the pressure by their manager/supervisors and the 
high rejection rate by the public, slamming phones down on them, etc.
The *Independence Reporter* ALWAYS has 'help wanted' ads for the firm,
on a daily basis.  PAT]

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

From: Kenneth P. Stox 
Subject: Yet Another Set of Lawyer Jokes
Date: Thu, 10 Oct 2002 21:56:55 -0500
Organization: Imaginary Landscape, LLC.


OK, I can't resist. ;->

#1 - Appropriate for most occasions:

The Lord God is surveying the expanse of heaven one day, when he
notices that the picket fence that separates heaven and hell is
falling apart.  The fence is actually located in Hell, so God calls
Satan over to discuss the situation. Satan states that he has no
intention of fixing the fence. God gets rather angry, and in a fit of
rage threatens to sue.  Satan falls over in laughter and says "And
where are you going to find a lawyer?"

#2 - Adults only

A young woman goes to her gynecologist one day. She seems rather
nervous, and finally tells the doctor that her boyfriend has been
getting rather kinky as of late, and wants to have anal sex with her.
She then asks the doctor if she can get pregnant that way, to which
the doctor responds, "Of course, where do you think lawyers come
from?"

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

From: Dave Garland 
Subject: Re: One ISP Who Refuses to Deal with Spam
Organization: Wizard Information
Date: Fri, 11 Oct 2002 02:32:03 -0500


It was a dark and stormy night when John Shriver 
wrote:

> hard to find an e-mail provider with all the value-added services you
> want (virus scanning, SPAM filtering).  Why?  Because these services
> are compute-intensive, they will be able to support a far smaller
> number of accounts per mail server.  It's a small market, too.  I
> wouldn't be surprised if this cost $25 a month or more.

Actually, my local ISP (visi.com) does full DSL service for about
that, and limited dialup with a POP mailbox for half that (since you
wouldn't be dialing in from Kansas anyhow), all with virus scan and
spam filter on incoming mail.  They experimented with filtering using
SpamAssasain and other techniques, and decided it was cheaper to sub
the task out to postini.com.  It's not quite as configurable as SA,
but a lot more user-friendly, and embargos the reject mail for 14 days
(accessible via www) before bitbucketting it.  Postini seems to be
marketing this service to ISPs and corporations.

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

Date: Fri, 11 Oct 2002 03:44:50 -0500
From: Gordon S. Hlavenka 
Organization: Crash Electronics, Inc.
Subject: Telecom Digest Business Directory Listing


Does spam email have your blood boiling?  An amazing new "Body Defense
Index" can help you cope.  Fortunately for all of us, there's a group
who wants to help us learn about this valuable measurement -- for
FREE!

CALL 1-888-316-9167 TODAY TO LEARN HOW TO GET INVOLVED!!


Gordon S. Hlavenka               O-             nospam@crashelex.com
                               Burma!

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

From: slstewart@thehartford.com (Sue Stewart)
Subject: Planned Upgrades to Avaya R11
Date: 11 Oct 2002 07:29:10 -0700
Organization: http://groups.google.com/


We are starting to ugrade some of the switches to the Avaya R11
platforms, both UNIX and Linux.  The systems are contact centers also
using the Avaya CMS product.  I'm wondering if anyone has accumulated
any watchpoints for the version, migration processes or installation
process on this release and could share their experience.

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

From: Bill 
Subject: Welcome to the Evolution of Telecom Purchasing
Date: Fri, 11 Oct 2002 10:36:48 -0400
Organization: http://www.TeraNews.com - FREE NNTP Access


Farmstead Telephone Group, the nation's largest provider of Avaya
classic and new telephone parts and accessories, invites you to visit
our newly designed, evolutionary web experience, which will simplify
your workload and dramatically reduce your cost of acquisition.  For
more info, visit http://www.farmstead.com

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

Date: Fri, 11 Oct 2002 16:20:54 -0400
From: Monty Solomon 
Subject: News Headlines of Interest  10/11/02


A Merger Unlikely, What's Next for EchoStar?
By ANDREW ROSS SORKIN and SETH SCHIESEL

So what is Charles W. Ergen's Plan B? If Mr. Ergen, the chairman of 
EchoStar Communications, is unable to persuade the Federal 
Communications Commission to reverse its rejection of his company's 
proposed acquisition of Hughes Electronics, he readily acknowledges 
that he has no backup plan.

"I haven't given that thought," Mr. Ergen said on Wednesday at an 
industry conference in Midtown Manhattan. For a moment he allowed 
himself to think about it, acknowledging that if the deal failed, his 
company would "go over a cliff." Then he resumed his pep talk: "I'm 
playing to win. I don't spend a lot of time thinking about losing."

The only chance that EchoStar, Hughes and General Motors, which owns 
Hughes, have of rescuing the proposed merger from almost certain 
defeat is to significantly change the terms of the deal - and those 
chances are diminishing, too.

A possible rescuer may be in Bethpage, N.Y., home of Cablevision 
Systems, the nation's No. 7 cable television company. In August, 
Cablevision proposed to the F.C.C. that it require EchoStar to give 
17 of its satellite frequencies to Cablevision so that it could start 
a rival direct-broadcast satellite operation.

http://www.nytimes.com/2002/10/11/business/media/11MERG.html

Divx DVD thoughts:

By Evan Hansen
Staff Writer, CNET News.com
October 10, 2002, 4:00 AM PT

As one of the key architects of the discontinued Divx DVD system,
Robert Schumann knows first hand how hard it can be to sell copyright
protection to the masses.

Still, some three years after Circuit City pulled financial support
for the limited-use DVD technology he helped build, Schumann and a
group of former Divx engineers are hoping for a second act in
Hollywood with the advent of digital cinema.

Herndon, Va.-based Cinea, the company Schumann co-founded after Divx
folded in 1999, is close to unveiling a beta for its Cosmos digital
cinema security system that will help movie distributors keep track
of how their products are used while protecting them from piracy.

Meanwhile, Cinea this week scored a $2 million grant from the National
Institute of Standards and Technology's (NIST) Advanced Technology
Program to develop a system that it claims will stop audience members
from videotaping digital movies off theater screens.

The company "will modify the timing and modulation of the light used
to create the displayed image such that frame-based capture by
recording devices is distorted," according to an abstract for the
winning NIST grant application. "Any copies made from these devices
will show the disruptive pattern."

http://news.com.com/2100-1023-961484.html

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

From: bob@hobbes.dtcc.edu (Bob Rahe)
Subject: Re: Will Hate Speech Become Fifth Horseman of the Apocolypse?
Date: 11 Oct 2002 14:44:10 GMT
Organization: Delaware Technical & Community College


In article , TELECOM Digest Editor
 wrote:

> Here is a reprint of an article which appeared in TELECOM Digest
> about five years ago. It had originally appeared in our sister 
> publication *Computer Underground Digest* November 5, 1997. CuD has
          
                 ..................
> The dreaded "hackers, terrorists, drug dealers and kiddie
> pornographers" of cyberspace who once caused Presidents and Prime
> Ministers to tremble and mothers to herd their children into their
> beds at sundown have been strangely quiet, if only measured by the
> absence of significant media reports to the contrary. Perhaps in these
> modern times the wages of sin are no longer death but just a really
> tired feeling, as comedienne Paula Poundstone comments.

I hope nobody missed the irony of quoting her...  ;-(

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

|Bob Rahe, Delaware Tech&Comm Coll. / | Computer Center, Dover,
|Delaware / | Internet: bob@dtcc.edu (RWR50) / |
 ----------------------------------------------------------------------------

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

From: Doug 
Subject: Lawyer Jokes
Date: Fri, 11 Oct 2002 06:15:32 -0400
Organization: Totally disorganized


There are two problems with lawyer jokes.

1 - Lawyers don't think they are funny.
2 - The rest of us don't think they are jokes.

Doug in Delaware

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

TELECOM Digest is an electronic journal devoted mostly but not
exclusively to telecommunications topics. It is circulated anywhere
there is email, in addition to various telecom forums on a variety of
networks such as Compuserve and America On Line, 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: 620-870-9697
                        Fax 1: 775-255-9970
                        Fax 2: 775-306-8390
                        Fax 3: 775-642-0603
                        Fax 4: 530-309-7234
                        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 second 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)

Email <==> FTP:  telecom-archives@telecom-digest.org 

      Send a simple, one line note to that automated address for
      a help file on how to use the automatic retrieval system
      for archives files. You can get desired files in email.

*************************************************************************
*   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.
Access to Premium (P) links requires upgrade to a paid subscription.

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

Only subscribers or registered users of ICB Toll Free News web site
will be able to access all or some of the full text of URLs provided.

LEGAL STUFF: TELECOM Digest (sm) is owned by Patrick Townson.
Copyright 2000 ICB, Inc. and TELECOM Digest. All rights reserved.
Our attorney is Bill Levant, of Blue Bell, PA.

   ---------------------------------------------------------------
    
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 twenty 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 V22 #76
*****************************
    
    
    
From editor@telecom-digest.org Sat Oct 12 22:24:48 2002
Received: from localhost (localhost [[UNIX: localhost]])
	by massis.lcs.mit.edu (8.11.3nb1/8.11.3) id g9D2OmF19000;
	Sat, 12 Oct 2002 22:24:48 -0400 (EDT)
Date: Sat, 12 Oct 2002 22:24:48 -0400 (EDT)
From: editor@telecom-digest.org
Message-Id: <200210130224.g9D2OmF19000@massis.lcs.mit.edu>
X-Authentication-Warning: massis.lcs.mit.edu: ptownson set sender to editor@telecom-digest.org using -f
To: ptownson
Approved: patsnewlist
Subject: TELECOM Digest V22 #77

TELECOM Digest     Sat, 12 Oct 2002 22:25:00 EDT    Volume 22 : Issue 77

Inside This Issue:                            Editor: Patrick A. Townson

    New Credit Card Rules Could Imperil Porn Sites, from AVN (Monty Solomon)
    Re: One Message per Hour (Ross Oliver)
    Re: 800-555-TELL (was Last Laugh / BAD User Interfaces) (Hank Fung)
    Re: Panda.com (Craig Macbride)
    DTMF/Tone Dialling (Rob)
    Re: Lawyer Jokes (Steven J. Sobol)

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. WE DO NOT PERMIT NAME/EMAIL ADDRESS
HARVESTING FROM THIS JOURNAL. 'SALTED' EMAIL ADDRESSES APPEAR
HEREIN TO VERIFY THIS. YOU GET SUED IN SMALL CLAIMS COURT IF YOU
GET CAUGHT SPAMMING OR SENDING VIRUSES. DON'T DO IT.

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

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

Date: Sat, 12 Oct 2002 15:03:18 -0400
From: Monty Solomon 
Subject: New Credit Card Rules Could Imperil Porn Sites, from AVN


http://www.politechbot.com/p-04070.html
 From: Declan McCullagh 
 Subject: New Credit Card Rules Could Imperil Porn Sites, from AVN

 From: Kathee Brewer 
 To: Declan@Well.Com 
 Cc: Tom Hymes , "Ken" 
 Subject: New VISA/MC Regulations Could Forever Change Adult Internet
 Date: Thu, 10 Oct 2002 14:52:16 -0500

Declan:

Thought you might be interested in this. It just went up on the site
this morning.

Keep up the good work with the list!

Best,
Kathee Brewer
Technology Editor
AVN Online (not Adult Video News -- we're two different print
publications! )

http://www.avnonline.com/issues/200210/newsarchive/101002_lead.shtml

 Another Turn of the Screw

>> By Tom Hymes and Kathee Brewer

New VISA/MasterCard Regulations Could Forever Change the Adult
Internet Landscape

Oct. 10, 2002

LOS ANGELES - According to an announcement released last week by three
of the adult Internet's larger third-party aggregators -
Epoch/Paycom, iBill, and CCBill - VISA and MasterCard (V/MC) have
established several new regulations that have the potential to
profoundly change the relationship between aggregators and adult
Webmasters who do not have their own merchant accounts.

[text omitted.]

AVN Online spoke with several industry attorneys regarding these
developments, and received far more ominous assessments from
them. This was to be expected, not only because of natural
professional proclivities or because they have been warning for years
that the industry was fatally vulnerable to regulatory crackdowns, but
more importantly because, almost to a man, they believe the credit
card companies (i.e. V/MC) are in the penultimate stage of fulfilling
their part of a devilish pact they surreptitiously struck with the
government in which they immolate the adult Internet industry in the
United States in exchange for long-desired favorable bankruptcy
legislation. [New U.S. legislation at the federal level restricts
bankruptcy filings favorably for credit card companies.] This "theory"
was first postulated more than three years ago, and now, according to
Greg Piccionelli, an ardent believer, it is finally happening.

Piccionelli is an attorney with Los Angeles-based Brull, Piccionelli,
Sarno, Braun and Vradenburgh. He specializes in patent law, but also
has a slew of the major adult Internet companies as clients, as well
as a long history of dealing with entrenched corporate entities like
V/MC. He offered the following remarks.

"I knew this was going to happen," he said. "We told a lot of our
clients that this was going to happen, because we already knew about
it." In fact, for years Piccionelli has been predicting that this
policy crackdown was going to happen.

"In terms of the cover story," he continued, "VISA and MasterCard are
tightening up their regulations ostensibly to further protect
themselves from rampant credit card fraud on the Internet. That's what
all of this is supposed to be about. (Now keep in mind the drama I've
been beating for the last year, which is this vicarious-and-contributory,
aiding-and-abetting conspiratorial liability. Keep that in the back of
your mind throughout all of this.)"

According to Piccionelli, the seeds of the current situation were
planted years ago, when the third-party aggregators took on their
current role in the industry. "The aggregators set themselves up for
this day when they moved into the position of being the billing
entities for the adult online industry rather than each merchant
having their own merchant relationship with a bank," he said. "At that
point in time, they [the aggregators] were delighted, because they
believed that this would once and for all solve the [industry's]
problems, that they would manage things a lot more effectively,
because that's all they did. And I remember telling them then that
it's only a matter of time, because what is happening is that this is
just making a smaller number of targets, and if and when the day comes
that they [V/MC] want to bomb the industry, it's going to be a much
more manageable endeavor.

"So that was the beginning of the process," he continued, "and the
aggregators have set themselves up for this day. And now, either the
federal or state government, or VISA, but somebody - and I have a
strong suspicion, though I'm not going to go out on a limb and say I
know, because I don't want to get sued -- but I have a strong suspicion
that somebody has gone to these aggregators and said, 'You know,
you're liable for what goes on, on these sites, and we could nail you
right now, but instead you're going to help the government clean up
the Internet, and this is how you're going to do it. We're going to
change the rules to require you to acquire all this information, and
then you're going to get it to us. And we're going to give to you a
series of criteria to use.'

"And if the sites don't comply with that criteria," Piccionelli
continued, "it will be because the criteria is content oriented. In
other words, it will have something to do with the nature of the
content on the sites. Now, the government can't do that, because it
would be content-based restriction, but VISA can as long as they're
not doing it on behalf of the government. And look how nicely VISA has
insulated itself from it; they've now gotten the third-party
processors to do it. And of course, when the processors are finished
with this process, they'll go down too.

"These are the most ominous signs that there have been yet that the
war is coming," he said, "because reading between the lines, this is
what's going on: One, the aggregators are going to become the parties
that accumulate the information that will probably through some means
be passed on to the government for evaluation for prosecution. If the
aggregators say [to a Webmaster], 'We're not going to process for you
anymore,' they may not even give a reason why, because if they do,
such as, 'Well, we've been told that the kind of material you have on
your site could subject you to criminal liability, and therefore us to
criminal liability,' that would basically be an admission that they
know that they've been processing for somebody that could have
criminal liability. So they probably won't say that, but if, seemingly
for no reason, the third party processors just say, 'We've done an
evaluation, and we've decided not to take your business anymore,'
start sweating bullets, because that probably means that that
information about your site has now been turned over, either directly
or indirectly, to somebody else."

The next piece of the Piccionelli puzzle has to do with the new
geographic restrictions. "The territoriality thing is really a little
bit brilliant," he said, "because it takes the argument that if you
tighten the noose too much in the United States they're just going to
go offshore, and turns it all on its head; which actually may be the
government's intent. I think the whole idea is to shut down the adult
entertainment business online in the United States; actually get it
offshore, because then they can say to the conservatives, 'Look, we
cleaned [the Internet] up to the extent that we could, and it will be
up to some future Republican administration to come up with some sort
of treaty,' and they'll just blame it on the Europeans, and everyone
will just go, 'Well, of course, the Europeans.'"

To Piccionelli, one big nail in the adult industry's coffin is the
fact that data is being requested by VISA down to the individual
URL. "I think this should be a tremendous shot across the bow for the
industry," he said, "because [typically] you bomb the enemy before you
send in troops, and the equivalent of that here is that you do an
investigation, you acquire all the information you need, and then you
get indictments. And what we have here is that, Website by Website,
they're going to know what's going on. Now, you have to understand
that knowing what's going on Website by Website should be immaterial,
because if you were going to take a look at the recurring billing
situation of, say, a gym, would VISA and MasterCard care how many
chargebacks come from the Westlake Village branch of 24 Hour Fitness
versus the Van Nuys branch? No, they don't care. They just say it's
one corporation and want to know what the chargebacks are for the
corporation. So why would they be interested in chargebacks Website by
Website? Well, because for criminal prosecutions based on content,
it's Website by Website."

But that's not the only motive, according to Piccionelli. "[Another]
reason why they [VISA] want [to receive data] Website by Website is
because then they can say, 'New rule: Since the way that these sites
acquire the customers that generate these chargebacks is through an
affiliate program, we want to know who the affiliates are that are
sending the traffic to that site.' Then they will say that if you are
a merchant that affiliates with one of these people that have been
known to send traffic that generates high chargebacks, they're going
to terminate you. That's the 2003 turn of the screw, where all member
sites that are in the crosshairs [will be faced with] the decision:
Are we going to turn over to the IPSP our list of affiliates?

"In fact, I predict it'll go one more step down," continued
Piccionelli, "and one day one of these IPSPs will knock on the door of
one of the [sponsors] and say, 'We've been told by VISA that we have
to terminate you, but they did give us an alternative. If you could
clean up your act and try to identify where the traffic is coming from
that produced the chargebacks, they'll give you three months to try
and fix the situation.' And of course, some of these guys will say,
'No thank you; I've got processing offshore.' But others will [give
them] the list, and those guys, when they're dealing with their IPSPs,
will think, 'Great; saved again, thank you very much.' They won't know
that when the three months elapse and they've given away all the
information, the map, that they're doomed, along with their
affiliates.

"By the way," added Piccionelli, "you should also notice that the
merchants will now be called Sponsored Merchants. [What that means] is
that if you are one of these new IPSPs, VISA can now say to you, 'If
you want to stay in business you have to do it this way; you have to
sponsor the merchant, which means that you are going to be responsible
for these guys, and we're going to hold you accountable.' Now, what if
'hold you accountable' means that VISA lets these guys know that there
are all these criminal laws out there, but 'we're not going to
evaluate the sites that you're sponsoring, but maybe you should?'

"Now that you have a nice tight system where you know the affiliates
of each one of the people who actually have the money," said
Piccionelli, bringing the scheme full circle, "that's when you start
going to the affiliates and saying, 'You have this harmful matter and
all this obscene material on your site. We're going to prosecute you
unless you go out of business and admit that you've been getting it
from this [sponsor] and that they knew perfectly well [what was on
your site], despite their terms and conditions.' After they do five,
six, or 10 of these people, now they have all they need for a RICO
action against the [sponsor], and then they go after them. And
remember, it has to happen relatively quickly, because they've got to
get [the Internet] cleaned up for the 2004 election."

In such a scenario, where an unsupervised para-governmental entity can
potentially stage-manage the exile of an entire industry, one has to
wonder why any company would allow itself to be manipulated toward its
own banishment, not to mention to turn over on members of its own
community. "Because the affiliate program Webmasters [sponsors] have
made so much money they'll do anything to stay in business," explained
Piccionelli, "just like these aggregators will also do anything to
stay in business."  ....

-------------------------------------------------------------------------
POLITECH -- Declan McCullagh's politics and technology mailing list
You may redistribute this message freely if you include this notice.
To subscribe to Politech: http://www.politechbot.com/info/subscribe.html
This message is archived at http://www.politechbot.com/
Declan McCullagh's photographs are at http://www.mccullagh.org/
-------------------------------------------------------------------------
Like Politech? Make a donation here: http://www.politechbot.com/donate/
Recent CNET News.com articles: http://news.search.com/search?qÞclan
-------------------------------------------------------------------------

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

From: reo@roscoe.airaffair.com (Ross Oliver)
Subject: Re: One Message per Hour
Date: 12 Oct 2002 02:01:33 GMT
Organization: Concentric Internet Services


Joey Lindstrom  wrote:

> On Wed, 9 Oct 2002 01:44:31 -0400 (EDT), Ross Oliver wrote:

>> The problem with this method is you still take the resource hit for
>> receiving each spam message.  A preferrable approach would be an email
>> connection limiter.  If a site is not on my whitelist, then my
>> incoming email server automatically limits that site to, say, 1 SMTP
>> connection per hour.  (or per 6 hours, or per day, depending on the
>> volume of incoming email).  This would clog up the bulk mailers at the
>> sending side while still letting through the few legitimate messages
>> from previously unseen sites.  Legitimate newsletters should not be
>> affected if they are smart and send only one copy of their email
>> message per site, letting the receiving site expand the list of local
>> recipients.

>> If there are any large sites out there who would like to implement
>> this, I would be happy to do so at no charge in exchange for owning
>> the finished code and rights to publish.

> Ross, I'm going to rant a little bit here.  A small bit of it is
> aimed at you, but to a larger degree I'm ranting at how far things
> have gone lately -- so don't take it too personally ok?  :-)

Okay.

> I'm confused as to exactly what good your proposal is going to do.
> Let's take two fictional individuals, John The Mailing List Guy and
> Joe The Spammer.  John runs a mailing list and has ten subscribers on
> your server.  You're going to insist that he configure his mail server
> (which may require an expensive upgrade) to send only one copy of each
> message to your server, with that one single message containing the
> ten email addresses of the legitimate subscribers to that list.

> All in the name of stopping bad ol' Joe The Spammer from spewing
> forth upon your users.  Yeah, this scheme will stop Joe The
> Spammer ... until Joe The Spammer realizes that he, too, can simply
> send ONE copy of the spam to your server, which contains the email
> addresses of HUNDREDS of your subscribers (none of which want this
> crap).

> Result: John has gone to considerable headache and possibly expense
> to comply with this rather-silly requirement, and Joe is still
> merrily spamming away.  No spam is being blocked, but you've now
> effectively begun blocking legitimate mail.

> What am I missing here?

Well, for starters, you seem to have missed the part where I said,
"If a site is not on my white list..."  The problem you described
could be solved by simply adding the John's site to your whitelist.

When I said that the local site would expand the recipient list, I
meant that the mailing list sender would send the newsletter to a
single address, e.g. telecom-digest-subscribers@airaffair.com.  The
local site would then expand that to the actual local recipients.
This method was very common back in the days of UUCP and 2400 baud
modems.  This of course, would not work for many of today's
personalized newsletters, and the astronomical number of available
lists and newsletters would be an undue burden on the local
administrators (unless a self-serve automated system is available).
Hence the need for the whitelist.

The purpose of the whitelist is to pass those sites from which you
receive frequent email.  The purpose of granting any random site a
once-per-hour pass is to allow the brand new customer from Brazil to
email his request to you for a quote to buy 10,000 of your widgets.

I believe even the whitelist management could be effectively automated
and made to be self-serve.  The keystone of filtering that is both
effective and affordable is direct user control and feedback.

> Elitist, elitist, elitist.  Pat, you say this is one of the signs of
> the downfall of the net.  Maybe so, but I'm convinced that there's
> going to be enough people like me saying "enough of this horseJIVE!"
> to keep the pendulum from swinging too far the other way.  Yes,
> small-time mail servers like panda.com and others may continue to
> block just about all incoming mail and that's totally up to them, but
> the larger operations WILL NOT because their users, the ones who see
> email as a utility much like phone service, simply won't put up with
> it.

Large sites are not filtering (or filtering in a heavy-handed way)
because the current crop of filtering tools are too crude and
inflexible.  Email management tools are still in the era of stone
knives and bearskins.  I understand your frustration, and I assure you
it extends to both sides of the email connection.  Using most of
today's filtering tools is like using a crowbar to try to turn that
little screw that holds your eyeglasses together.  Things will get
better.  I'm writing code as fast as I can ;-)


Ross Oliver

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

From: fungus@OCF.Berkeley.EDU (Hank Fung)
Subject: Re: 800-555-TELL (was Last Laugh / BAD User Interfaces)
Date: Sat, 12 Oct 2002 07:36:20 UTC
Organization: Univ. of California Berkeley Open Computing Facility


In article ,
Steven J. Sobol  wrote:

> I'll keep an eye on my phone bill, as I always do, for bogus charges.
> But I hope that 555-Tell is 100% legitimate, because I'd like to use
> it again.

It is legitimate. AT&T owns part of TellMe, which is why they are using
them for the #121 service.

>> I don't know if the 800-555-8355 services are ad/sponsor supported or

> Radio ads that have run here suggest sponsor-supported.

They use the ANAC to generate an appropriate ad for the area code. For
instance, I am in the 510 area code and my service is sponsored by the
San Francisco Chronicle.


> Pat, was your routing to Pilgrim, perhaps, a problem with your local
> telco?

Pilgrim owns other 1-800-555 numbers. I know because sometimes I dial
"talk" as the last four digits, usually when I'm holding a
conversation with someone. Then the usual Pilgrim stuff will come up.


Hank Fung		         fungus@ocf.berkeley.edu
Go Bears!		         http://www.ocf.berkeley.edu/~fungus

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

Subject: Re: Panda.com
From: craigm@ragingbull.com (Craig Macbride)
Organization: Nyx, the Spirit of the Night (www.nyx.net)
Date: 12 Oct 2002 02:02:07 -0600


Mark Crispin  writes:

> The blocking is not done by my ISP; it is done by *my* system.  My ISP
> does not provide any web hosting or SMTP services; they just provide
> me with a /29.  I run my web and SMTP servers. [ ... ]

> I found three attempts that seemed to be from Joey.  Two were blocked
> because the reverse-DNS name of the SMTP client was a DSL name.

You run your own web and SMTP servers on your own network, but you
block any email that comes from someone else who's doing the same
thing?

> It will probably soon be the case that blacklisting will cease entirely in
> favor of whitelisting, meaning that only approved persons and sites can
> send mail within the secure subnet.

Your so-called evolution towards to bad old days of nobody ever
communicating with anyone unless they already know them is totally
unnecessary. A combination of blacklisting certain things (messages
not addressed directly to me, etc) and using SpamAssassin removes
better than 99% of my spam.  (Of the last approx. 150 pieces of spam
arriving at my main email address, only 1 has made it into my
mailbox.)

What I would like to see is some standards on prosecuting spammers. 
Various US states, among them Washington, have outlawed spam and some
folks are getting money from spammers by persuing them through legal
channels in those states. (See http://www.aboutspam.com/payup.php )

That's too limited. The US (and other countries) need national laws
against spam and appropriate penalties to not only discourage spammers
but to make the law enforcement self-funding.


    Craig Macbride      http://www.nyx.net/~cmacbrid

  I don't want to achieve immortality through my work ...
  I want to achieve it through not dying. - Woody Allen

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

From: rob51166@yahoo.com (Rob)
Subject: DTMF/Tone Dialling
Date: 12 Oct 2002 05:10:04 -0700
Organization: http://groups.google.com/


Could someone tell me when DTMF or tone dialling was introduced in the
US, and which was the first exchange to be enabled to use it?

TIA!

Rob

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

From: sjsobol@JustThe.net (Steven J. Sobol)
Subject: Re: Lawyer Jokes
Date: Fri, 11 Oct 2002 23:36:07 -0000
Organization: JustThe.net LLC


From 'Doug' :
> There are two problems with lawyer jokes.

> 1 - Lawyers don't think they are funny.
> 2 - The rest of us don't think they are jokes.

3 - I'd rather read stuff here that's actually telecom-related.

Steve Sobol, CTO  JustThe.net LLC, Mentor On The Lake, OH
http://JustTheNetLLC.com/ http://JustThe.net/ 888.480.4NET (4638)
Verizon Nokia 3285 for sale; six months old, runs perfectly. Also
should work fine on Alltel. Lots of goodies for $100 obo-e-mail for details.


[TELECOM Digest Editor's Note: Steven is actually correct. Those
days in the past week when I printed lawyer jokes here was actually
an aberation; besides which, they were funny!   :)     PAT]

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

TELECOM Digest is an electronic journal devoted mostly but not
exclusively to telecommunications topics. It is circulated anywhere
there is email, in addition to various telecom forums on a variety of
networks such as Compuserve and America On Line, 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: 620-870-9697
                        Fax 1: 775-255-9970
                        Fax 2: 775-306-8390
                        Fax 3: 775-642-0603
                        Fax 4: 530-309-7234
                        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 second 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)

Email <==> FTP:  telecom-archives@telecom-digest.org 

      Send a simple, one line note to that automated address for
      a help file on how to use the automatic retrieval system
      for archives files. You can get desired files in email.

*************************************************************************
*   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.
Access to Premium (P) links requires upgrade to a paid subscription.

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

Only subscribers or registered users of ICB Toll Free News web site
will be able to access all or some of the full text of URLs provided.

LEGAL STUFF: TELECOM Digest (sm) is owned by Patrick Townson.
Copyright 2000 ICB, Inc. and TELECOM Digest. All rights reserved.
Our attorney is Bill Levant, of Blue Bell, PA.

   ---------------------------------------------------------------
    
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 twenty 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 V22 #77
*****************************
    
    
From editor@telecom-digest.org Sun Oct 13 23:42:20 2002
Received: from localhost (localhost [[UNIX: localhost]])
	by massis.lcs.mit.edu (8.11.3nb1/8.11.3) id g9E3gKw24326;
	Sun, 13 Oct 2002 23:42:20 -0400 (EDT)
Date: Sun, 13 Oct 2002 23:42:20 -0400 (EDT)
From: editor@telecom-digest.org
Message-Id: <200210140342.g9E3gKw24326@massis.lcs.mit.edu>
X-Authentication-Warning: massis.lcs.mit.edu: ptownson set sender to editor@telecom-digest.org using -f
To: ptownson
Approved: patsnewlist
Subject: TELECOM Digest V22 #78

TELECOM Digest     Sun, 13 Oct 2002 23:42:00 EDT    Volume 22 : Issue 78

Inside This Issue:                            Editor: Patrick A. Townson

    Re: Planned Upgrades to Avaya R11 (David De Trolio)
    Another Gadget to Block Telesleaze (Danny Burstein)
    *57 and PBX's (Boo Phatty)
    Telezapper Not Zapping Like it Used To! (Mike Forman)
    Re: DTMF/Tone Dialling (George Mitchell)
    Re: DTMF/Tone Dialling (Ed Ellers)
    Re: DTMF/Tone Dialling (Joseph Singer)
    Re: DTMF/Tone Dialling (Reed)
    Re: Panda.com (Mark Crispin)
    News Headlines of Interest 10/13/02 (Monty Solomon)
    An Entry for the Telecom Digest Business Directory (Gordon S. Hlavenka)
    Re: Yet Another Set of Lawyer Jokes (Daniel J McDonald)

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. WE DO NOT PERMIT NAME/EMAIL ADDRESS
HARVESTING FROM THIS JOURNAL. 'SALTED' EMAIL ADDRESSES APPEAR
HEREIN TO VERIFY THIS. YOU GET SUED IN SMALL CLAIMS COURT IF YOU
GET CAUGHT SPAMMING OR SENDING VIRUSES. DON'T DO IT.

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

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

Reply-To: David De Trolio 
From: David De Trolio 
Subject: Re: Planned Upgrades to Avaya R11
Date: Sun, 13 Oct 2002 20:12:17 -0400


We are at R11 at my company running dual S8700 units.  We are about to
roll out five S8300 units with them all hanging off the main switch
here in NJ.  We are using Avaya's VoIP and DCS since August 2000 on
Definity's and ProLogix's.

First off we have seen every update and software patch there is along
the way using VoIP with Avaya, starting with R8.2.  The lowest you
could ever have is R9.5 to make VoIP work correctly.

R11 is very smooth in background operations, which is probably all due
to Linux.  Save Translations are a snap, and most commands are the
same.  I did and still notice some commands which allowed you to
abbreviate easily are different.  Some commands need to be spelled
out, like abbreviation or measurements or system, etc.

We understand there is ALREADY a QPPCN for this version, and we just
had it installed on 18 September 2002.  We upgraded our Prowler board
firmware and C-LAN cards and firmware at installation, and it is a
given in this new technology more are on the way.

Be advised not too many people at Avaya's help desk are fully up to
speed on this newer design and technology and software.  Expect to be
put on hold for a bit of time (nothing new for Avaya) until the right
group of people are reached.  More of the technicians and support
people are being trained, but this is all so new even for them.

Make sure your network is up to date, your servers all have the latest
patches and service packs, and you have an IP range and good switch
available to plug it all into.  We use the HP ProCurve series, they
work very well.

We upgraded to the new system from a Definity G3i running R9.5.122.4
in about four hours.  Avaya did not excel on the blowback they did on
our system, many speed dial ranges got shifted, and important features
like our BCMS system and my maintenance permissions were not present
at install.  As a matter of fact, I am still waiting for them to turn
the damn permissions back on!

I like what I see so far from the administration side, and my network
administrator thought the installation to the network was good.  This
is a learning curve, it does not work in many ways like the Definity
platform, it is under their MultiVantage platform and concept.

I can relay more if you wish, and observations as we roll out the
S8300's.  We tried the Avaya R300 as a small office solution before,
and the hardware was AWFUL to put it nicely.  If anyone from a VAR or
Avaya offers it to you as a solution, RUN as quick as you can away
from them.

IP Softphones and 4600 Series Hardphones work fantastic on this
system, we are using them strictly in all new office installations.

Hope this helps.

Dave

Sue Stewart  wrote in message
news:telecom22.76.11@telecom-digest.org:

> We are starting to ugrade some of the switches to the Avaya R11
> platforms, both UNIX and Linux.  The systems are contact centers also
> using the Avaya CMS product.  I'm wondering if anyone has accumulated
> any watchpoints for the version, migration processes or installation
> process on this release and could share their experience.

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

From: danny burstein 
Subject: Another Gadget to Block Telesleaze
Date: Sun, 13 Oct 2002 16:56:49 -0400
Organization: PANIX Public Access Internet and UNIX, NYC


It looks like someone has put together a decent call screener. Kind of
like the old privacall(?) from the late 1970s.

While far from perfect (I'd much rather see an integrated TAD) it may
be useful for some. Oh, and it means not paying telco monthly fees.

I have no personal experience with this unit and no connection with
the company.

	From http://www.avinta.com/products-1/uwc/home/uwchme.htm

"Avinta Communications offers the TriVOX, a phone call gateway system
that keeps unwanted callers from ever reaching your phone.

"The TriVOX module, when used with the answering device you probably
already have, can screen your calls before it lets your phone ring.

"Every caller will be greeted by the answering machine (auto-attendant).
By dialing your "secret"Ê code, actually an extension number, the
authorized caller can bypass the greeting and ring your phone.

They also have a realistic comparison chart describing their, and
competing, products. Both standalone boxes and telco/CO based.

	http://www.avinta.com/products-1/uwc/UwcChart/uwcChart.htm

Which includes references to what sounds like telco-provided "whitelist"
services. Which I have serious doubts about, but who knows?


Knowledge may be power, but communications is the key
		     dannyb@panix.com
[to foil spammers, my address has been double rot-13 encoded]

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

From: Boo Phatty 
Subject: *57 and PBX's
Date: Sat, 12 Oct 2002 23:03:00 -0400
Organization: Boo Phatty Repo Men, LLC
Reply-To: boo@phatty


Can all PBX's be programmed to accomodate passing codes to the switch?

I've been reading some documentation trying to resolve a customer
issue and it appears that if you can modify the digit mapping for a
PBX, it will pass the code.

Can someone confirm this -and- are do -all- PBX's allow digit map
editing?

The reason I'm asking is in VOIP land, the switch will accept a *57,
report the CN/DN, and automatically email it to the sec group.  In the
case of PBX's, I've been having a lot of trouble making it
happen. I've gone over the router functionality and it's not that
piece of gear causing the problem, and I'm thinking the PBX is not
passing the code. Well, I've actually confirmed that, but I'm digging
down to see if I can resolve it. I looked at CCITT stds and it should
work just fine.


Thanks.

Bow to the Two Buddha of Western Northeast Skiing!

                                    o 
                                   />
                                 % \
                                 __/__,
                               Got Beer?

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

From: Mike Forman 
Subject: Telezapper Not Zapping Like it Used To!
Date: 12 Oct 2002 22:54:29 -0700
Organization: ECI


When I got this gadget a few years ago, it worked great.  Every time a
PD called me, I would pick up, I hear the beep and the PD would drop
the line.

About 8 months ago, things started to change.  I would pick up, hear
the beep, then said hello, and THEN the PD would hang up.  I started
experimenting and waiting after not hearing anything.  As soon as I
said something over the handset, it would hang up.

Unfortunatly I'm getting these calls several times a day.  One thing I
noticed about these calls is that all the caller ID info says name
unavailable.

I was thinking of taking off the Telezapper and creating a SIT
answering msg on my computer that would pick up after the CID sees a
"unavailable number" and then have it play a full SIT.  For anyone that
has CID info, it would follow normal answering machine rules.

Any thoughts on my little idea?

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

From: George Mitchell 
Subject: Re: DTMF/Tone Dialling
Date: Sat, 12 Oct 2002 22:00:05 -0700
Organization: Posted via Supernews, http://www.supernews.com


Rob wrote:

> Could someone tell me when DTMF or tone dialling was introduced in the
> US, and which was the first exchange to be enabled to use it?

> TIA!

> Rob

I would hazard a guess that it would be Parsippany, New Jersey, or
some other location near Bell Labs.  I personally first encountered it
in Flushing, New York when I visited the 1964 World's Fair.


-- George Mitchell (obfuscated email address)

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

From: Ed Ellers 
Subject: Re: DTMF/Tone Dialling
Date: Sun, 13 Oct 2002 02:55:31 -0400


Rob  wrote:

> Could someone tell me when DTMF or tone dialling was introduced in the US,
> and which was the first exchange to be enabled to use it?

By Bell of Pennsylvania (in Carnegie and Greensburg) on November 18,
1963, under a regular tariff, following market testing there and in
Ohio in 1962.  This is from
http://www.todayinsci.com/cgi-bin/indexpage.pl?http://www.todayinsci.com/11/
11_18.htm 

But the reference to "an adpater taking the place of the rotary dial"
is incorrect -- that prototype had already been replaced by the
familiar square-front 1500 phone.

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

From: Joseph Singer 
Subject: Re: DTMF/Tone Dialling
Date: Sun, 13 Oct 2002 09:27:23 -0700
Organization: Drizzle
Reply-To: joeofseattle@yahoo.com


On 12 Oct 2002 05:10:04 -0700, rob51166@yahoo.com (Rob) wrote:

> Could someone tell me when DTMF or tone dialling was introduced in the
> US, and which was the first exchange to be enabled to use it?

Here's a link I found from a google search for "Touch Tone" the AT&T
trademarked name for DTMF:

http://www.research.att.com/history/64touch.html

The article says that the first installation of touch tone was made in
Baltimore, Maryland in 1941 for operators.

The first commercial touch tone was previewed at the World's Fair in
Seattle in 1962.  IIRC the first commercial installation in a central
office of touch tone was around the year 1964.  Touch tone "dials"
were ten button 1 - 0 at that time and a few years later the * (star)
and # (pound/hash code/octothorpe) was added.  Autovon also had four
additional keys marked A B C & D.  My community Portland, Maine had
touch tone introduced in 1967 (on top of a step-by-step office yet!)

Personal replies most likely will not be read.  Please reply 
in the newsgroup.

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

From: Reed 
Subject: Re: DTMF/Tone Dialling
Date: Sat, 12 Oct 2002 21:57:49 -0600
Organization: None Whatsoever


A Google search finds:

http://nisnbx.3comsbc.com/resourcs/networks/telcos/history/contents.htm
where this info for 1963 appears:

"November also marks the introduction of Touch Tone service featuring
push button telephones in Carnegie and Greensburg, Pennsylvania."

--reed

Rob wrote:
 
> Could someone tell me when DTMF or tone dialling was introduced in the
> US, and which was the first exchange to be enabled to use it?

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

From: Mark Crispin 
Subject: Re: Panda.com
Date: Sat, 12 Oct 2002 21:55:44 -0700
Organization: Networks and Distributed Computing


On Sat, 12 Oct 2002, Craig Macbride wrote:

> You run your own web and SMTP servers on your own network, but you
> block any email that comes from someone else who's doing the same
> thing?

No, only from people who do not get real reverse DNS names for their
static IPs instead of a 123.45.67.89-dsl.blurdybloop.net name.  If
your ISP won't let you set up real reverse DNS names, then get a new
ISP.

I require that people who wish to send me mail have real computers
with real DNS and reverse DNS names.  If you do not like that
requirement, that's just too bad.  Live with it.  Learn to use postage
stamps.

> Your so-called evolution towards to bad old days of nobody ever
> communicating with anyone unless they already know them is totally
> unnecessary.

Who died and appointed you god?  Who gave you the authority to decide
that some other person's anti-spam measures are "unnecessary"?

> (Of the last approx. 150 pieces of spam arriving at my main email
> address, only 1 has made it into my mailbox.)

Good for you.  I consider a .95% leak rate to be too high.  That doesn't
seem very high, until you start multiplying it by some big numbers.

> What I would like to see is some standards on prosecuting spammers.

It won't happen.  You can thank the Direct Marketing Association and the
politicians it owns in both parties.

> Various US states, among them Washington, have outlawed spam and some
> folks are getting money from spammers by persuing them through legal
> channels in those states.

Your typical spammer is a fly-by-night entity.  The chance that you'll
be able to serve is limited, and the chance that you'll be able to
collect is even more limited.

Until spam and automated telemarketing becomes a criminal, rather than
a civil, offense, it will continue unabated.  And it is going to get
much worse.


-- Mark --
http://staff.washington.edu/mrc
Science does not emerge from voting, party politics, or public debate.

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

Date: Fri, 11 Oct 2002 21:06:18 -0400
From: Monty Solomon 
Subject: News Headlines of Interest  10/13.02


ADAM D. THIERER

Solving the Broadband Paradox

The technology is ready, but the market is not. Deregulation, not 
subsidies, will speed adoption.

If The Graduate were being filmed today, the one-word piece of advice
that young Benjamin Braddock would hear is "broadband." Most simply
defined as a high-speed communications connection to the home or
office, broadband offers Americans the promise of faster Internet
access, rapid data downloads, instantaneous video on demand, and a
more secure connection to a variety of other cutting-edge technologies
and services.

If it were to become ubiquitously available throughout the United
States, broadband communications services might finally make possible
some long-dreamed-of commercial applications, including telecommuting,
video conferencing, telemedicine, and distance learning. Beyond
transforming the workplace, broadband could open new opportunities in
the home for activities such as electronic banking, online gaming,
digital television, music swapping, and faster Web surfing in general.

For these reasons, a growing number of pundits and policymakers are
saying that Americans need broadband and they need it now. Moreover,
assorted telecom, entertainment, and computer sector leaders are also
proclaiming that the future of their industries depends on the rapid
spread of broadband access throughout the economy and society. For
example, Technology Network (Tech Net), one of the leading tech sector
lobbying groups, is asking policymakers to commit to a JFK-esque "man
on the moon" promise of guaranteeing 100 megabits per second (Mbps)
connections for 100 million U.S. homes and small businesses by the end
of this decade. This represents a bold -- some would say
unrealistic -- vision for the future, considering that most Americans
today are using a 56K narrowband modem connection and balking at
paying the additional fee for a 1.5-Mbps broadband hookup.

What exactly is holding back the expansion of broadband services in
America? Is a 100-Mbps vision within 10 years just a quixotic dream?
What effect has regulation had on this sector in the past, and what
role should public policy play in the future?

http://www.nap.edu/issues/18.3/thierer.html


France to test satellite speed-trap

France is preparing to test satellite technology that will 
automatically slow speeding cars and override driver control, a 
motoring magazine, Auto Plus, and vehicle maker Peugeot said on 
Tuesday.

The experiment will proceed in two steps, they said.

http://motoring.iafrica.com/newsbriefs/173964.htm

The prying game

George Kerevan
gkerevan@scotsman.com

Click! Click! Click! More than 400 miles above your head, in the
frozen silence of space, a spy satellite could be taking your picture
right now without you ever knowing. It can do it in the dark with
infrared. It can do it with sophisticated radar through the rain
clouds. Worse, the person who commissioned the photographs might not
be the CIA. It could easily be your boss, your spouse, or the Inland
Revenue. For these are they days of the do-it-yourself spy.

It began in 1990, only months before Iraq's invasion of Kuwait.
Saddam Hussein lacked detailed knowledge of Kuwait's defences. With no
spy satellites of his own, what could he do? Answer: he went to a new
French company, SPOT Image, which has a commercial spy satellite
aloft, and bought 20 high-definition photographs of Kuwait and Saudi
Arabia for only $3,000 each.

This world of DIY spying can be dangerous for it means high-tech 
snooping is no longer confined to military or intelligence services. 
Anyone with a little cash can be a spook - even you.

http://www.thescotsman.co.uk/s2.cfm?id=1124832002


A Kiddie GPS for the Masses?

By Elisa Batista
02:00 AM Oct. 12, 2002 PDT

You are a parent with the jitters.

You go to RadioShack and buy a casing for your teen's cell phone that
tells you his or her whereabouts at all times. You simply log on to a
website for a map of the phone's location.

If the child is too young to own a cell phone, you stick a pager-sized
device with a global positioning system (GPS) chip and wireless radio
into his or her backpack. Have any doubts as to your kid's location?
Simply look it up on the Web.

To the dismay of rebellious teenagers, a new company plans to come 
out with such products at enticing prices for parents next year.

Pomals, which stands for "peace of mind at light speed," says its
first product, a hard plastic sleeve embedded with GPS that slips over
cell phones, Blackberry e-mail devices and wireless personal digital
assistants (PDAs), will come to market no later than the second
quarter of next year.

http://www.wired.com/news/business/0,1367,55731,00.html


The Economist, the Internet, Telecom and the Dow

Bob Frankston
Jul 31, 2002

In the 1980's I found that reading The Economist was more interesting
than reading science fiction. I'm not proud of this and I am surprised
at myself. But the real world is fascinating and I find The Economist
to be a fairly sober publication.

But the Economist has had problems coming to terms with the Internet.
It seems to abandon the free market advocacy that seems to
characterize its reporting when it comes to the Internet. I suspect
that the reason is simply that the reporters (or editors) confuse the
businesses done using the Internet with the Internet itself. The
Internet itself is not a business nor a marketplace or even a
particular technology. It is simply a way of providing connectivity by
simply packaging bits in uniform packets and then delivering them
anywhere else in the world.

That's not very interesting. But then paper money isn't very
interesting to most people; printing money is just a way to simplify
business transactions by having a simple way to transport value.
Printing money and carrying packets are interesting businesses in
their own right. We don't confuse the business of printing money with
using the money for financial transactions.





Conn. Case Reflects Reach of Terror Law

By Marcella Bombardieri, Globe Staff, 10/13/2001

STORRS, Conn. - At first glance, Tomas M. Foral might seem to have 
little in common with shoe-bomber Richard C. Reid.

Foral is an Ivy League graduate serving in the National Guard and the
Reserve Officers Training Corps, and a specialist on the West Nile
virus whose career goal is to become an Army doctor. Reid is the
wanna-be suicide bomber who recently pleaded guilty to trying to blow
up a packed jetliner, saying, "I pledge to Osama bin Laden and I'm an
enemy of your country."

Yet Foral and Reid belong to the same exclusive club. They are among 
just a handful of people prosecutors have charged with crimes under 
the USA Patriot Act, the law passed last fall to augment the 
government's arsenal of terrorism-fighting tools.

While cleaning out a malfunctioning freezer in his pathobiology lab
last fall at the University of Connecticut, where he is now a graduate
student, Foral, 26, made the mistake of storing two vials of tissue
samples from a cow that died of anthrax 30 years ago. That was shortly
before 94-year-old Ottilie W. Lundgren died of inhalation anthrax
about 70 miles away in Oxford, Conn.



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

Date: Sun, 13 Oct 2002 20:08:24 -0500
From: Gordon S. Hlavenka 
Organization: Crash Electronics, Inc.
Subject: An Entry For the TELECOM Digest Business Directory


Would you like to get involved in email marketing?  These people are
SO involved they sent me four emails in a row!  I'll tell you, that
sure made an impression on me!  You too can make a lasting impression
on others by delivering your marketing message via email!

Start Email Marketing Today  Call 1-800-764-5360

Gordon S. Hlavenka               O-             nospam@crashelex.com
                               Burma!

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

Subject: Re: Yet Another Set of Lawyer Jokes
Organization: io.com
From: djmcdona@io.com (Daniel J McDonald)
Date: Sat, 12 Oct 2002 21:45:07 -0500


Q: Why does New Jersey have the most toxic waste per capita and
California have the most lawyers per capita?

A: New Jersey got first pick.

Daniel J McDonald CCIE # 2495, CNX
Visit my website: http://www.austinnetworkdesign.com

[TELECOM Digest Editor's Note: Very clever, but we have to really stop
these jokes sometime soon. Anyway, the old people here in Independence
(really about half the town) are in mourning today on account of the
article my competitor the *New York Times* had in its Sunday editions
regarding Independence. It looks like Independence made the Sunday NYT.
http://www.nytimes.com/2002/10/13/travel/KANSAS.html  Small Kansas
Town With a Big Impact.

The people who run Uncle Jack's Restaurant loved the article of
course, along with the people who run the museum, the college and the
Chamber of Commerce. Starting this week we get into our version of
Octoberfest (here it is called 'Neewollah' [which is Halloween spelled
backwards] and it runs for the final ten days of the month), with lots
of good times and gaiety for everyone, except the old people, of
course. They were happy to see the *Times* article also but a lot of
folks grieved at seeing it all in print since it will bring us our
very own Tragedy of the Commons in a few years, which officially began
when Walmart opened their Supercenter on the west side of town two
years ago. If you wish to read the NY Times article you may need to
register, but it is interesting reading, even if our 'secret' is out
in the open now for everyone to see. I mean, how often do you see
little tiny towns named 'Independence' with residence areas that have
brick streets and sidewalks, gas lamps in front lawns (like mine);
folks who are mostly libertarian by default (although the town was
not named with that motif), people mostly doing their own thing and
ignoring other people (but gossiping about them); a 'crime wave' is
when a half-dozen people in one week get arrested for shoplifting
at Walmart, dutifully reported in the sixteen page daily newspaper
(forty pages on Sunday morning) called the 'Independence Reporter';   
everyone in town is on the same phone exchange and refer to their 
four digit phone number; geeze, the NY Times article even talked about
our 'four block downtown area' and our (still operating) 1920's 
Rexall Drug Store and its soda fountain/lunch counter and our 
college, its library and our town library. The Tragedy of the Commons
will commence immediatly. At least, let us have our Neewollah Festival
in peace this year before it all happens. I'm lucky I live so close
to Uncle Jack's, its a great place for dinner/drinks each evening.  PAT] 

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

TELECOM Digest is an electronic journal devoted mostly but not
exclusively to telecommunications topics. It is circulated anywhere
there is email, in addition to various telecom forums on a variety of
networks such as Compuserve and America On Line, 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: 620-870-9697
                        Fax 1: 775-255-9970
                        Fax 2: 775-306-8390
                        Fax 3: 775-642-0603
                        Fax 4: 530-309-7234
                        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 second 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)

Email <==> FTP:  telecom-archives@telecom-digest.org 

      Send a simple, one line note to that automated address for
      a help file on how to use the automatic retrieval system
      for archives files. You can get desired files in email.

*************************************************************************
*   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.
Access to Premium (P) links requires upgrade to a paid subscription.

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

Only subscribers or registered users of ICB Toll Free News web site
will be able to access all or some of the full text of URLs provided.

LEGAL STUFF: TELECOM Digest (sm) is owned by Patrick Townson.
Copyright 2000 ICB, Inc. and TELECOM Digest. All rights reserved.
Our attorney is Bill Levant, of Blue Bell, PA.

   ---------------------------------------------------------------
    
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 twenty 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 V22 #78
******************************
    
    
From editor@telecom-digest.org Sun Oct 13 23:48:45 2002
Received: from localhost (localhost [[UNIX: localhost]])
	by massis.lcs.mit.edu (8.11.3nb1/8.11.3) id g9E3mjm24474;
	Sun, 13 Oct 2002 23:48:45 -0400 (EDT)
Date: Sun, 13 Oct 2002 23:48:45 -0400 (EDT)
From: editor@telecom-digest.org
Message-Id: <200210140348.g9E3mjm24474@massis.lcs.mit.edu>
X-Authentication-Warning: massis.lcs.mit.edu: ptownson set sender to editor@telecom-digest.org using -f
To: ptownson
Approved: patsnewlist
Subject: TELECOM Digest V22 #78

TELECOM Digest     Sun, 13 Oct 2002 23:42:00 EDT    Volume 22 : Issue 78

Inside This Issue:                            Editor: Patrick A. Townson

    Re: Planned Upgrades to Avaya R11 (David De Trolio)
    Another Gadget to Block Telesleaze (Danny Burstein)
    *57 and PBX's (Boo Phatty)
    Telezapper Not Zapping Like it Used To! (Mike Forman)
    Re: DTMF/Tone Dialling (George Mitchell)
    Re: DTMF/Tone Dialling (Ed Ellers)
    Re: DTMF/Tone Dialling (Joseph Singer)
    Re: DTMF/Tone Dialling (Reed)
    Re: Panda.com (Mark Crispin)
    News Headlines of Interest 10/13/02 (Monty Solomon)
    An Entry for the Telecom Digest Business Directory (Gordon S. Hlavenka)
    Re: Yet Another Set of Lawyer Jokes (Daniel J McDonald)

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. WE DO NOT PERMIT NAME/EMAIL ADDRESS
HARVESTING FROM THIS JOURNAL. 'SALTED' EMAIL ADDRESSES APPEAR
HEREIN TO VERIFY THIS. YOU GET SUED IN SMALL CLAIMS COURT IF YOU
GET CAUGHT SPAMMING OR SENDING VIRUSES. DON'T DO IT.

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

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

Reply-To: David De Trolio 
From: David De Trolio 
Subject: Re: Planned Upgrades to Avaya R11
Date: Sun, 13 Oct 2002 20:12:17 -0400


We are at R11 at my company running dual S8700 units.  We are about to
roll out five S8300 units with them all hanging off the main switch
here in NJ.  We are using Avaya's VoIP and DCS since August 2000 on
Definity's and ProLogix's.

First off we have seen every update and software patch there is along
the way using VoIP with Avaya, starting with R8.2.  The lowest you
could ever have is R9.5 to make VoIP work correctly.

R11 is very smooth in background operations, which is probably all due
to Linux.  Save Translations are a snap, and most commands are the
same.  I did and still notice some commands which allowed you to
abbreviate easily are different.  Some commands need to be spelled
out, like abbreviation or measurements or system, etc.

We understand there is ALREADY a QPPCN for this version, and we just
had it installed on 18 September 2002.  We upgraded our Prowler board
firmware and C-LAN cards and firmware at installation, and it is a
given in this new technology more are on the way.

Be advised not too many people at Avaya's help desk are fully up to
speed on this newer design and technology and software.  Expect to be
put on hold for a bit of time (nothing new for Avaya) until the right
group of people are reached.  More of the technicians and support
people are being trained, but this is all so new even for them.

Make sure your network is up to date, your servers all have the latest
patches and service packs, and you have an IP range and good switch
available to plug it all into.  We use the HP ProCurve series, they
work very well.

We upgraded to the new system from a Definity G3i running R9.5.122.4
in about four hours.  Avaya did not excel on the blowback they did on
our system, many speed dial ranges got shifted, and important features
like our BCMS system and my maintenance permissions were not present
at install.  As a matter of fact, I am still waiting for them to turn
the damn permissions back on!

I like what I see so far from the administration side, and my network
administrator thought the installation to the network was good.  This
is a learning curve, it does not work in many ways like the Definity
platform, it is under their MultiVantage platform and concept.

I can relay more if you wish, and observations as we roll out the
S8300's.  We tried the Avaya R300 as a small office solution before,
and the hardware was AWFUL to put it nicely.  If anyone from a VAR or
Avaya offers it to you as a solution, RUN as quick as you can away
from them.

IP Softphones and 4600 Series Hardphones work fantastic on this
system, we are using them strictly in all new office installations.

Hope this helps.

Dave

Sue Stewart  wrote in message
news:telecom22.76.11@telecom-digest.org:

> We are starting to ugrade some of the switches to the Avaya R11
> platforms, both UNIX and Linux.  The systems are contact centers also
> using the Avaya CMS product.  I'm wondering if anyone has accumulated
> any watchpoints for the version, migration processes or installation
> process on this release and could share their experience.

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

From: danny burstein 
Subject: Another Gadget to Block Telesleaze
Date: Sun, 13 Oct 2002 16:56:49 -0400
Organization: PANIX Public Access Internet and UNIX, NYC


It looks like someone has put together a decent call screener. Kind of
like the old privacall(?) from the late 1970s.

While far from perfect (I'd much rather see an integrated TAD) it may
be useful for some. Oh, and it means not paying telco monthly fees.

I have no personal experience with this unit and no connection with
the company.

	From http://www.avinta.com/products-1/uwc/home/uwchme.htm

"Avinta Communications offers the TriVOX, a phone call gateway system
that keeps unwanted callers from ever reaching your phone.

"The TriVOX module, when used with the answering device you probably
already have, can screen your calls before it lets your phone ring.

"Every caller will be greeted by the answering machine (auto-attendant).
By dialing your "secret"Ê code, actually an extension number, the
authorized caller can bypass the greeting and ring your phone.

They also have a realistic comparison chart describing their, and
competing, products. Both standalone boxes and telco/CO based.

	http://www.avinta.com/products-1/uwc/UwcChart/uwcChart.htm

Which includes references to what sounds like telco-provided "whitelist"
services. Which I have serious doubts about, but who knows?


Knowledge may be power, but communications is the key
		     dannyb@panix.com
[to foil spammers, my address has been double rot-13 encoded]

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

From: Boo Phatty 
Subject: *57 and PBX's
Date: Sat, 12 Oct 2002 23:03:00 -0400
Organization: Boo Phatty Repo Men, LLC
Reply-To: boo@phatty


Can all PBX's be programmed to accomodate passing codes to the switch?

I've been reading some documentation trying to resolve a customer
issue and it appears that if you can modify the digit mapping for a
PBX, it will pass the code.

Can someone confirm this -and- are do -all- PBX's allow digit map
editing?

The reason I'm asking is in VOIP land, the switch will accept a *57,
report the CN/DN, and automatically email it to the sec group.  In the
case of PBX's, I've been having a lot of trouble making it
happen. I've gone over the router functionality and it's not that
piece of gear causing the problem, and I'm thinking the PBX is not
passing the code. Well, I've actually confirmed that, but I'm digging
down to see if I can resolve it. I looked at CCITT stds and it should
work just fine.


Thanks.

Bow to the Two Buddha of Western Northeast Skiing!

                                    o 
                                   />
                                 % \
                                 __/__,
                               Got Beer?

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

From: Mike Forman 
Subject: Telezapper Not Zapping Like it Used To!
Date: 12 Oct 2002 22:54:29 -0700
Organization: ECI


When I got this gadget a few years ago, it worked great.  Every time a
PD called me, I would pick up, I hear the beep and the PD would drop
the line.

About 8 months ago, things started to change.  I would pick up, hear
the beep, then said hello, and THEN the PD would hang up.  I started
experimenting and waiting after not hearing anything.  As soon as I
said something over the handset, it would hang up.

Unfortunatly I'm getting these calls several times a day.  One thing I
noticed about these calls is that all the caller ID info says name
unavailable.

I was thinking of taking off the Telezapper and creating a SIT
answering msg on my computer that would pick up after the CID sees a
"unavailable number" and then have it play a full SIT.  For anyone that
has CID info, it would follow normal answering machine rules.

Any thoughts on my little idea?

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

From: George Mitchell 
Subject: Re: DTMF/Tone Dialling
Date: Sat, 12 Oct 2002 22:00:05 -0700
Organization: Posted via Supernews, http://www.supernews.com


Rob wrote:

> Could someone tell me when DTMF or tone dialling was introduced in the
> US, and which was the first exchange to be enabled to use it?

> TIA!

> Rob

I would hazard a guess that it would be Parsippany, New Jersey, or
some other location near Bell Labs.  I personally first encountered it
in Flushing, New York when I visited the 1964 World's Fair.


-- George Mitchell (obfuscated email address)

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

From: Ed Ellers 
Subject: Re: DTMF/Tone Dialling
Date: Sun, 13 Oct 2002 02:55:31 -0400


Rob  wrote:

> Could someone tell me when DTMF or tone dialling was introduced in the US,
> and which was the first exchange to be enabled to use it?

By Bell of Pennsylvania (in Carnegie and Greensburg) on November 18,
1963, under a regular tariff, following market testing there and in
Ohio in 1962.  This is from
http://www.todayinsci.com/cgi-bin/indexpage.pl?http://www.todayinsci.com/11/
11_18.htm 

But the reference to "an adpater taking the place of the rotary dial"
is incorrect -- that prototype had already been replaced by the
familiar square-front 1500 phone.

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

From: Joseph Singer 
Subject: Re: DTMF/Tone Dialling
Date: Sun, 13 Oct 2002 09:27:23 -0700
Organization: Drizzle
Reply-To: joeofseattle@yahoo.com


On 12 Oct 2002 05:10:04 -0700, rob51166@yahoo.com (Rob) wrote:

> Could someone tell me when DTMF or tone dialling was introduced in the
> US, and which was the first exchange to be enabled to use it?

Here's a link I found from a google search for "Touch Tone" the AT&T
trademarked name for DTMF:

http://www.research.att.com/history/64touch.html

The article says that the first installation of touch tone was made in
Baltimore, Maryland in 1941 for operators.

The first commercial touch tone was previewed at the World's Fair in
Seattle in 1962.  IIRC the first commercial installation in a central
office of touch tone was around the year 1964.  Touch tone "dials"
were ten button 1 - 0 at that time and a few years later the * (star)
and # (pound/hash code/octothorpe) was added.  Autovon also had four
additional keys marked A B C & D.  My community Portland, Maine had
touch tone introduced in 1967 (on top of a step-by-step office yet!)

Personal replies most likely will not be read.  Please reply 
in the newsgroup.

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

From: Reed 
Subject: Re: DTMF/Tone Dialling
Date: Sat, 12 Oct 2002 21:57:49 -0600
Organization: None Whatsoever


A Google search finds:

http://nisnbx.3comsbc.com/resourcs/networks/telcos/history/contents.htm
where this info for 1963 appears:

"November also marks the introduction of Touch Tone service featuring
push button telephones in Carnegie and Greensburg, Pennsylvania."

--reed

Rob wrote:
 
> Could someone tell me when DTMF or tone dialling was introduced in the
> US, and which was the first exchange to be enabled to use it?

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

From: Mark Crispin 
Subject: Re: Panda.com
Date: Sat, 12 Oct 2002 21:55:44 -0700
Organization: Networks and Distributed Computing


On Sat, 12 Oct 2002, Craig Macbride wrote:

> You run your own web and SMTP servers on your own network, but you
> block any email that comes from someone else who's doing the same
> thing?

No, only from people who do not get real reverse DNS names for their
static IPs instead of a 123.45.67.89-dsl.blurdybloop.net name.  If
your ISP won't let you set up real reverse DNS names, then get a new
ISP.

I require that people who wish to send me mail have real computers
with real DNS and reverse DNS names.  If you do not like that
requirement, that's just too bad.  Live with it.  Learn to use postage
stamps.

> Your so-called evolution towards to bad old days of nobody ever
> communicating with anyone unless they already know them is totally
> unnecessary.

Who died and appointed you god?  Who gave you the authority to decide
that some other person's anti-spam measures are "unnecessary"?

> (Of the last approx. 150 pieces of spam arriving at my main email
> address, only 1 has made it into my mailbox.)

Good for you.  I consider a .95% leak rate to be too high.  That doesn't
seem very high, until you start multiplying it by some big numbers.

> What I would like to see is some standards on prosecuting spammers.

It won't happen.  You can thank the Direct Marketing Association and the
politicians it owns in both parties.

> Various US states, among them Washington, have outlawed spam and some
> folks are getting money from spammers by persuing them through legal
> channels in those states.

Your typical spammer is a fly-by-night entity.  The chance that you'll
be able to serve is limited, and the chance that you'll be able to
collect is even more limited.

Until spam and automated telemarketing becomes a criminal, rather than
a civil, offense, it will continue unabated.  And it is going to get
much worse.


-- Mark --
http://staff.washington.edu/mrc
Science does not emerge from voting, party politics, or public debate.

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

Date: Fri, 11 Oct 2002 21:06:18 -0400
From: Monty Solomon 
Subject: News Headlines of Interest  10/13.02


ADAM D. THIERER

Solving the Broadband Paradox

The technology is ready, but the market is not. Deregulation, not 
subsidies, will speed adoption.

If The Graduate were being filmed today, the one-word piece of advice
that young Benjamin Braddock would hear is "broadband." Most simply
defined as a high-speed communications connection to the home or
office, broadband offers Americans the promise of faster Internet
access, rapid data downloads, instantaneous video on demand, and a
more secure connection to a variety of other cutting-edge technologies
and services.

If it were to become ubiquitously available throughout the United
States, broadband communications services might finally make possible
some long-dreamed-of commercial applications, including telecommuting,
video conferencing, telemedicine, and distance learning. Beyond
transforming the workplace, broadband could open new opportunities in
the home for activities such as electronic banking, online gaming,
digital television, music swapping, and faster Web surfing in general.

For these reasons, a growing number of pundits and policymakers are
saying that Americans need broadband and they need it now. Moreover,
assorted telecom, entertainment, and computer sector leaders are also
proclaiming that the future of their industries depends on the rapid
spread of broadband access throughout the economy and society. For
example, Technology Network (Tech Net), one of the leading tech sector
lobbying groups, is asking policymakers to commit to a JFK-esque "man
on the moon" promise of guaranteeing 100 megabits per second (Mbps)
connections for 100 million U.S. homes and small businesses by the end
of this decade. This represents a bold -- some would say
unrealistic -- vision for the future, considering that most Americans
today are using a 56K narrowband modem connection and balking at
paying the additional fee for a 1.5-Mbps broadband hookup.

What exactly is holding back the expansion of broadband services in
America? Is a 100-Mbps vision within 10 years just a quixotic dream?
What effect has regulation had on this sector in the past, and what
role should public policy play in the future?

http://www.nap.edu/issues/18.3/thierer.html


France to test satellite speed-trap

France is preparing to test satellite technology that will 
automatically slow speeding cars and override driver control, a 
motoring magazine, Auto Plus, and vehicle maker Peugeot said on 
Tuesday.

The experiment will proceed in two steps, they said.

http://motoring.iafrica.com/newsbriefs/173964.htm

The prying game

George Kerevan
gkerevan@scotsman.com

Click! Click! Click! More than 400 miles above your head, in the
frozen silence of space, a spy satellite could be taking your picture
right now without you ever knowing. It can do it in the dark with
infrared. It can do it with sophisticated radar through the rain
clouds. Worse, the person who commissioned the photographs might not
be the CIA. It could easily be your boss, your spouse, or the Inland
Revenue. For these are they days of the do-it-yourself spy.

It began in 1990, only months before Iraq's invasion of Kuwait.
Saddam Hussein lacked detailed knowledge of Kuwait's defences. With no
spy satellites of his own, what could he do? Answer: he went to a new
French company, SPOT Image, which has a commercial spy satellite
aloft, and bought 20 high-definition photographs of Kuwait and Saudi
Arabia for only $3,000 each.

This world of DIY spying can be dangerous for it means high-tech 
snooping is no longer confined to military or intelligence services. 
Anyone with a little cash can be a spook - even you.

http://www.thescotsman.co.uk/s2.cfm?id=1124832002


A Kiddie GPS for the Masses?

By Elisa Batista
02:00 AM Oct. 12, 2002 PDT

You are a parent with the jitters.

You go to RadioShack and buy a casing for your teen's cell phone that
tells you his or her whereabouts at all times. You simply log on to a
website for a map of the phone's location.

If the child is too young to own a cell phone, you stick a pager-sized
device with a global positioning system (GPS) chip and wireless radio
into his or her backpack. Have any doubts as to your kid's location?
Simply look it up on the Web.

To the dismay of rebellious teenagers, a new company plans to come 
out with such products at enticing prices for parents next year.

Pomals, which stands for "peace of mind at light speed," says its
first product, a hard plastic sleeve embedded with GPS that slips over
cell phones, Blackberry e-mail devices and wireless personal digital
assistants (PDAs), will come to market no later than the second
quarter of next year.

http://www.wired.com/news/business/0,1367,55731,00.html


The Economist, the Internet, Telecom and the Dow

Bob Frankston
Jul 31, 2002

In the 1980's I found that reading The Economist was more interesting
than reading science fiction. I'm not proud of this and I am surprised
at myself. But the real world is fascinating and I find The Economist
to be a fairly sober publication.

But the Economist has had problems coming to terms with the Internet.
It seems to abandon the free market advocacy that seems to
characterize its reporting when it comes to the Internet. I suspect
that the reason is simply that the reporters (or editors) confuse the
businesses done using the Internet with the Internet itself. The
Internet itself is not a business nor a marketplace or even a
particular technology. It is simply a way of providing connectivity by
simply packaging bits in uniform packets and then delivering them
anywhere else in the world.

That's not very interesting. But then paper money isn't very
interesting to most people; printing money is just a way to simplify
business transactions by having a simple way to transport value.
Printing money and carrying packets are interesting businesses in
their own right. We don't confuse the business of printing money with
using the money for financial transactions.





Conn. Case Reflects Reach of Terror Law

By Marcella Bombardieri, Globe Staff, 10/13/2001

STORRS, Conn. - At first glance, Tomas M. Foral might seem to have 
little in common with shoe-bomber Richard C. Reid.

Foral is an Ivy League graduate serving in the National Guard and the
Reserve Officers Training Corps, and a specialist on the West Nile
virus whose career goal is to become an Army doctor. Reid is the
wanna-be suicide bomber who recently pleaded guilty to trying to blow
up a packed jetliner, saying, "I pledge to Osama bin Laden and I'm an
enemy of your country."

Yet Foral and Reid belong to the same exclusive club. They are among 
just a handful of people prosecutors have charged with crimes under 
the USA Patriot Act, the law passed last fall to augment the 
government's arsenal of terrorism-fighting tools.

While cleaning out a malfunctioning freezer in his pathobiology lab
last fall at the University of Connecticut, where he is now a graduate
student, Foral, 26, made the mistake of storing two vials of tissue
samples from a cow that died of anthrax 30 years ago. That was shortly
before 94-year-old Ottilie W. Lundgren died of inhalation anthrax
about 70 miles away in Oxford, Conn.



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

Date: Sun, 13 Oct 2002 20:08:24 -0500
From: Gordon S. Hlavenka 
Organization: Crash Electronics, Inc.
Subject: An Entry For the TELECOM Digest Business Directory


Would you like to get involved in email marketing?  These people are
SO involved they sent me four emails in a row!  I'll tell you, that
sure made an impression on me!  You too can make a lasting impression
on others by delivering your marketing message via email!

Start Email Marketing Today  Call 1-800-764-5360

Gordon S. Hlavenka               O-             nospam@crashelex.com
                               Burma!

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

Subject: Re: Yet Another Set of Lawyer Jokes
Organization: io.com
From: djmcdona@io.com (Daniel J McDonald)
Date: Sat, 12 Oct 2002 21:45:07 -0500


Q: Why does New Jersey have the most toxic waste per capita and
California have the most lawyers per capita?

A: New Jersey got first pick.

Daniel J McDonald CCIE # 2495, CNX
Visit my website: http://www.austinnetworkdesign.com

[TELECOM Digest Editor's Note: Very clever, but we have to really stop
these jokes sometime soon. Anyway, the old people here in Independence
(really about half the town) are in mourning today on account of the
article my competitor the *New York Times* had in its Sunday editions
regarding Independence. It looks like Independence made the Sunday NYT.
http://www.nytimes.com/2002/10/13/travel/KANSAS.html  Small Kansas
Town With a Big Impact.

The people who run Uncle Jack's Restaurant loved the article of
course, along with the people who run the museum, the college and the
Chamber of Commerce. Starting this week we get into our version of
Octoberfest (here it is called 'Neewollah' [which is Halloween spelled
backwards] and it runs for the final ten days of the month), with lots
of good times and gaiety for everyone, except the old people, of
course. They were happy to see the *Times* article also but a lot of
folks grieved at seeing it all in print since it will bring us our
very own Tragedy of the Commons in a few years, which officially began
when Walmart opened their Supercenter on the west side of town two
years ago. If you wish to read the NY Times article you may need to
register, but it is interesting reading, even if our 'secret' is out
in the open now for everyone to see. I mean, how often do you see
little tiny towns named 'Independence' with residence areas that have
brick streets and sidewalks, gas lamps in front lawns (like mine);
folks who are mostly libertarian by default (although the town was
not named with that motif), people mostly doing their own thing and
ignoring other people (but gossiping about them); a 'crime wave' is
when a half-dozen people in one week get arrested for shoplifting
at Walmart, dutifully reported in the sixteen page daily newspaper
(forty pages on Sunday morning) called the 'Independence Reporter';   
everyone in town is on the same phone exchange and refer to their 
four digit phone number; geeze, the NY Times article even talked about
our 'four block downtown area' and our (still operating) 1920's 
Rexall Drug Store and its soda fountain/lunch counter and our 
college, its library and our town library. The Tragedy of the Commons
will commence immediatly. At least, let us have our Neewollah Festival
in peace this year before it all happens. I'm lucky I live so close
to Uncle Jack's, its a great place for dinner/drinks each evening.  PAT] 

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

TELECOM Digest is an electronic journal devoted mostly but not
exclusively to telecommunications topics. It is circulated anywhere
there is email, in addition to various telecom forums on a variety of
networks such as Compuserve and America On Line, 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: 620-870-9697
                        Fax 1: 775-255-9970
                        Fax 2: 775-306-8390
                        Fax 3: 775-642-0603
                        Fax 4: 530-309-7234
                        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 second 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)

Email <==> FTP:  telecom-archives@telecom-digest.org 

      Send a simple, one line note to that automated address for
      a help file on how to use the automatic retrieval system
      for archives files. You can get desired files in email.

*************************************************************************
*   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.
Access to Premium (P) links requires upgrade to a paid subscription.

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

Only subscribers or registered users of ICB Toll Free News web site
will be able to access all or some of the full text of URLs provided.

LEGAL STUFF: TELECOM Digest (sm) is owned by Patrick Townson.
Copyright 2000 ICB, Inc. and TELECOM Digest. All rights reserved.
Our attorney is Bill Levant, of Blue Bell, PA.

   ---------------------------------------------------------------
    
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 twenty 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 V22 #78
******************************
    
    
From editor@telecom-digest.org Mon Oct 14 19:39:48 2002
Received: from localhost (localhost [[UNIX: localhost]])
	by massis.lcs.mit.edu (8.11.3nb1/8.11.3) id g9ENdmF29219;
	Mon, 14 Oct 2002 19:39:48 -0400 (EDT)
Date: Mon, 14 Oct 2002 19:39:48 -0400 (EDT)
From: editor@telecom-digest.org
Message-Id: <200210142339.g9ENdmF29219@massis.lcs.mit.edu>
X-Authentication-Warning: massis.lcs.mit.edu: ptownson set sender to editor@telecom-digest.org using -f
To: ptownson
Approved: patsnewlist
Subject: TELECOM Digest V22 #79

TELECOM Digest     Mon, 14 Oct 2002 19:40:00 EDT    Volume 22 : Issue 79

Inside This Issue:                            Editor: Patrick A. Townson

    Internet Society Proposal to Operate .org Approved by ICANN (A Shroeder)
    Invitation to SSGRR Conferences in ITALY! (ssgrr2003w@etf.bg.ac.yu)
    Re: Squirrels (Burkitt-Gray Alan)
    Re: SBC/Yahoo! (Rob Levandowski)
    Re: *57 and PBX's (Dave Phelps)
    Re: Another Gadget to Block Telesleaze (John Higdon)
    Re: Shannon Underhill (Shannon Underhill)
    Re: No Reverse DNS?  Then Get a New ISP (John R. Covert)
    Re: No Reverse DNS?  Then Get a New ISP (Mark Crispin)
    Last Laugh! California Women Drivers (Spyros Bartsocas)

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. WE DO NOT PERMIT NAME/EMAIL ADDRESS
HARVESTING FROM THIS JOURNAL. 'SALTED' EMAIL ADDRESSES APPEAR
HEREIN TO VERIFY THIS. YOU GET SUED IN SMALL CLAIMS COURT IF YOU
GET CAUGHT SPAMMING OR SENDING VIRUSES. DON'T DO IT.

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

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

From: Anne Shroeder 
Subject: Internet Society Proposal to Operate .org Approved by ICANN
Date: Mon, 14 Oct 2002 14:03:39 -0400


INTERNET SOCIETY PROPOSAL TO OPERATE .ORG APPROVED BY ICANN

Reston, Virginia - October 14, 2002 - Today, the Internet Society
(ISOC) announced that the Internet Corporation for Assigned Names and
Numbers (ICANN) has selected its proposal to operate the .ORG
registry.  ISOC has established a new not-for-profit organization -
the Public Interest Registry (PIR) - which will succeed VeriSign
Global Registry Services, Inc. (NASDAQ: VRSN) as the registry operator
for .ORG when its contract with ICANN expires on December 31, 2002.

"We are thrilled to have this opportunity to serve the worldwide .ORG
community and are dedicated to making .ORG a truly global home that
will serve the unique interests of non-commercial organizations on the
Internet," said Lynn St. Amour, ISOC President and CEO.

Afilias Limited, a global domain name registry services provider and
current registry operator of the .INFO top-level domain (TLD), will
provide PIR with a full range of back-end registry services to support
 .ORG.

"Afilias congratulates ISOC and looks forward to meeting the
challenges that lie ahead," said Hal Lubsen, Chief Executive Officer
of Afilias. " Afilias is fully prepared to support ISOC and PIR in the
modernization of the .ORG domain including upgrading the registry
system to support the new, faster EPP protocol and reducing
registration-to-resolution time from hours to minutes."

PIR will introduce new services designed to meet the unique needs of
noncommercial organizations including: name locking, site linking, a
directory, and ID certification.  In addition, PIR will establish a
 .ORG Advisory Council to be made up of noncommercial community
leaders.

"We are pleased to have been selected from among 11 excellent
proposals.  ISOC's legacy of responsible stewardship in matters
relating to the welfare of the Internet coupled with Afilias' track
record of operating a large-scale registry underscores ICANN's
confidence in our ability to preserve and further enhance the .ORG
registry," said St. Amour.  "We look forward to building upon the
solid base established by VeriSign and to working closely with them to
ensure a smooth transition for all .ORG users."

ISOC and Afilias have already begun planning for the technical
transition and expect that it will be virtually invisible to .ORG
users.  Existing .ORG domain name holders will simply renew their name
on their regular schedule, and new registrations will be accepted just
as they are today.  Domain name registrars, the retailers of .ORG
domain names, should also experience an easy cutover due to the
special processes being developed for this transition.

In addition to transition planning, the establishment of the new
registry operator - PIR - is also well underway. PIR has completed
incorporation as a not-for-profit in the state of Pennsylvania and
will have its principle operations near ISOC's Reston, VA
headquarters. PIR's Board of Directors has recently been selected and
is made up of technology savvy experts in a variety of areas from
around the globe who share ISOC's vision of setting a new standard for
registry services. In addition, PIR's Board of Directors will guide
the organization in the remainder of its staffing and administrative
tasks, as well as in the completion of its contract with ICANN.

On June 18, 2002, ISOC and 10 other organizations submitted proposals
to ICANN to be considered as the next registry operator for the .ORG
domain.  The ICANN Evaluation Team posted its final recommendation to
the ICANN Board on September 23, 2002. Today, the ICANN Board resolved
to enter into negotiations with PIR and ISOC to formalize the operator
agreement. This agreement is expected to be completed in late October
2002.

About ISOC

The Internet Society is a not-for-profit, open membership organization
founded in 1991 and is dedicated to ensuring the open evolution,
development and use of the Internet for the benefit of all people.  It
provides leadership in the management of Internet related standards,
policy development and education.  ISOC has offices in Washington, DC
and Geneva, Switzerland.

Through its initiatives in support of education and training, Internet
standards and protocol, and public policy, ISOC has played a critical
role in ensuring that the Internet develops in a stable and open
manner. It is the organizational home of the Internet Engineering Task
Force (IETF), the Internet Architecture Board (IAB), and other related
bodies. It is the acknowledged champion and focal point for Internet
self-governance, and it is the only organization with members who have
been involved in all aspects of the Internet since its inception.

For over 10 years, ISOC has run international network training
programs for developing countries and these have played a vital role
in establishing Internet networks in virtually every country that has
connected to the Internet during this time.  For additional
information, go to http://www.isoc.org.

 Contact:       ISOC
        Julie Williams
        Tel:+1-703-326-9880x111
        Cell: +1-703-402-6715
        jwilliams@isoc.org


Press mailing list
Press@isoc.org
http://www.isoc.org/mailman/listinfo/press

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

Date: Mon, 14 Oct 2002 21:26:36 +0200
From: ssgrr2003w@rti7020.etf.bg.ac.yu
Subject: Invitation to SSGRR Conferences in ITALY!


CALL FOR PAPERS AND PARTICIPATION AT SSGRR CONFERENCES IN YEAR 2003
The SSGRR (Scuola Superiore G Reiss Romoli) Congress Center, Telecom
Italia Learning Services, L'Aquila (near Rome), ITALY (www.ssgrr.it).

We are honored to invite you to submit and present your paper(s)
at the two SSGRR conferences specified below:

INTERNATIONAL CONFERENCES ON ADVANCES IN INFRASTRUCTURE FOR ELECTRONIC
BUSINESS, EDUCATION, SCIENCE, MEDICINE, AND MOBILE TECHNOLOGIES ON THE
INTERNET.

WINTER Conference 2003:

 From Monday January 6 at 5pm till Sunday January 12 at 10am
To submit paper or ask questions: ssgrr2003w@rti7020.etf.bg.ac.yu

   Keynotes: Lyman (Berkeley),
             Neuhold (Frauhofer), Neal (Tufts Medical School), ...

SUMMER Conference 2003: 

From Monday July 28 at 5pm till Sunday August 3 at 10am T o submit
 paper or ask questions: ssgrr2003s@rti7020.etf.bg.ac.yu

   Keynotes: Kroto (Nobel Laureate), Patt (IEEE Eckert-Mauchly Laureate),
             Carlton (US Air Force Surgeon General), ...

For details, see IEEE COMPUTER, Aug 2002 (page 33) and the WWW site
www.ssgrr.it (written carefully+precisely, with answers to all FAQ).

Check with past participants (their names/emails are on the WWW).
Most of them believe this is the most interesting, rewarding,
and definitely the most hospitable conference they ever attended!
Fast professional and peer review in 15 days.

Capacity of the SSGRR congress center is 200 participants.
The list of participants will be closed after 200 papers accepted.
Consequently, SUBMIT YOUR PAPER(S) AS EARLY AS POSSIBLE!


Location (see WWW for details):

SSGRR is the DE-LUX congress and education center of the Telecom Italia
Learning Services, located about 60 miles from Rome, near Gran Sasso
(the highest Appenini peak), with fast access to the major Appenini ski
resorts (in winters, 15 minutes by car), and Adriatic sea beaches (in
summers, 45 minutes by car).

Keynotes (see WWW for details):

A Nobel Laureate was the keynote speaker each year in the past (Jerome
Friedman of MIT, Robert Richardson of Cornell, etc...), and the major
2003 keynote is also reserved for a Nobel Laureate (Harry Kroto from
United Kingdom). Other 2003 keynote speakers are Yale Patt from U of
Texas@Austin (an IEEE Eckert-Mauchly Laureate), Paul Carlton (US Air
Force Surgeon General), etc.

Schedule (see WWW for details):

Monday = Arrival day, registration, and cocktail
Tuesday = Gran Sasso Nat'l Lab tour, tutorials, and opening ceremony
Wednesday/Thursday/Friday = Presentation of research papers
Saturday = Tutorials and peripathetic discussions
Sunday = Departure day

Deadlines (see WWW for details):

For title and abstract (about 100 words):
October 30, 2002 (for Winter 2003)
April 30, 2003 (for Summer 2003)

For papers (IEEE Transactions format, min 4 pages, max 1MB):
November 20, 2002 (for Winter 2003)
May 30, 2003 (for Summer 2003)

For payment (stay, and fee if applicable):
December 10, 2002 (for Winter 2003)
June 30, 2003 (for Summer 2003)

Payment (see WWW for details):

No conference fee for those with papers to present (others: euro600).
No fee for tutorials.
All participants must stay inside SSGRR (no outside stays allowed).
Full 6-day stay (from Monday evening till Sunday breakfast): euro1200.
A 5-day stay (without one tutorial day): euro1000.
Minimal 4-day stay (for research papers only): euro 800.
Favourable conditions for accompanying persons (see the WWW).
For late payment rules see the WWW.

Important (see WWW for details):

When submitting your paper, insert the 3-letter field code (exact
codes on WWW), so the placement of papers per sessions is more
efficient.  Insert your WWW site URL (if you have one). If you submit
a paper, you will get 2 other papers for a fast review (in up to 10
days).  Your presentation time is 25 minutes, plus 5 minutes for
discussions.  Chairman of the session is the presenter of the last
paper in that session.  Moving of presentation slots is not permitted
(in cases of non-show-up).

If you like to be reinvited for a future SSGRR conference, let us know.
If you like to be removed from the list, please let us know, too.

WE HOPE TO SEE YOU AT SSGRR!

Professor Veljko Milutinovic,  General Chairman

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

From: Alan Burkitt-Gray 
Subject: Re: Squirrels
Date: Mon, 14 Oct 2002 10:44:29 +0100


Gail M. Hall  wrote: 

> Since squirrels seem to like vinyl and whatever else they make phone
> lines and cables out of, it would help if scientists could investigate
> to see what would make squirrels avoid them.

So do other rodents. My son has a pair of chinchillas, which love to
nibble black plastic watch straps. We have to ensure they keep well
clear of electric wiring.


Alan B-G
Alan Burkitt-Gray
Editor, Global Telecoms Business
Euromoney Institutional Investor plc, Nestor House, Playhouse Yard, London
EC4V 5EX, UK
tel +44 20 7779 8518 fax +44 20 7779 8492
e-mail aburkitt@euromoneyplc.com
www.globaltelecomsbusiness.com

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

From: Rob Levandowski 
Subject: Re: SBC/Yahoo!
Date: Sun, 13 Oct 2002 23:59:15 -0400
Organization: MacWhiz Technologies


In article , Jeff Grossman
 wrote:

> SBC purchased Prodigy.  They were going to use Prodigy to sell their
> DSL lines and help their online service.  The SBC online service was
> pretty bad.  But, that did not work.  The Prodigy name was not getting
> them anything.  So, they decided to co-brand a dial/DSL service with
> Yahoo hoping the Yahoo name would draw more people.  Once that
> agreement was in place, they started to dismantle Prodigy as a
> company.

My mother lives in Connecticut, where the local nexchange carrier is 
Southern New England Telephone, formerly an independent.  SBC bought 
SNET a few years back.

Mom had SNET's internet dialup service, which was reasonably good.  I
believe that, for most or all of the time she had it prior to the
Yahoo!  agreement, it was provided by Prodigy.

When SNET rolled out the new cobranded service, they stopped taking
new signups for the Prodigy service ... yet they had not made their
"software" available for Macintosh users yet.  This took a few extra
months ... and then it wasn't necessarily compatible with the current
version of the OS, Mac OS X.

Also, instead of providing standard POP/SMTP mail service, the Yahoo!
cobranding arrangement provides users with a Yahoo! Mail account.
This is why one must use SBC's software to sign up and connect -- it
requires you to provide all the demographic data that Yahoo! needs.
Data that is sold off to advertisers.  Of course, you're also given a
SBC customized browser, a portal filled with ads, and all the junkmail
that comes with Yahoo! Mail.

You cannot sign up for the SBC service without installing the SBC
software (which includes chat software and remote assistance software)
because your mail account is not created until you cough up the
personal data for Yahoo!.  Thus, you can't simply use your operating
system's built in TCP/IP stack, dialer, browser, and e-mail, like you
can with any other dialup service.

And, in SNET-land at least, it's not competitively priced, either.

After a runaround (and a few lies about the Mac software), Mom
cancelled her personal SNET Internet service, killed the order for
SNET Internet service at the town newspaper where she is an editor,
and told her friends that she could no longer recommend it.

A friend of hers who still has the service is planning to dump it,
because he feels the reliability of the e-mail has declined since
Yahoo!  assumed control.

I hope SBC got good bucks up front for that cobranding deal, because I 
think it's going to cost them in the long run.


Rob Levandowski
robl@macwhiz.com

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

From: Dave Phelps 
Subject: Re: *57 and PBX's
Date: Mon, 14 Oct 2002 00:13:11 -0500
Organization: Posted via Supernews, http://www.supernews.com


In article , boo@phatty.123.12 
says:

> Can all PBX's be programmed to accomodate passing codes to the switch?

> I've been reading some documentation trying to resolve a customer
> issue and it appears that if you can modify the digit mapping for a
> PBX, it will pass the code.

> Can someone confirm this -and- are do -all- PBX's allow digit map
> editing?

> The reason I'm asking is in VOIP land, the switch will accept a *57,
> report the CN/DN, and automatically email it to the sec group.  In the
> case of PBX's, I've been having a lot of trouble making it
> happen. I've gone over the router functionality and it's not that
> piece of gear causing the problem, and I'm thinking the PBX is not
> passing the code. Well, I've actually confirmed that, but I'm digging
> down to see if I can resolve it. I looked at CCITT stds and it should
> work just fine.

Are you trying to get the PBX to act on *57, or do you want it to pass
the code to the CO? AFAIK, not many PBXs will do anything as far as
call trap; I doubt any of them do. OTOH, if you are trying to pass *57
to the CO, most PBXs will pass it *if* its not denied. However, often
special service codes are denied because they aren't necessary in a
PBX environment, and are usually used to attempt to bypass toll
restrictions.

Let's take the following case to demonstrate why *57 can't be used on
a PBX. Say I receive an offensive call at the office. Problem 1 -- The
call probably came in on a DID or PRI trunk. But, for the sake of
argument, let's assume it actually did come in on a loop start or
ground start trunk. After the offensive caller hangs up, I press 9 (or
other access code) for an outside line. Problem 2 -- I most likely do
not have the same trunk the call came in on. So when I dial *57, I am
tracing the call that last came in on the trunk that I now have, not
the trunk that my offensive call came in on. Not only am I tracing the
wrong call, but I just cost my company about US$5.00 to do it. The
same problem exists whether you are using a PBX or VoIP. 

OTOH, if you are just trying to capture call data on an intercom call
inside the PBX domain (not using LEC switched facilities), most likely
that data is already captured, since often it is captured for all
calls. Ask your telecom admin about CDR records.

The same problem occurs with most other special service codes, so
usually they are denied. Could they program the PBX to seize the last
trunk you used if you dial *57 after a call? Sure, but most likely
there has been another call received on it already, so the trace would
show the wrong info anyway.


Dave Phelps
Phone Masters Ltd.
deadspam=tippenring

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

From: John Higdon 
Subject: Re: Another Gadget to Block Telesleaze
Organization: Green Hills and Cows
Date: Sun, 13 Oct 2002 20:49:03 -0700


In article , danny burstein
 wrote:

> "Every caller will be greeted by the answering machine (auto-attendant).
> By dialing your "secret"Ê code, actually an extension number, the
> authorized caller can bypass the greeting and ring your phone.

I'm wondering when email readers will have a provision to trash anything 
that does not have a secret code in the Subject: line.


John Higdon     | Email Address Valid | SF:  +1 415 428-COWS
+1 408 264 4115 |     Anytown, USA    | FAX: +1 408 264 4407


[TELECOM Digest Editor's Note: You can do this now with your filter
rules. I found this out many years ago when there used to be a very
severe problem with mail loops; that is, my autoreply daemon would
reply to your autoreply daemon; they would sit there and argue back
and forth for hours on end stacking up unwanted email for several
thousand pieces. I began putting the word 'reciept' in my autoreply
messages, then checking all incoming mail for the same word. It 
did not take me long to discover that *any* message with a subject
line including the word 'receipt' caused the message to go straight
to my inbox with no further treatment. So you tell your associates
the magic word that has to be included in the subject line to make
sure it gets through to you then add a filter rule (in ELM for example)
which says 'if subject not (this word) then /trash. Add the needed
wild cards around the word to make complete sentences, etc.   PAT]

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

From: Shannon Underhill 
Subject: Re: Shannon Underhill
Date: Mon, 14 Oct 2002 09:50:50 -0400
Organization: Snelling Personnel Services


I am trying to reach any person who is interested in finding
employment.  It is NOT my intent to intrude on anyone's privacy.  In
this economy and industry I would think anyone would be happy to hear
there ARE opportunities out there.

FYI:  I have been thanked by MANY people from this newsgroup and have
also received many resumes.

Joey Lindstrom [mailto:joey@lairdsflooring.com] wrote: 

> On Wed, 9 Oct 2002 22:35:56 -0400 (EDT), editor@telecom-digest.org
wrote:

>> From: Shannon Underhill 
>> Subject: Help Wanted! Looking for a Data Engineer
>> Date: Wed, 9 Oct 2002 14:51:48 -0400
>> Organization: Snelling Personnel Services

>>  My name is Shannon Underhill and I am an Executive Recruiter
>>  located in Savannah, GA.  I specialize in the recruitment and
>>  placement of ....

> This person is spamming everybody whose address has appeared in the
> Digest and/or the newsgroup.  Keep it in mind the next time this
> cretin sends you another missive.

[TELECOM Digest Editor's Note: Shannon, your point is very well 
taken. 'Certain kinds' of spam are, most of us feel, somewhat better
than 'traditional, vanilla flavored' spam, when properly dished out. 
It is NEVER acceptable to construct a mailing list of your own for 
ANY reason from names found in newsgroups and digests. People who
write to this Digest/newsgroup or other newsgroups do so thinking
their privacy is intact, as well it should be. On the other side of 
the coin, people do like hearing about employment opportunities and
educational opportunities. I run messages on both of those categories
as time and space permits. 

When I published your original message here, I did so in good faith,
thinking it might help some guys find badly needed jobs, etc. I did
NOT know however that you had already gone out on your own to the
*very same people* with your own mailings, which might have changed my
decision to publish. Your mailings are not just frivilous spam in my
opinion; they are useful items I guess, but can become too much of a
good thing. Try to be a responsible spammer -- err, UCE'er with your
mailings, okay?  Don't send out a jillion pieces every day, and by all
means maintain and honor a 'no further contact' list from the folks
you initially contact. Some folks around here probably would disagree
with me on even that mild concession. But Shannon, I do not like it
very much when I naivly publish a 'help wanted' type message here only
to get responses from all sorts of people saying 'seen it already a
dozen times; please quit publishing spam'. You know, that makes *me*
look bad as the moderator here. 

To the group: what would you think if I began a new Digest/newsgroup
specifically for employment, etc? I would call it OPPORTUNITIES Digest,
And if they would let me in, an associated newsgroup to be called 
something like 'alt.opportunities'. Basically I would serve as a sort
of spam-sewer (no offense, Shannon) for educational/employment type
opportunities, i.e. the 'better class' of spam on the net. I would
encourage spammers to submit their messages in the hopes of getting 
as much of it as possible off the regular net, out of email boxes,
etc. Every day, tons of it, anyone who wanted could read it, just
like the classified ads in your newspapers. Anyone who did not want to
read it could ignore it. Do you think that would be a useful service
to the net?  Just asking ...  no chain letters, no MLM schemes, no
bank in Nigeria has money for you, no private-parts enlargement type
things; just reasonable type messages some people might use. PAT]

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

Date: Mon, 14 Oct 2002 12:35:20 -0400 (EDT)
From: John R. Covert 
Subject: Re: No Reverse DNS?  Then Get a New ISP


> If your ISP won't let you set up real reverse DNS names, then get
> a new ISP.

Ya know, Mark, maybe you live in an area where that's possible.  Where
I live, just outside Boston, until 4 September of this year, there was
nothing at all but dialup available.  No DSL, no broadband.  As a
member of the Town cable committee, I have had to field calls for
years from other citizens as frustrated as me.  There really is
nothing else out here but dialup and now ATTbi.

Fortunately, I have for years had a static address with what was once
a local ISP startup.  But my reverse DNS is covert.their.name, not my
own domain, and they were bought up by a larger company with
"difficult" customer service and a new domain name.  "We won't make
any changes to your account without switching you over to the new
system, and there you will have to have a dynamic IP address."  At
least I've never run into anyone, including you (when I sent you mail
last week), who rejects mail coming from my SMTP server.

But it's 56K dialup.

So now we have broadband available.  But there isn't a broadband
provider around who will let you have a static address.  They will at
least give me a permanent name, h.ne.attbi.com, which
won't change even if the address does, so I can cname my www.my.domain
web address to the permanent name, but they won't do the reverse
because cable ISPs reassign addresses whenever they reconfigure the
topology.

I'm annoyed with the situation.  All I want is a connection to the
internet with a reasonable speed, a relatively fixed IP address, a
price under $60/month, and NO services at all on any ISP host.  I've
been doing networking since 1976, and I don't need an ISP who knows
less than I do out there doing stupid stuff.

But what I want is simply not available here.  If it is, get a
salesman to call me and I'll disconnect both the cable modem
($45.95/month) and the dialup 56K ISP ($16.95/month).  And I can even
get rid of an extra phone, too.

At the moment, based on this discussion, it looks like a have to
configure my outbound SMTP traffic to all hop through the ISP's
SMTP server, which I really don't want to do.  Or keep both the
cable modem and the dialup ISP, and deal with whacky double-NAT
routing to make it all work.  It feels really clammy even thinking
about letting go of the fixed IP address.

Grrrr ...


/john

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

Date: Mon, 14 Oct 2002 09:46:28 PDT
From: Mark Crispin 
Subject: Re: No Reverse DNS?  Then Get a New ISP


John,

I too have been doing networking since the 1970s.

It sounds to me like you've made a good business case to put in a T1
or better to one of the main carriers and start your own ISP.  Clearly
there is a demand for such service in your town.

In my town, the wait was for Qwest to provide DSL.  Once you have that
there are many ISPs in the Puget Sound area who are happy to sell you
whatever you want to buy.

Although I sympathize with your problem, the converse problem is that
dynamic IP addresses lack accountability to those sites which are
asked to accept communications from them.  If you think that your
customer service is "difficult", try dealing with them as an outsider
trying to trace illegal activity that points at some DSL or dialup.

Another option is to get a shell account on a system with a static
address and proper reverse DNS, then run Pine (or Elm or Mutt or mh or
whatever your favorite program is) on that system.

Accountability is important.  Network abusers, including spammers,
have ruined the pseudo-anarchy of the 1970s and 1980s net.  Yes, it
was a pseudo-anarchy.  There was a more or less benevolent dictator
(DCA) which ignored a great deal but could (and would!) pull the plug.
We first replaced that dictator with another (NSF), then toppled the
dictatorship entirely in the 1990s.

But we never established a governship in its place.  We are now seeing
how pipedreams of anarchy turn into a chaotic nightmare.  It will get
worse before it gets better.

It is not an irrational response to build moats and arm oneself in the
wake of chaos.  Moats get filled, and people disarm, when they feel
confident in the ability of authority to preserve the peace.

I recently have been reading some books about the American Revolution
and the years immediately following it.  It is fascinating how so many
of the lessons from the post-Revolution time apply to today; not to
mention the very different outcomes of the American and French
revolutions.


-- Mark --

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

From: Spyros Bartsocas 
Date: Mon, 14 Oct 2002 11:03:34 +0300
Subject: Last Laugh!  California Women Drivers


My name is John Doe. Driving to my office this morning on California
Interstate 5 near Laguna Woods, I looked over my shoulder to the left
and there was a woman in a brand new Mustang, with her face up next to
the rear view mirror putting on her eye make-up. I looked away for a
few seconds and when I looked back, there she was halfway over in my
lane, still working on her eyeliner. 

It scared me so bad I dropped my electric shaver, which knocked the
Krispy Kreme out of my other hand. In all the confusion of trying to
straighten out the car with my knees against the steering wheel, it
knocked my cell phone away from my ear which fell into my Starbucks
coffee between my legs, splashed and burned BIG BOB and the TWINS,
ruined the phone and disconnected an important call. DAMN WOMEN
DRIVERS!

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

TELECOM Digest is an electronic journal devoted mostly but not
exclusively to telecommunications topics. It is circulated anywhere
there is email, in addition to various telecom forums on a variety of
networks such as Compuserve and America On Line, 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: 620-870-9697
                        Fax 1: 775-255-9970
                        Fax 2: 775-306-8390
                        Fax 3: 775-642-0603
                        Fax 4: 530-309-7234
                        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 second 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)

Email <==> FTP:  telecom-archives@telecom-digest.org 

      Send a simple, one line note to that automated address for
      a help file on how to use the automatic retrieval system
      for archives files. You can get desired files in email.

*************************************************************************
*   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.
Access to Premium (P) links requires upgrade to a paid subscription.

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

Only subscribers or registered users of ICB Toll Free News web site
will be able to access all or some of the full text of URLs provided.

LEGAL STUFF: TELECOM Digest (sm) is owned by Patrick Townson.
Copyright 2000 ICB, Inc. and TELECOM Digest. All rights reserved.
Our attorney is Bill Levant, of Blue Bell, PA.

   ---------------------------------------------------------------
    
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 twenty 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 V22 #79
*****************************
    
    
From editor@telecom-digest.org Tue Oct 15 19:49:46 2002
Received: from localhost (localhost [[UNIX: localhost]])
	by massis.lcs.mit.edu (8.11.3nb1/8.11.3) id g9FNnkq04707;
	Tue, 15 Oct 2002 19:49:46 -0400 (EDT)
Date: Tue, 15 Oct 2002 19:49:46 -0400 (EDT)
From: editor@telecom-digest.org
Message-Id: <200210152349.g9FNnkq04707@massis.lcs.mit.edu>
X-Authentication-Warning: massis.lcs.mit.edu: ptownson set sender to editor@telecom-digest.org using -f
To: ptownson
Approved: patsnewlist
Subject: TELECOM Digest V22 #80

TELECOM Digest     Tue, 15 Oct 2002 19:48:00 EDT    Volume 22 : Issue 80

Inside This Issue:                            Editor: Patrick A. Townson

    Telecom Update (Canada) #353, October 15, 2002 (Angus TeleManagement)
    Re: No Reverse DNS?  Then Get a New ISP (Barry Margolin)
    Re: No Reverse DNS?  Then Get a New ISP (johna@onevista.com)
    Re: Another Gadget to Block Telesleaze (Anthony E. Siegman)
    Re: Another Gadget to Block Telesleaze (Steven J. Sobol)
    Re: Squirrels (Wes Leatherock)
    888, Not 800 (Carl Moore)

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. WE DO NOT PERMIT NAME/EMAIL ADDRESS
HARVESTING FROM THIS JOURNAL. 'SALTED' EMAIL ADDRESSES APPEAR
HEREIN TO VERIFY THIS. YOU GET SUED IN SMALL CLAIMS COURT IF YOU
GET CAUGHT SPAMMING OR SENDING VIRUSES. DON'T DO IT.

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

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

Date: Tue, 15 Oct 2002 12:10:40 -0400
From: Angus TeleManagement 
Subject: Telecom Update (Canada) #353, October 15, 2002


************************************************************
TELECOM UPDATE
************************************************************
published weekly by Angus TeleManagement Group
http://www.angustel.ca

Number 353: October 15, 2002

Publication of Telecom Update is made possible by generous
financial support from:
** BELL CANADA: http://www.bell.ca
** CISCO SYSTEMS CANADA: http://www.cisco.com/ca/letstalk
** CYGCOM INTEGRATED TECHNOLOGIES: http://www.cygcom.com
** ERICSSON CANADA: http://www.ericsson.ca
** JUNIPER NETWORKS: http://www.juniper.net
** PRIMUS CANADA: http://www.primustel.ca
** Q9 NETWORKS: http://www.Q9.com
** TELUS: http://www.telus.com

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

IN THIS ISSUE:

** Creditors to Take Over AT&T Canada
** BCE, Aliant Slash Revenue Targets
** Videotron Must Reduce Inside Wire Fees
** CRTC Says Bell Not Cross-Subsidizing ExpressVu
** CRTC Orders Videotron to Public Hearing
** AT&T Canada Stock Purchase Completed
** More Layoffs at Lucent
** Justice Delayed
** MTS Offers Mobile Corporate Data
** Report on Canadian Telecom Competition
** Juniper Revenue Down 25%
** Rogers Offers Cellphone Camera
** RIM Reported Victim of Ratings Shakedown
** Bell Funds Waterloo Research Program
** AirIQ Revenue Grows 17% in Quarter
** GT Postpones Results
** Deutsche Telekom Plans Massive Layoffs
** Angus Briefings Tomorrow
** New Options in Teleconferencing

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

CREDITORS TO TAKE OVER AT&T CANADA: AT&T Canada and a committee
representing 70% of its creditors have reached agreement in principle
on a plan under which the bondholders will exchange $4.5 billion in
debt for $200 million in cash and 100% of AT&T Canada's equity.

** To ease the restructuring process, AT&T Canada today
    received protection under the Companies' Creditors
    Arrangement Act. KPMG is the court-appointed monitor.

** AT&T Canada is negotiating new agreements with AT&T Corp.
    for access to its global network. If approved, these agreements
    would give AT&T Corp 7% equity in AT&T Canada, and additional
    2% and 1% shares in the fourth and fifth years.

** AT&T Canada will not make the bond interest payments due
    today and on October 23.

** Brascan Financial Corporation and CIBC Capital Partners
    are "continuing to pursue discussions as to whether they
    will have any ongoing participation in AT&T Canada."

BCE, ALIANT SLASH REVENUE TARGETS: BCE says Bell Canada's revenue will
increase about 1.5% this year, rather than the previously forecast 3%
to 5%. The company blames reduced demand for business data and IP
services.

** Aliant has also reduced its 2002 revenue forecasts, and
    announced a $12 million writedown on its systems
    integration arm, Xwave.

VIDEOTRON MUST REDUCE INSIDE WIRE FEES: The CRTC says Videotron cannot
charge more than 52 cents per subscriber per month to competitors who
use the company's inside wire.  Videotron had tried to avoid the
regulation by transferring the wire to another Quebecor company that
demanded competitors pay $5 per subscriber per month. (See Telecom
Update #330)

** Videotron's lawyers have told the Commission that the
    company will comply with the mandatory order, which is
    registered with the Federal Court so that it would trigger
    legal penalties if not obeyed.

http://www.crtc.gc.ca/archive/ENG/Decisions/2002/db2002-299.htm

CRTC SAYS BELL NOT CROSS-SUBSIDIZING EXPRESSVU: CRTC Telecom Decision
2002-61 rejects Quebecor's charge that BCE has unfairly
cross-subsidized Bell ExpressVu using Bell Canada revenues. The
Commission says Bell's rates are just and reasonable, and what BCE
does with its profits is not subject to regulation.

http://www.crtc.gc.ca/archive/ENG/Decisions/2002/dt2002-61.htm

CRTC ORDERS VIDEOTRON TO PUBLIC HEARING: In August, the CRTC ordered
Videotron to pay all retroactive royalties owed to Netstar/RDS (see
Telecom Update #347), but Videotron has so far refused. The Commission
has now called Videotron and its holding companies and affiliates to a
December 2 hearing to show cause why they should not face a mandatory
order forcing payment.

http://www.crtc.gc.ca/archive/ENG/Hearings/2002/n2002-12.htm

AT&T CANADA STOCK PURCHASE COMPLETED: AT&T Corp, together with Brascan
Financial and CIBC Capital Partners, has completed the purchase of all
shares of AT&T Canada it did not already own, for $51.21/share.

** AT&T Canada has repaid its $200 million bank line of
    credit in full and says it aims to complete its financial
    restructuring by year-end. (See Telecom Update #341, 351)

MORE LAYOFFS AT LUCENT: Lucent Technologies will cut 10,000 more jobs
by the end of 2003, reducing total headcount to 35,000, down 67% since
January 2001. The company says revenue in the current quarter will be
down 20%-25% from last quarter.

JUSTICE DELAYED: Last Wednesday, the CRTC finally set the rates that
telcos may charge competitors who ask to have local loops checked for
suitability for DSL and similar services. The original application was
filed by Stentor Resource Centre (remember that?) in April 1998.

http://www.crtc.gc.ca/archive/ENG/Decisions/2002/dt2002-62.htm

MTS OFFERS MOBILE CORPORATE DATA: For $4/month plus airtime, Manitoba
Telecom customers can now access corporate e-mail, directories, and
personal calendars from a cellphone, PDA, or laptop.

REPORT ON CANADIAN TELECOM COMPETITION: A new Statistics Canada
research paper, "The State of Telecommunications Services," examines
market concentration in Canada. It says the Ontario, Quebec, and
B.C. markets have moved furthest from monopoly. Wireless service is
the most competitive sector; wireline local is the least.

http://www.statcan.ca/english/research/56F0004MIE/56F0004MIE2002008.pdf

JUNIPER REVENUE DOWN 25%: High-speed router maker Juniper Networks
says it lost US$88.3 million in the third quarter, compared to $29.7
million a year ago. Revenue was $152 million, down from $201.7
million.

ROGERS OFFERS CELLPHONE CAMERA: In what it says is a Canadian first,
Rogers AT&T Wireless now offers a $548 Sony Ericsson phone/camera that
can take, store, and view photos, and send them to any e-mail address
or a similarly equipped cellphone.

RIM REPORTED VICTIM OF RATINGS SHAKEDOWN: Massachusetts security
regulators say e-mails obtained from Credit Suisse First Boston show
that the bank resumed "most favored nation" analyst coverage of
Research In Motion in 2001 in return for a US$1.8 million increase in
investment banking fees.

BELL FUNDS WATERLOO RESEARCH PROGRAM: Bell Canada has contributed
$800,000 to FIRST, a University of Waterloo program that supports
"research that enhances Canada's quality of life."

AIRIQ REVENUE GROWS 17% IN QUARTER: AirIQ, which supplies fleet
tracking systems, reports third-quarter revenue of $1.6 million, 17%
more than the previous quarter. The Pickering-based company now has
more than 30,000 subscribers.

GT POSTPONES RESULTS: Group Telecom has postponed release of its
April-June financial results until November 4, when its current
creditor protection order expires. (See Telecom Update #347, 351)

DEUTSCHE TELEKOM PLANS MASSIVE LAYOFFS: Deutsche Telekom may
cut as many as 55,000 jobs, 22% of its workforce, by 2005.
More than half of the cuts will be at T-Com, its wireline
unit in Germany.

ANGUS BRIEFINGS TOMORROW: Today is your last chance to register for
these hard-hitting briefings:

** Morning: Reinventing Enterprise Communications: Setting
    Your Strategy for IP Telephony

** Afternoon: Beyond the Meltdown: A Report Card and Forecast
    for Canadian Telecom

These intensive programs are being offered once only, in Toronto, on
October 16 -- tomorrow. Registrations must be received by 5 pm eastern
time today. Don't miss out: download the brochure and fax your
application to 905-686-2655.

http://www.angustel.ca/Angus-Seminars.pdf

NEW OPTIONS IN TELECONFERENCING: New options have breathed new life
into audio conferencing, cutting prices and improving usability. John
Riddell and Mike Dunne explain why Canadian businesses should take a
new look at an old technology in the latest issue of Telemanagement.
Also in this issue:

** Bell and AT&T Debate Price Caps
** Seven Keys to Call Centre Success
** Is Voice over Wireless LANs Ready for Prime Time?

Save more than 50% off the cover price with a one-year subscription:
Offer expires October 30 -- download full details and subscribe today.

http://www.angustel.ca/teleman/Telemanagement_Special_Offer.pdf

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

HOW TO SUBMIT ITEMS FOR TELECOM UPDATE

E-MAIL: editors@angustel.ca

FAX:    905-686-2655

MAIL:   TELECOM UPDATE
         Angus TeleManagement Group
         8 Old Kingston Road
         Ajax, Ontario Canada L1T 2Z7

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

HOW TO SUBSCRIBE (OR UNSUBSCRIBE)

TELECOM UPDATE is provided in electronic form only. There are two
formats available:

1. The fully-formatted edition is posted on the World
    Wide Web on the first business day of the week at
    http://www.angustel.ca

2. The e-mail edition is distributed free of charge.
    To subscribe, send an e-mail message to:
       TelecomUpdate@add.postmastergeneral.com
    To stop receiving the e-mail edition, send
    an e-mail message to:
       TelecomUpdate@remove.postmastergeneral.com

    Sending e-mail to these addresses will automatically add
    or remove the sender's e-mail address from the list. Leave
    subject line and message area blank.

    We do not give Telecom Update subscribers' e-mail
    addresses to any third party. For more information,
    see http://www.angustel.ca/update/privacy.html.

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

COPYRIGHT AND CONDITIONS OF USE: All contents copyright 2002 Angus
TeleManagement Group Inc. All rights reserved. For further
information, including permission to reprint or reproduce, please
e-mail rosita@angustel.ca or phone 905-686-5050 ext 500.

The information and data included has been obtained from sources which
we believe to be reliable, but Angus TeleManagement makes no
warranties or representations whatsoever regarding accuracy,
completeness, or adequacy.  Opinions expressed are based on
interpretation of available information, and are subject to change. If
expert advice on the subject matter is required, the services of a
competent professional should be obtained.

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

From: Barry Margolin 
Subject: Re: No Reverse DNS?  Then Get a New ISP
Organization: Genuity, Woburn, MA
Date: Mon, 14 Oct 2002 23:53:12 GMT


In article , John R. Covert
 wrote:

> So now we have broadband available.  But there isn't a broadband
> provider around who will let you have a static address.  They will at
> least give me a permanent name, h.ne.attbi.com, which
> won't change even if the address does, so I can cname my www.my.domain
> web address to the permanent name, but they won't do the reverse
> because cable ISPs reassign addresses whenever they reconfigure the
> topology.

> I'm annoyed with the situation.  All I want is a connection to the
> internet with a reasonable speed, a relatively fixed IP address, a
> price under $60/month, and NO services at all on any ISP host.  I've
> been doing networking since 1976, and I don't need an ISP who knows
> less than I do out there doing stupid stuff.

The  kind  of  service  that  Mark is  suggesting  is  generally  only
available  with commercial Internet  connections.  Almost  no consumer
ISPs offer  custom reverse  DNS.  ATTBI  is rare in  that it  offers a
static  name (the h.ne.attbi.com  thing) that  tracks your
dynamic address, but when your  address changes it usually takes hours
before the DNS  catches up, and these names  are almost as meaningless
as the blah-dsl.isp.net type names.

So what Mark is saying is that if you want to run your own mail
server, you need to get a business connection, which probably costs
upwards of $100/mo.


Barry Margolin, barmar@genuity.net
Genuity, Woburn, MA

*** DON'T SEND TECHNICAL QUESTIONS DIRECTLY TO ME, post them to newsgroups.
Please DON'T copy followups to me -- I'll 
assume it wasn't posted to the group.

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

From: johna@onevista.com
Subject: Re: No Reverse DNS?  Then Get a New ISP
Date: Tue, 15 Oct 2002 01:09:49 GMT


In article , Mark Crispin
 wrote:

> I too have been doing networking since the 1970s.

> ... from an earlier posting  ...
> No, only from people who do not get real reverse DNS names for their
> static IPs instead of a 123.45.67.89-dsl.blurdybloop.net name.  If
> I require that people who wish to send me mail have real computers
> with real DNS and reverse DNS names.  If you do not like that
> requirement, that's just too bad.  Live with it.  Learn to use postage
> stamps.

It seems that you have failed to learn much about mail.  When you get
a mail message thru sendmail you get both an IP address and a name
supplied to the HELO (EHLO) request.  You are taking the reverse DNS
from the IP address and comparing it to the name.  Then you are
rejecting the mail based on this comparison.  You should be deriving
the IP address from the name given and comparing it to the IP address
from sendmail.  If they differ, then and only then should you consider
the mail may be spam.  The same process can be used with other MTAs.

Feel free to build as many walls around yourself as you see fit.

Respond via email if you wish, my responses will be ignored by you,
but my mail will be accepted by Washington.edu.

OB telecom.  I get many more unwanted sales calls via telephone than I
see via email.  I do not block dialup nor dsl lines.  I do block
subnets that are used as relays.  And I still answer the phone.


johna


 "To announce that there must be no criticism of the president, or that
 we are to stand by the president right or wrong, is not only unpatriotic
 and servile, but is morally treasonable to the American public."
 ---Theodore Roosevelt

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

From: AES 
Subject: Re: Another Gadget to Block Telesleaze
Date: Mon, 14 Oct 2002 17:24:43 -0700


In article , John Higdon
 wrote:

> I'm wondering when email readers will have a provision to trash anything 
> that does not have a secret code in the Subject: line.

You could publish the secret code openly on your web site -- although
perhaps formatting it in some way that would make it harder for robots
to harvest -- and change it from time to time.  (In fact, I've already
done so.)

Once this became a widely understood convention, it would mean that
anyone who wanted to reach you personally would know that this channel
might exist, and could reach you (once, anyway).

Are there serious downsides or holes in this scheme?  Haven't thought
of any yet, but I may not be the most imaginative type.

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

From: sjsobol@JustThe.net (Steven J. Sobol)
Subject: Re: Another Gadget to Block Telesleaze
Date: Tue, 15 Oct 2002 01:17:33 -0000
Organization: JustThe.net LLC


John Higdon :

> In article , danny burstein
>  wrote:

>> Every caller will be greeted by the answering machine (auto-attendant).
>> By dialing your "secret"Ê code, actually an extension number, the
>> authorized caller can bypass the greeting and ring your phone.

> I'm wondering when email readers will have a provision to trash anything 
> that does not have a secret code in the Subject: line.

I could cook up something quite easily using procmail, and I'm pretty
sure such solutions already exist elsewhere.

> [TELECOM Digest Editor's Note: You can do this now with your filter
> rules.

Indeed you can, although if you want a solution where you give out
specific codes to specific people, rotating codes, etc, filters won't
be enough.


Steve Sobol, CTO  JustThe.net LLC, Mentor On The Lake, OH
http://JustTheNetLLC.com/ http://JustThe.net/ 888.480.4NET (4638)
Verizon Nokia 3285 for sale; six months old, runs perfectly. Also
should work fine on Alltel. Lots of goodies for $100 obo- e-mail for details.
------------------------------

From: wesrock@aol.com (Wes Leatherock)
Date: 15 Oct 2002 00:28:55 GMT
Organization: AOL http://www.aol.com
Subject: Re: Squirrels


On Mon, 14 Oct 2002 10:44:29 +0100 Alan Burkitt-Gray
ABurkitt@EUROMONEYPLC.COM> wrote:

Gail M. Hall  wrote: 

>> Since squirrels seem to like vinyl and whatever else they make phone
>> lines and cables out of, it would help if scientists could investigate
>> to see what would make squirrels avoid them.

> So do other rodents. My son has a pair of chinchillas, which love to
> nibble black plastic watch straps. We have to ensure they keep well
> clear of electric wiring.

      TV news reported that a squirrel today knocked out electric
service to 17,000 Washington, D.C., area customers.


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

[TELECOM Digest Editor's Note: Yeah, they did; after first
contemplating that it might have been the work of a 'terrorist'.
Imagine, a squirrel as a terrorist!  The little creatures have never
been accused of that before.   PAT]

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

Date: Tue, 15 Oct 2002 13:41:12 EDT
From: Carl Moore 
Subject: 888, not 800


Many of you in the U.S. by now have heard of a shooting spree which
began October 2 in the Washington DC area.  Over the weekend, I picked
up part of a news conference from the police chief of Montgomery
County (Maryland), and we come to the point of this message: don't
confuse area codes 888 and 800.  A tipline was set up in area code
888, and I heard (from that news conference) that a private business
which has the same number (in area code 800) has been flooded with
calls.

[TELECOM Digest Editor's Note: That's due to the loose way earlier
press conferences gave out the number ('you can call us with clues
on our eight hundred number, 888-etc'). They should have referred to it
as 'our toll free number, 888 ...' instead. That would probably have
reduced the volume of wrong number calls by 10-20 percent. People
still do not understand that 888, 877, 866 are overflow codes.   PAT]

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

End of TELECOM Digest V22 #80
*****************************
    
    
From editor@telecom-digest.org Tue Oct 15 21:09:07 2002
Received: from localhost (localhost [[UNIX: localhost]])
	by massis.lcs.mit.edu (8.11.3nb1/8.11.3) id g9G197n05675;
	Tue, 15 Oct 2002 21:09:07 -0400 (EDT)
Date: Tue, 15 Oct 2002 21:09:07 -0400 (EDT)
From: editor@telecom-digest.org
Message-Id: <200210160109.g9G197n05675@massis.lcs.mit.edu>
X-Authentication-Warning: massis.lcs.mit.edu: ptownson set sender to editor@telecom-digest.org using -f
To: ptownson
Approved: patsnewlist
Subject: TELECOM Digest V22 #81

TELECOM Digest     Tue, 15 Oct 2002 21:08:00 EDT    Volume 22 : Issue 81

Inside This Issue:                            Editor: Patrick A. Townson

    News Headlines of Interest 10/15/02 (Monty Solomon)
    Re: SBC/Yahoo! (John Higdon)
    Re: SBC/Yahoo! (Steven J. Sobol)
    SBC Yahoo! DSL Tools (Monty Solomon)
    Phone Directory Pictures (Mark Roberts)
    Re: Shannon Underhill (Gail M. Hall)
    Re: SBC/Yahoo! (NotGiven)
    Filtering (Joey Lindstrom)
    Re: No Reverse DNS?  Then Get a New ISP (John R. Covert)
    Re: No Reverse DNS?  Then Get a New ISP (Mark Crispin)
    Re: Squirrels (Howard S Wharton)
    Big Bad DSL (Joey Lindstrom)

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. WE DO NOT PERMIT NAME/EMAIL ADDRESS
HARVESTING FROM THIS JOURNAL. 'SALTED' EMAIL ADDRESSES APPEAR
HEREIN TO VERIFY THIS. YOU GET SUED IN SMALL CLAIMS COURT IF YOU
GET CAUGHT SPAMMING OR SENDING VIRUSES. DON'T DO IT.

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

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

Reply-To: monty solomon 
From: monty solomon 
Subject: News Headlines of Interest 10/15/02
Date: Tue, 15 Oct 2002 12:00:17 -0400


 New Color-Screen Motorola T720 Showcases Wealth of Mobile Capabilities With
                         AT&T Wireless' mMode Service

 Personalize Your Mobile Experience with the Motorola T720 and AT&T Wireless'
                                mMode Service

    LIBERTYVILLE, Ill., Oct. 14 /PRNewswire-FirstCall/ -- AT&T
Wireless (NYSE:AWE) and Motorola, Inc. (NYSE:MOT) today announced the
Motorola T720 handset, which offers consumers a full-color screen,
downloadable games and applications and ring "tunes" that sound like
music.

    Built with a large screen, J2ME(TM) technology for downloading new
applications and GPRS (General Packet Radio Service) technology for an
'always on' Internet connection, the model T720 is the ideal handset
companion for AT&T Wireless' mMode service -- giving AT&T Wireless
customers fast and convenient access to a variety of communication,
information and entertainment services.  This technology duo provides
consumers with an easy way to customize the features and benefits of
their handset to reflect their individual needs and desires.

http://finance.lycos.com/home/news/story.asp?story=29064389 

                 AT&T Wireless 'Turns On' the World's Capital
  New York last major market for company's next generation wireless network

    NEW YORK, Oct. 14 /PRNewswire-FirstCall/ -- AT&T Wireless
(NYSE:AWE) today brings its next-generation network to New York, and
with it, powerful new wireless applications for businesses and
consumers.  People in the Big Apple can now use a wireless phone to
take and send photos, find friends or restaurants, play games, and of
course, call someone.

    AT&T Wireless said turning on its next generation GSM(TM) (Global
Standard for Mobile Communications) /GPRS (General Packet Radio
Service) network in New York completes the first phase of a 3G
migration plan announced in October 2000 -- ahead of schedule and on
budget.  The company said it will continue to extend and enhance the
network over the coming year, including areas acquired with the
purchase of TeleCorp.

http://finance.lycos.com/home/news/story.asp?story=29063069 

     Internet Society Proposal to Operate .ORG Approved by ICANN
     - Oct 14, 2002 01:50 PM (BusinessWire)

RESTON, Va.--(BUSINESS WIRE)--Oct. 14, 2002--Today, the Internet
Society (ISOC) announced that the Internet Corporation for Assigned
Names and Numbers (ICANN) has selected its proposal to operate the
 .ORG registry.

    ISOC has established a new not-for-profit organization - the
Public Interest Registry (PIR) - which will succeed VeriSign Global
Registry Services, Inc. (NASDAQ:VRSN) as the registry operator for
 .ORG when its contract with ICANN expires on December 31, 2002.

http://finance.lycos.com/home/news/story.asp?story=29065966


Cordless phones get the message

By Ben Charny
Staff Writer, CNET News.com
October 14, 2002, 3:03 PM PT

Panasonic in two weeks will begin selling a new breed of cordless
phones that exchanges text messages with computers and wireless
devices, including cell phones, the company said Monday.

Adding the messaging service, called SMS (Short Message Service), to
cordless phones is telephone manufacturers' reaction to the growing
number of people abandoning their landline service for cell phones.

http://news.com.com/2100-1033-961992.html


OpenTV to lay off nearly half of staff

By Richard Shim
Staff Writer, CNET News.com
October 14, 2002, 10:45 AM PT

OpenTV is cutting nearly half its work force as it deals with a tough
economic climate and tries to streamline operations after two recent
acquisitions.

The Mountain View, Calif.-based company announced on Monday that it is
restructuring its business operations, which will result in the loss
of 315 jobs, or about 47 percent of the company's work force, by the
end of the first quarter of next year. The maker of software for
interactive TV will also close eight regional offices.

http://news.com.com/2100-1040-961947.html

Former FBI chief takes on encryption

By Declan McCullagh
Staff Writer, CNET News.com
October 14, 2002, 12:39 PM PT

When Louis Freeh ran the FBI, he loved nothing more than launching
into a heartfelt rant against the dangers of encryption technology.

In dozens of hearings and public speeches, the FBI director would 
urge Congress to limit encryption products, such as Web browsers and 
e-mail scrambling utilities, that did not include backdoors for 
government surveillance.

Freeh didn't succeed. In fact, the Clinton administration veered in 
the opposite direction and eventually permitted, with few 
restrictions, the overseas shipments of data-scrambling products.

But Freeh, who left the FBI in June 2001, hasn't given up. During an 
appearance before the Senate Intelligence committee last week, he 
warned that the political reality after the Sept. 11 terrorist 
attacks means that it's time to reconsider what to do with encryption.

http://news.com.com/2100-1023-961969.html


Study: Consumers warm up to e-billing

By Sandeep Junnarkar
Staff Writer, CNET News.com
October 14, 2002, 7:52 AM PT

Online bill viewing and payment will be among the fastest growing
consumer applications over the next several years, according to a
study released Monday.

Jupiter Research noted that in 2001, American consumers viewed 643
million bills online, which represents 6 percent of all U.S. consumer
bills. That number is forecast to jump to 3.5 billion in 2006, or 32
percent of all such bills.

http://news.com.com/2100-1017-961912.html


Activists: EchoStar Should Force Ergen Out

By Bill McConnell
Broadcasting & Cable
10/14/2002 5:40:00 PM

EchoStar Communication Corp. employees and stockholders should
pressure the company's board of directors to investigate how the
company's finances have been impacted by its bid to acquire DirecTV
Inc., the National Action Network and the National Association of
Black Organizations said Monday.

The management style of EchoStar CEO Charlie Ergen is similar to those
that led Enron Corp. and WorldCom Inc., added Sam Riddle, NAN/NABO
crisis-management consultant. "Charlie's pokerlike gamble failed,"
when the Federal Communications Commission last week rejected the
proposed merger, he added.


http://www.tvinsite.com/index.asp?layout=story&doc_id=104670


Down in Flames
Charlie Ergen's bid for DirecTV is rocketing toward earth. Can he put 
it back into orbit or will Murdoch pick up the pieces?

By John M. Higgins and Bill McConnell
Broadcasting & Cable
10/14/2002

What's good for General Motors is not good for the country.

That's the harsh assessment FCC Chairman Michael Powell delivered in
rejecting Charlie Ergen's $30 billion bid to take over DirecTV parent
Hughes Electronics, which is controlled by General Motors.

In voting 4-0 to shoot down the deal, the commission dismissed the
central arguments that the EchoStar Communications chairman has spun
in the 11 months and 11 days since the deal was first cut: that a
single, strengthened DBS provider would compete more vigorously with
cable operators and provide more services to customers than EchoStar
and DirecTV could separately.

Instead, FCC officials-and probably anti-trust staffers at the
Department of Justice-have riveted on how the multichannel video
business would go from three players in most markets-one local cable
system, DirecTV and EchoStar-down to two. In rural areas not served by
cable, the number of players would go from two to one.

Now Ergen is furiously scrambling to keep the deal together, planning
to file within 30 days a revised application for the FCC to transfer
DirecTV's licenses. He's already making proposals to the DOJ, which
DirecTV and EchoStar executives believe is also planning to turn down
the deal.




CLICKS & MISSES
By Catherine Yang

AOL 8.0's Worthwhile Bells and Whistles

The Internet giant's latest user software contains plenty of useful
improvements -- maybe enough to keep lots of customers from bolting

Debuting at a splashy party at New York's Lincoln Center on Oct. 15, 
AOL 8.0 is the opening salvo of America Online's comeback plan. The 
Internet giant has a lot riding on the latest iteration of its 
software: Not only is Wall Street skeptical about the outfit's 
prospects but the competition from Microsoft's much-improved MSN is 
becoming more intense.

AOL 8.0 showcases new broadband content, introduces personalized 
features such as customized Welcome screens, and highlights many of 
the community and communications features that used to be the heart 
of the service. Like other recent upgrades, the improvements are 
evolutionary, not revolutionary -- although this particular package 
has a lot more of them.


http://www.businessweek.com/technology/content/oct2002/tc20021014_0088.htm


     America Online Launches New Version - AOL 8.0
     - Oct 15, 2002 04:31 AM (BusinessWire)
     - http://finance.lycos.com/home/news/story.asp?story=29073622


     America Online Introduces AOL Call Alert
     - Oct 15, 2002 04:31 AM (BusinessWire)
     - http://finance.lycos.com/home/news/story.asp?story=29073626


     America Online Offers New Value for AOL Broadband Subscribers
     - Oct 15, 2002 04:31 AM (BusinessWire)
     - http://finance.lycos.com/home/news/story.asp?story=29073631


     America Online Introduces New Online Programming Approach With
     AOL 8.0
     - Oct 15, 2002 04:32 AM (BusinessWire)
     - http://finance.lycos.com/home/news/story.asp?story=29073635


     MSN, AOL Unveil Latest Strategies
     - Oct 15, 2002 06:54 AM (AP Online)
     - http://finance.lycos.com/home/news/story.asp?story=29074963


       QUALCOMM Creates Nationwide Hot Spot With Its Advanced Wireless
                          Technologies and Solutions

         - Company to Showcase Third-Generation Product Offerings at
                     CTIA Wireless I.T. & Internet 2002 -

    SAN DIEGO, Oct. 15 /PRNewswire-FirstCall/ -- QUALCOMM Incorporated
(NASDAQ:QCOM), pioneer and world leader of Code Division Multiple
Access (CDMA) digital wireless technology, today announced that the
Company will be showcasing its most advanced wireless solutions at
CTIA Wireless I.T. & Internet 2002, at the Sands Expo and Venetian
Hotel on October 16-18, 2002, in booth # 1608.  QUALCOMM will
demonstrate wireless technologies that are helping to accelerate the
adoption of third-generation (3G) CDMA voice and data services
worldwide.  In the United States, QUALCOMM's products and solutions
are helping to keep consumers "always on" with reliable remote access
via CDMA2000 1X, a solution that enables consumers to be connected
anytime, anywhere, wherever their carriers have 3G coverage.
Additionally, 3G CDMA enables the growth of wireless enterprise
solutions, allowing mobile professionals to access company information
behind the firewall, thereby providing mobility to workers beyond the
fixed telecommunications environment.

http://finance.lycos.com/home/news/story.asp?story=29075527


  QUALCOMM Announces On-Time Sampling of MSM6300 Single-Chip 3G Solution for
                              CDMA2000/GSM/GPRS

   - First True World-Phone Chipset Enables Global Roaming Across Wireless
                                  Networks -

    SAN DIEGO, Oct. 15 /PRNewswire-FirstCall/ -- QUALCOMM Incorporated
(NASDAQ:QCOM), pioneer and world leader of Code Division Multiple
Access (CDMA) digital wireless technology, today announced the on-time
sample shipping of the MSM6300(TM) Mobile Station Modem (MSM(TM))
chipset and system software.  By integrating a GSM modem with a CDMA
modem, the MSM6300 solution will enable manufacturers to design
multimode handsets using previous single-mode form factors and will
allow GSM carriers to deploy third-generation (3G) CDMA2000 networks
that offer roaming across networks -- providing world travelers with a
true global roaming phone.  Sample shipments began on September 30,
2002.

http://finance.lycos.com/home/news/story.asp?story=29075571


GPS: Keeping Cons Out of Jail 

By Julia Scheeres
02:00 AM Oct. 15, 2002 PDT

An electronic tracking system that follows suspects and criminals
around their neighborhoods and compares the information to current
crimes has received, of all things, the stamp of approval from the
American Civil Liberties Union.

The Global Positioning System's satellites track probationers and 
parolees and compare their whereabouts to the location of crimes 
committed in their vicinity.

http://www.wired.com/news/privacy/0,1848,55740,00.html


Switching Cell Phone Providers - Why Bother?

By Jay Lyman
October 15, 2002

The factors wireless subscribers must consider -- in addition to 
sign-up fees and contract duration -- include when they use the 
service, whether they use long distance and, incredibly, whether they 
actually can converse with others on the carrier's network.

Despite a general lack of understanding regarding all the fine points 
in the many and various offerings from wireless carriers, consumers 
are driven to switch by some basic factors -- particularly price and 
quality of service.

http://www.newsfactor.com/perl/story/19678.html

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

From: John Higdon 
Subject: Re: SBC/Yahoo!
Organization: Green Hills and Cows
Date: Mon, 14 Oct 2002 17:06:42 -0700


In article , Rob Levandowski
 wrote:

> Also, instead of providing standard POP/SMTP mail service, the Yahoo!
> cobranding arrangement provides users with a Yahoo! Mail account.
> This is why one must use SBC's software to sign up and connect -- it
> requires you to provide all the demographic data that Yahoo! needs.
> Data that is sold off to advertisers.  Of course, you're also given a
> SBC customized browser, a portal filled with ads, and all the junkmail
> that comes with Yahoo! Mail.

So this is just an AOL-style thing? Sounds like a marketing system
that just happens to use DSL for local transport and the Internet for
wide-area connectivity. It isn't "The Internet"; it's a direct wired,
two-way shopping channel.

I always wondered if the telcos would really try to compete with
traditional ISPs if there wasn't the possibility of scuttling them all
via regulation down the road. Now that it looks as though the ILECs
will not be able to kill "unbundled" service (and put all the ISPs out
of business), SBC has run with its tail between its legs and is going
after the likes of AOL.


John Higdon     | Email Address Valid | SF:  +1 415 428-COWS
+1 408 264 4115 |     Anytown, USA    | FAX: +1 408 264 4407

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

From: sjsobol@JustThe.net (Steven J. Sobol)
Subject: Re: SBC/Yahoo!
Date: Tue, 15 Oct 2002 00:27:40 -0000
Organization: JustThe.net LLC


Rob Levandowski  wrote:

> I hope SBC got good bucks up front for that cobranding deal, because I 
> think it's going to cost them in the long run.

You're assuming anyone at SNET or SBC gives a rat's ass about service.

To be completely fair, I live in SBC Ameritech territory, and they're
getting better. But you don't want to know the hell I had to go
through to get my DSL *and* voice service fixed this past spring, and
to get proper credit. And I had to fight for the repair *and* the
credit, and they still owe me $50.

I spend almost $100/month on my DSL and voice services through SBC -
at least until Adelphia rolls out Powerlink, their cable Internet
service, next month.

Unfortunately, being in a small, primarily residential suburb of
Cleveland, I can't even get my company's own branded DSL service
because I resell a carrier that does not colo at the Ameritech Mentor
On the Lake CO.


Steve Sobol, CTO  JustThe.net LLC, Mentor On The Lake, OH
http://JustTheNetLLC.com/ http://JustThe.net/ 888.480.4NET (4638)
Verizon Nokia 3285 for sale; six months old, runs perfectly. Also
should work fine on Alltel. Lots of goodies for $100 obo- e-mail for details.

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

Date: Tue, 15 Oct 2002 08:10:04 -0400
From: Monty Solomon 
Subject: SBC Yahoo! DSL Tools


     SBC and Yahoo! Plan to Introduce  Automated Tools to Make it
     Easier for Customers from Other Leading  ISPs to Switch to SBC
     Yahoo! DSL or Dial
     - Oct 15, 2002 07:06 AM (BusinessWire)

SAN ANTONIO and SUNNYVALE, Calif.--(BUSINESS WIRE)--Oct. 15,
2002--

          New tools part of strategy to make SBC Yahoo! DSL a
            compelling new choice for even more consumers

    To make it quicker and easier for dial-up Internet service
customers from other leading ISPs to switch to the popular new SBC
Yahoo! DSL and Dial services, Internet leaders SBC Communications Inc.
(NYSE:SBC) and Yahoo! Inc. (Nasdaq:YHOO) plan to introduce new
automated tools in the next several months.

    The move is part of SBC and Yahoo!'s strategy to make broadband a
mainstream service more easily available to the 26 million
DSL-eligible customer locations in SBC's 13-state region. While the
current SBC Yahoo! DSL and Dial installation process enables new
customers to import some preferences, the new tools will deliver a
greater level of ease-of-use and peace of mind for the legions of
consumers switching from dial-up Internet service to the co-branded
Internet services. (1)

http://finance.lycos.com/home/news/story.asp?story=29075237

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

From: markrobt@hotmail.com (Mark Roberts)
Subject: Phone Directory Pictures
Date: Tue, 15 Oct 2002 03:00:16 -0000
Organization: 1.94 meters


Mark Roberts  had written:

> PaulCoxwell@aol.com  had written:

>>> If there's any interest in this stuff, I can scan a couple of the
>>> pages from the book. 

>> Yes please!  I don't know about anyone else, but I'm always fascinated
>> by the way the numbering schemes and exchange linking developed.

>> [TELECOM Digest Editor's Note: It would be a great submission here in
>> the Digest wouldn't it?  PAT]

I finally managed to get some of the pages up: the cover and first
three pages of the 1972 Centerville, Iowa telephone directory.

Drumroll please ....

   

As a bonus, there's a picture of an Automatic Electric wall phone
that I took last year just before my aunt sold her house in a small
town in central Missouri.

If there is any demand, I'll see if I can get the phone book from
her area, too (or at least copies of it). A good friend of mine
there collects stuff like that. 


Mark Roberts | "How do you like following the goat story?" --
Oakland, Cal.|  Dennis Richmond to meteorologist Bill Martin on
NO HTML MAIL |  KTVU's "Ten O'Clock News", 9-13-2002

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

From: Gail M. Hall 
Subject: Re: Shannon Underhill
Date: Tue, 15 Oct 2002 03:03:46 -0400
Reply-To: gmhall@apk.net


On Mon, 14 Oct 2002 09:50:50 -0400, in comp.dcom.telecom, you (Shannon
Underhill ) wrote:

> I am trying to reach any person who is interested in finding
> employment.  It is NOT my intent to intrude on anyone's privacy.  In
> this economy and industry I would think anyone would be happy to hear
> there ARE opportunities out there.

If they were interested in employment, they would go to one of the
many sites where people can look for places that are hiring.  Most
people in this newsgroup are looking for info about telecom.

> FYI:  I have been thanked by MANY people from this newsgroup and have
> also received many resumes.

Maybe so and I take that with a huge grain of salt.

I got spam from you the day before I saw it in comp.dcom.telecom.

I have never indicated one way or another in this group or any other
that I am one bit interested in the position you offer.

Stay OUT of my mailbox!  If I get messages from you about a great
opportunity, I know you are just another spammer and nothing more.

You are obviously clueless about how to target your messages.

TELECOM Digest Editor noted in response to Joey Lindstrom 
[mailto:joey@lairdsflooring.com]: 

>>> From: Shannon Underhill 
>>> Subject: Help Wanted! Looking for a Data Engineer
>>> Date: Wed, 9 Oct 2002 14:51:48 -0400
>>> Organization: Snelling Personnel Services

>>>  My name is Shannon Underhill and I am an Executive Recruiter
>>>  located in Savannah, GA.  I specialize in the recruitment and
>>>  placement of ....

>> This person is spamming everybody whose address has appeared in the
>> Digest and/or the newsgroup.  Keep it in mind the next time this
>> cretin sends you another missive.

> [TELECOM Digest Editor's Note: Shannon, your point is very well 
> taken. 'Certain kinds' of spam are, most of us feel, somewhat better
> than 'traditional, vanilla flavored' spam, when properly dished out. 
> It is NEVER acceptable to construct a mailing list of your own for 
> ANY reason from names found in newsgroups and digests. People who
> write to this Digest/newsgroup or other newsgroups do so thinking
> their privacy is intact, as well it should be. On the other side of 
> the coin, people do like hearing about employment opportunities and
> educational opportunities. I run messages on both of those categories
> as time and space permits. 

Posting to a group is one thing.  Posting to the group plus all
members privately is overkill and very irritating!

> When I published your original message here, I did so in good faith,
> thinking it might help some guys find badly needed jobs, etc. I did
> NOT know however that you had already gone out on your own to the
> *very same people* with your own mailings, which might have changed my
> decision to publish. Your mailings are not just frivilous spam in my
> opinion; they are useful items I guess, but can become too much of a
> good thing. Try to be a responsible spammer -- err, UCE'er with your
> mailings, okay?  Don't send out a jillion pieces every day, and by all
> means maintain and honor a 'no further contact' list from the folks
> you initially contact. Some folks around here probably would disagree
> with me on even that mild concession. But Shannon, I do not like it
> very much when I naivly publish a 'help wanted' type message here only
> to get responses from all sorts of people saying 'seen it already a
> dozen times; please quit publishing spam'. You know, that makes *me*
> look bad as the moderator here. 

Listen/read Pat's advice!  He is telling you the right way to do things.

> To the group: what would you think if I began a new Digest/newsgroup
> specifically for employment, etc? I would call it OPPORTUNITIES Digest,
> And if they would let me in, an associated newsgroup to be called 
> something like 'alt.opportunities'. Basically I would serve as a sort
> of spam-sewer (no offense, Shannon) for educational/employment type
> opportunities, i.e. the 'better class' of spam on the net. 

I think that's a good idea if such groups do not already exist.  Or if
you want to specialize in telecom related jobs, that would be good.

> I would
> encourage spammers to submit their messages in the hopes of getting 
> as much of it as possible off the regular net, out of email boxes,
> etc. Every day, tons of it, anyone who wanted could read it, just
> like the classified ads in your newspapers. Anyone who did not want to
> read it could ignore it. Do you think that would be a useful service
> to the net?  Just asking ...  no chain letters, no MLM schemes, no
> bank in Nigeria has money for you, no private-parts enlargement type
> things; just reasonable type messages some people might use. PAT]

Pat, if you are up to such a task, I am for anything that will divert
spam -- er, unsolicited advertising -- to somewhere else.  Thanks for
making the offer.  Just don't divert TOO much attention away from this
group because you have so many interesting things to say here.  :-)

Shannon, you can learn from this experience and start targeting your
audience better.  If you persist in spamming everyone on this list or
try using any of those cheap "millions of addresses" type lists, you
will have only yourself to blame if you get a LOT of complaints and
negative feedback from people who are NOT looking for the kinds of
jobs you *say* you are offering.


tired of spam in Ohio USA

[TELECOM Digest Editor's Note: And to other would-be UCE'ers/spammers
who read this Digest regularly -- and I know you are out there --
won't you please meditate on the advice given above; both my words
of wisdom and the 'user testimonials' published here today and a few
days ago. Just cool it. Most of us have come out of denial regards
spam and accept it (admittedly in a poor frame of mind) as part of the
net for the 21st century. Please try to work along with us, okay?  PAT]

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

From: NotGiven 
Subject: Re: SBC/Yahoo!
Date: Tue, 15 Oct 2002 09:51:12 -0400
Organization: NETPLEX Internet Services - http://www.ntplx.net/


Its sad to hear that SNET has fallen so far.

I had them put in a couple of ISDN lines (in different locations) and
then an ADSL line, all with minimal problems, considering that this is
emerging technology.

There was one SW problem with the DSL, but the SWB tech stayed with me
on the line for over an hour till it got fixed.  Of course, had he
been more experienced, he would have told me the bit to set right off
the bat.  But this was a couple of years ago, and ADSL was just
rolling out.

I currently use netplex (www.ntplx.net) and have had superb customer
service response from them.  I generally get a tech on the line when I
call, and they are normally helpfull.  Again, some DSL issues require
the "top tech" -- some of their techs only seem to know dial-up.  Its
moderatly more expensive than SNET, but you get what you pay for (and
SNET had informed me that they were moving to the Yahoo deal).

BTW, re the personal Yahoo info -- when I signed up for Yahoo AIM, I
don't recall saying that I would give them the _correct_ information.
And who wants to sell life insurance to a guy born in 1900 who has no
income? :-)


On Sun, 13 Oct 2002 23:59:15 -0400, Rob Levandowski 
wrote:

> In article , Jeff Grossman
>  wrote:

>> SBC purchased Prodigy.  They were going to use Prodigy to sell their
>> DSL lines and help their online service.  The SBC online service was
>> pretty bad.  But, that did not work.  The Prodigy name was not getting
>> them anything.  So, they decided to co-brand a dial/DSL service with
>> Yahoo hoping the Yahoo name would draw more people.  Once that
>> agreement was in place, they started to dismantle Prodigy as a
>> company.

> My mother lives in Connecticut, where the local nexchange carrier is 
> Southern New England Telephone, formerly an independent.  SBC bought 
> SNET a few years back.

> Mom had SNET's internet dialup service, which was reasonably good.  I
> believe that, for most or all of the time she had it prior to the
> Yahoo!  agreement, it was provided by Prodigy.

> When SNET rolled out the new cobranded service, they stopped taking
> new signups for the Prodigy service ... yet they had not made their
> "software" available for Macintosh users yet.  This took a few extra
> months ... and then it wasn't necessarily compatible with the current
> version of the OS, Mac OS X.

> I hope SBC got good bucks up front for that cobranding deal, because I 
> think it's going to cost them in the long run.

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

From: Joey Lindstrom 
Date: Tue, 15 Oct 2002 10:25:13 -0600
Subject: Filtering
Reply-To: joey@lairdsflooring.com


On Sat, 12 Oct 2002 22:24:48 -0400 (EDT), Ross Oliver wrote:

>> What am I missing here?

> Well, for starters, you seem to have missed the part where I said,
> "If a site is not on my white list..."  The problem you described
> could be solved by simply adding the John's site to your whitelist.

> When I said that the local site would expand the recipient list, I
> meant that the mailing list sender would send the newsletter to a
> single address, e.g. telecom-digest-subscribers@airaffair.com.  The
> local site would then expand that to the actual local recipients.
> This method was very common back in the days of UUCP and 2400 baud
> modems.  This of course, would not work for many of today's
> personalized newsletters, and the astronomical number of available
> lists and newsletters would be an undue burden on the local
> administrators (unless a self-serve automated system is available).
> Hence the need for the whitelist.

> The purpose of the whitelist is to pass those sites from which you
> receive frequent email.  The purpose of granting any random site a
> once-per-hour pass is to allow the brand new customer from Brazil to
> email his request to you for a quote to buy 10,000 of your widgets.

> I believe even the whitelist management could be effectively automated
> and made to be self-serve.  The keystone of filtering that is both
> effective and affordable is direct user control and feedback.

I dunno - still seems very heavy-handed.

> Large sites are not filtering (or filtering in a heavy-handed way)
> because the current crop of filtering tools are too crude and
> inflexible.  Email management tools are still in the era of stone
> knives and bearskins.  I understand your frustration, and I assure you
> it extends to both sides of the email connection.  Using most of
> today's filtering tools is like using a crowbar to try to turn that
> little screw that holds your eyeglasses together.

I don't see your proposal as really much better than any of this.

> Things will get better.  I'm writing code as fast as I can ;-)

I believe you - it's what I've been saying all along, despite the
doom-and-gloomers advocating more and more restrictive filtering rules
on mail servers. And thank you for being part of the solution.  :-)

Y'know, I hate spam as much as the next guy.  Perhaps more, although
amongst THIS group of people I probably hate it a little less than
average.  :-) Indeed, I think I recently used the word "cretin" to
describe our good friend Shannon Underhill, somebody whom I've never
met but whose actions prompted that description.  That said, I think
we do sometimes overreact.  Yes, spam's a problem.  Yes, it sucks when
spam gets into our mailbox.  But the way things stand, there are good
tools out there that will eliminate 90% of it, while also boasting a
false-positive rate of very nearly zero.  But that's not good enough
for an increasing number of people.  ANY piece of spam that gets
through is seen as a personal defeat, and generates more zeal to put
into place tougher and tougher rules and restrictions on MTA's.

And I have to ask the question (of these people): what has gone so
very wrong in your life that even one single spam is enough to ruin
your day, make you see red, and contemplate homicide?  I think
sometimes we all (me included) need to just take a step back, relax,
and calm down.


Joey Lindstrom - Laird's Flooring
joey@lairdsflooring.com

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

Date: Tue, 15 Oct 2002 14:45:23 EDT
From: John R. Covert 
Subject: Re: No Reverse DNS?  Then Get a New ISP


> It sounds to me like you've made a good business case to put in a
> T1 or better to one of the main carriers and start your own ISP.

I'd love to.  $1000/month.  Then I'd need to find on the order of 50
neighbors who were interested in sharing the cost.  But wait, how am I
going to get to them?  We all have the same problem; loop length to
the C.O. is too great for ANY of the DSL providers; there is one
C.O. for the whole town, and it provides DSL to those who are
fortunate enough to live close to it, but I'm 7 wire miles away, and
most of my neighbors are as far or further.  With 2 acre and in some
cases 4 acre zoning near me, the population density just barely
supports the single cable provider who just started providing service
a month ago.  A coop 802.11b network would be cool, but the density
just isn't there for that either.

> Although I sympathize with your problem, the converse problem is that
> dynamic IP addresses lack accountability to those sites which are
> asked to accept communications from them.

I agree, and I, too, block lots of stuff from coming into my SMTP
server.  Maybe my cable address (it's being installed in the morning)
won't be on any lists, because although the address is somewhat
dynamic, it will only change if there is a reconfiguration of the
cable in my area, and even if the address does change, the name won't
change at all.  The reverse name is actually chosen by me, but my
choice is limited to h.ne.client2.attbi.com where  is
a string of hex digits theoretically representing the NIC of the
computer I've told AT&T I'm connecting.  That does not ever have to
change, and it provides accountability.  I just looked a related
address up in MAPS and it's not there, so there may not be a problem.
ATTbi's government affairs rep swore up and down to the cable
committee that their abuse department does take spam complaints
seriously, so maybe ATTbi's addresses are considered safe.

If not, I may just let attbi's SMTP server do my forwarding; I can
configure my SMTP server to dump everything out there.  I'd just
rather not, because I lose the ability to detect some early problems
with mail to unreachable hosts.  Buyt I'm a lot more interested in
getting direct access to the Apache Server on the VMS system in my
basement, and attbi seems to have no problem with that as long as the
use is not "commercial".  Their Ts&Cs allow servers, and they claim to
block nothing but NETbui to protect us from our neighbors.  Fine with
me, my house is a Windows Free Zone anyway.

> Another option is to get a shell account ...

An account somewhere outside my house won't do me any good; very
few of them are running VMS, and the whole point is to have my own
system really accessible from the internet and able function on it.

Giving up the dialup account with the fixed IP address feels really
creepy, and maybe I won't.  Just run the SMTP stuff out that slow
port forever.


/john

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

Date: Tue, 15 Oct 2002 13:59:28 -0700 (Pacific Daylight Time)
From: Mark Crispin 
Subject: Re: No Reverse DNS?  Then Get a New ISP
Organization: Networks & Distributed Computing


On Tue, 15 Oct 2002, John R. Covert wrote:

>> It sounds to me like you've made a good business case to put in a
>> T1 or better to one of the main carriers and start your own ISP.

> I'd love to.  $1000/month.  Then I'd need to find on the order of
> 50 neighbors who were interested in sharing the cost.

Assuming that the $1000/month includes both your T1 line costs and a /24
with a main carrier, you only need to be about 10 to 20 clients to be
price competitive with DSL+ISP for a /29 to each client.

> But wait,
> how am I going to get to them?  We all have the same problem; loop
> length to the C.O. is too great for ANY of the DSL providers; there
> is one C.O. for the whole town, and it provides DSL to those who are
> fortunate enough to live close to it, but I'm 7 wire miles away, and
> most of my neighbors are as far or further.

Note that it isn't the distance from the CO; it's the distance from
the nearest switch (which may be at the CO, but may be nearer to you).

> With 2 acre and in some
> cases 4 acre zoning near me, the population density just barely
> supports the single cable provider who just started providing service
> a month ago.

I own properly in Alaska that is miles from the nearest road, much
less the CO, in a subdivision of 20 acre lots.  Nonetheless, I can get
DSL there since it's within an 18,000 foot radius of a repeater.

> ATTbi's government affairs rep swore up and down to the
> cable committee that their abuse department does take spam complaints
> seriously, so maybe ATTbi's addresses are considered safe.

They may take spam complaints seriously, but they're not particularly
forthcoming in responding to them.

>> Another option is to get a shell account ...

> An account somewhere outside my house won't do me any good; very
> few of them are running VMS, and the whole point is to have my own
> system really accessible from the internet and able function on it.

Interestingly, my TOPS-20 system hasn't gotten any spam yet.  Of
course, I instructed it not to respond to VRFY, so a dictionary scan
doesn't work.  But, I wonder if a lot of the spamware is sending
UNIX-style LF-only newlines instead of proper CRLF newlines.  The
TOPS-20 SMTP server (which I wrote 20 years ago) treats only CRLF as a
newline.


-- Mark --

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

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

From: Howard S Wharton 
Subject: Re: Squirrels
Date: Tue, 15 Oct 2002 12:27:30 -0400
Organization: University at Buffalo


Well, starting to get problems on my TV again. Adelphia, thinks there
may be Squirrel damage to the line again. They are sending the line
crew out to check the main line on the street. Squirrel's show no fear
towards line crews. Last night when the tech. was up on the pole, a
squirrel ran along the cable and stopped couple of feet from him and
just looked at him while he worked. Maybe he was waiting for the
tech to finish and undo his work.


Howard S. Wharton
Fire Safety Technician
Occupational and Environmental Safety Services
State University of New York at Buffalo

[TELECOM Digest Editor's Note: The squirrels around here are very 
brazen, especially when they are hungry. Maybe the squirrel thought
the tech was up there having his lunch and was going to toss a piece
of bread down on the ground for him and his freinds/relatives. PAT]

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

From: Joey Lindstrom 
Date: Tue, 15 Oct 2002 14:33:56 -0600
Subject: Big Bad DSL
Reply-To: joey@lairdsflooring.com


On Mon, 14 Oct 2002 19:39:48 -0400 (EDT), Mark Crispin wrote:

> It sounds to me like you've made a good business case to put in a T1
> or better to one of the main carriers and start your own ISP.  Clearly
> there is a demand for such service in your town.

So you're saying that everybody who is frustrated with their ISP
should go out and start their own ISP?

> Although I sympathize with your problem, the converse problem is that
> dynamic IP addresses lack accountability to those sites which are
> asked to accept communications from them.  If you think that your
> customer service is "difficult", try dealing with them as an outsider
> trying to trace illegal activity that points at some DSL or dialup.

Point of order.  The objection I raised, which generated this
discussion, was your system's trapping the string "dsl" in my reverse
lookup.  At no point was any determination made whether or not my IP
was dynamic or static.  You're preaching to the choir when it comes to
dynamic, but you advocate using a filter that indiscriminately lumps
dynamic DSL users with static DSL users.

Your argument after that was to say that I should get my ISP to
remove the "dsl" string from my reverse lookup.  My response was to
tell you that my ISP won't offer this.  Your response to that was to
tell me to get another ISP.

Yet if I was using John's ISP, I could have a *DYNAMIC* IP with a
STATIC name, one that didn't include the string "dsl".  I could then
send you email from my "moving target" SMTP server, even spam the
hell out of you - and it would all slip by, because your filter's
busy blocking mail from legitimate static DSL servers.

Again, this is using a shotgun to kill a fly.  Not only do you not
always hit the fly, but you're sure to hit lots of innocent
bystanders.

> Accountability is important.  Network abusers, including spammers,
> have ruined the pseudo-anarchy of the 1970s and 1980s net.  Yes, it
> was a pseudo-anarchy.  There was a more or less benevolent dictator
> (DCA) which ignored a great deal but could (and would!) pull the plug.
> We first replaced that dictator with another (NSF), then toppled the
> dictatorship entirely in the 1990s.

> But we never established a governship in its place.  We are now seeing
> how pipedreams of anarchy turn into a chaotic nightmare.  It will get
> worse before it gets better.

Hard to argue with any of this - I do worry that I sometimes come
across as being pro-spammer (which I most vehemently am not).  I do
agree that we kicked out the foundation, and we need something to
replace it.

> It is not an irrational response to build moats and arm oneself in the
> wake of chaos.  Moats get filled, and people disarm, when they feel
> confident in the ability of authority to preserve the peace.

Where we differ is in our definition of "chaos" - just how bad has it
gotten?


Joey Lindstrom - Laird's Flooring
joey@lairdsflooring.com

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

TELECOM Digest is an electronic journal devoted mostly but not
exclusively to telecommunications topics. It is circulated anywhere
there is email, in addition to various telecom forums on a variety of
networks such as Compuserve and America On Line, 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: 620-870-9697
                        Fax 1: 775-255-9970
                        Fax 2: 775-306-8390
                        Fax 3: 775-642-0603
                        Fax 4: 530-309-7234
                        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 second 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)

Email <==> FTP:  telecom-archives@telecom-digest.org 

      Send a simple, one line note to that automated address for
      a help file on how to use the automatic retrieval system
      for archives files. You can get desired files in email.

*************************************************************************
*   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.
Access to Premium (P) links requires upgrade to a paid subscription.

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

Only subscribers or registered users of ICB Toll Free News web site
will be able to access all or some of the full text of URLs provided.

LEGAL STUFF: TELECOM Digest (sm) is owned by Patrick Townson.
Copyright 2000 ICB, Inc. and TELECOM Digest. All rights reserved.
Our attorney is Bill Levant, of Blue Bell, PA.

   ---------------------------------------------------------------
    
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 twenty 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 V22 #81
*****************************
    
    
From editor@telecom-digest.org Wed Oct 16 10:53:11 2002
Received: from localhost (localhost [[UNIX: localhost]])
	by massis.lcs.mit.edu (8.11.3nb1/8.11.3) id g9GErBm09455;
	Wed, 16 Oct 2002 10:53:11 -0400 (EDT)
Date: Wed, 16 Oct 2002 10:53:11 -0400 (EDT)
From: editor@telecom-digest.org
Message-Id: <200210161453.g9GErBm09455@massis.lcs.mit.edu>
X-Authentication-Warning: massis.lcs.mit.edu: ptownson set sender to editor@telecom-digest.org using -f
To: ptownson
Approved: patsnewlist
Subject: TELECOM Digest V22 #82

TELECOM Digest     Wed, 16 Oct 2002 10:52:00 EDT    Volume 22 : Issue 82

Inside This Issue:                            Editor: Patrick A. Townson

    Re: No Reverse DNS?  Then Get a New ISP (Mark Crispin)
    Re: No Reverse DNS?  Then Get a New ISP (Steven J. Sobol)
    Re: No Reverse DNS?  Then Get a New ISP (johna@onevista.com)
    Re: No Reverse DNS?  Then Get a New ISP (Dave Anderson)
    News Headlines of Interest 10/16/02 (Monty Solomon)
    Re: Filtering (John Higdon)
    Re: SBC/Yahoo! (John Higdon)
    Re: Last Laugh!  Jesus Joke (John David Galt)

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. WE DO NOT PERMIT NAME/EMAIL ADDRESS
HARVESTING FROM THIS JOURNAL. 'SALTED' EMAIL ADDRESSES APPEAR
HEREIN TO VERIFY THIS. YOU GET SUED IN SMALL CLAIMS COURT IF YOU
GET CAUGHT SPAMMING OR SENDING VIRUSES. DON'T DO IT.

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

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

From: Mark Crispin 
Subject: Re: No Reverse DNS?  Then Get a New ISP
Date: Tue, 15 Oct 2002 17:07:53 -0700
Organization: Networks & Distributed Computing


On Mon, 14 Oct 2002, Barry Margolin wrote:

> The  kind  of  service  that  Mark is  suggesting  is  generally  only
> available  with commercial Internet  connections.

It's called SOHO.

> So what Mark is saying is that if you want to run your own mail
> server, you need to get a business connection, which probably costs
> upwards of $100/mo.

Perhaps it's that high in Boston, but it's $30/month for SOHO with a /29
in the Puget Sound area plus $30/month for the DSL line.

On Tue, 15 Oct 2002 johna@onevista.com wrote:

> It seems that you have failed to learn much about mail.

Few people know as much about mail as I do.  Have you ever read the
various email RFCs?  My name is on most of them.

I wrote one of the first SMTP servers (before any UNIX servers
existed).  I remember when sendmail first implemented SMTP; it had a
lot of trouble communicating with my server because the first version
sent UNIX-style LF-only newlines instead of proper Internet-style CRLF
newlines.

We have come a long way from the days when promiscuous email
acceptance was necessary.  We don't rely upon out-of-date host table,
and upon the receipt of email from a site to get the word that it's
time to update the host table to include it.  The reasons for
universal open relays (once a vital aspect of the net) no longer exist
either.

> When you get a mail message thru sendmail you get both an IP address
> and a name supplied to the HELO (EHLO) request.  You are taking the
> reverse DNS from the IP address and comparing it to the name.  Then
> you are rejecting the mail based on this comparison.

Your description of what I am doing is completely incorrect.  The
decision to block based upon reverse DNS name has nothing to do with
the HELO/EHLO name.  It has everything to do with my decision not to
accept certain names.

> You should be deriving the IP address from the name given and
> comparing it to the IP address from sendmail.  If they differ, then
> and only then should you consider the mail may be spam.

Evidentally you don't understand that this blocking is implemented in
an SMTP server.  There is no "IP address from sendmail" since sendmail
is not doing the SMTP.  The IP address of the client SMTP is derived
from the socket.  If the message is to be blocked, it never gets
accepted by the SMTP server.

I have a blacklist of names which are unacceptable in reverse DNS,
HELO/EHLO, or MAIL FROM names.  This includes wildcard patterns,
including patterns which indicate dialup, DSL, or embedded IP
addresses.  There are many other rules besides this, all based upon
empirical evidence from past spam and a study of ongoing spam trends.

All this, by the way, only applies to unsolicited messages from
sources which are not in my whitelist.  I know people who use *only* a
whitelist; meaning that you can't mail to them if you aren't on the
whitelist.

You can rage on about the unfairness of blacklisting; but the worse
some Internet neighborhoods get, the more blacklisting will take
place.  I feel sorry for people who are stuck in bad neighborhoods,
but not that sorry.

 -- Mark --

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

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

From: sjsobol@JustThe.net (Steven J. Sobol)
Subject: Re: No Reverse DNS?  Then Get a New ISP
Date: Wed, 16 Oct 2002 01:13:56 -0000
Organization: JustThe.net LLC


> From 'johna@onevista.com' :

> In article , Mark Crispin
>  wrote:

>> I too have been doing networking since the 1970s.

>> ... from an earlier posting  ...
>> No, only from people who do not get real reverse DNS names for their
>> static IPs instead of a 123.45.67.89-dsl.blurdybloop.net name.  If
>> I require that people who wish to send me mail have real computers
>> with real DNS and reverse DNS names.  If you do not like that
>> requirement, that's just too bad.  Live with it.  Learn to use postage
>> stamps.

> It seems that you have failed to learn much about mail.

#1. I agree with Mark. If he decides to place that restriction on
people sending mail to him, who are you to tell him not to?

#2. Failed to learn about mail? Are you aware who Mark Crispin is? He
works for the University of Washington and has done much work on the
IMAP e-mail protocol, as well as being the primary maintainer of
UW-IMAPD and the Pine e-mail client. While that may not mean he's God,
he might qualify as a minor deity ;) Seriously, though, I would
suspect that he knows the issues surrounding what he's doing.

> Feel free to build as many walls around yourself as you see fit.

Well, yeah, that's the thing. It is his right, and I can see a certain
level of justification in doing so, and I definitely can understand
why someone might want to block mail from IPs with screwy DNS.

I myself have my SMTP server set to bounce e-mails from people using
non-resolving domain names in HELO/EHLO part of the transaction. (At
least I think I still do. Did for sure with Sendmail, and I hope I
turned on the option when I switched to Exim; it saves me from getting
even more junk than I currently get.) Do you think that's too
draconian? Not that it's going to change my mind; I'm just curious.

> OB telecom.  I get many more unwanted sales calls via telephone than I
> see via email.  I do not block dialup nor dsl lines.  I do block
> subnets that are used as relays.  And I still answer the phone.

Cool! You have to do what works for you.

You're entitled to your opinion, of course, I just disagree that the
approach being discussed is necessarily too heavy-handed for some
people (though it might not work for me as a commercial e-mail service
provider).


Steve Sobol, CTO  JustThe.net LLC, Mentor On The Lake, OH
http://JustTheNetLLC.com/ http://JustThe.net/ 888.480.4NET (4638)
Verizon Nokia 3285 for sale; six months old, runs perfectly. Also
should work fine on Alltel. Lots of goodies for $100 obo-e-mail for details.

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

From: johna@onevista.com
Subject: Re: No Reverse DNS?  Then Get a New ISP
Date: Wed, 16 Oct 2002 02:13:22 GMT


In article , Barry Margolin
 wrote:

> The  kind  of  service  that  Mark is  suggesting  is  generally  only
> available  with commercial Internet  connections.  Almost  no consumer
> ISPs offer  custom reverse  DNS.  ATTBI  is rare in  that it  offers a
> static  name (the h.ne.attbi.com  thing) that  tracks your
> dynamic address, but when your  address changes it usually takes hours
> before the DNS  catches up, and these names  are almost as meaningless
> as the blah-dsl.isp.net type names.

> So what Mark is saying is that if you want to run your own mail
> server, you need to get a business connection, which probably costs
> upwards of $100/mo.

What you think Mark is saying is that in order to have an email
conversation with him a business grade DSL must be purchased.  Even
though I have a static IP address and have had it for more than a
year.  And even though low volume mail servers are allowed.  He's not
that important to me.  Unfortunately, other people blindly follow his
thinking without analyzing it, leading to a Balkanization of the net.
Feel free to wall yourselves off from the rest of us.  I see this
attitude mostly among people who do not directly acquire their own net
connection, but get it from their employer or university.

There are only two ISP that serve this area, the ILEC and DirectvDSL.
Dynamic addresses from the former, static addresses from the latter.
Mark's suggestion to get another ISP will not solve the problem.
Neither will his suggestion to start a new ISP myself.  As an academic
he does not seem to fully understand the business issues concerning
Mom and Pop DSL providers.

This has strayed far from telecom, I'll not post anymore.  


johna

 "To announce that there must be no criticism of the president, or that
 we are to stand by the president right or wrong, is not only unpatriotic
 and servile, but is morally treasonable to the American public."
 ---Theodore Roosevelt  (editorial in the Kansas City Star   May 7, 1918)

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

Date: Tue, 15 Oct 2002 20:17:13 EDT
From: Dave Anderson 
Subject: Re: No Reverse DNS?  Then Get a New ISP


On Mon, 14 Oct 2002 at 23:53:12 GMT, Barry Margolin
 wrote:

> The  kind  of  service  that  Mark is  suggesting  is  generally  only
> available  with commercial Internet  connections.  Almost  no consumer
> ISPs offer  custom reverse  DNS.  ATTBI  is rare in  that it  offers a
> static  name (the h.ne.attbi.com  thing) that  tracks your
> dynamic address, but when your  address changes it usually takes hours
> before the DNS  catches up, and these names  are almost as meaningless
> as the blah-dsl.isp.net type names.

> So what Mark is saying is that if you want to run your own mail
> server, you need to get a business connection, which probably costs
> upwards of $100/mo.

I don't think that blocking everything with 'dsl' in the
reverse-lookup string is a good idea (though maybe I would if I got
more spam), but there are some (U.S.) nation-wide ISPs offering
consumer-priced service which includes fully-custom reverse-DNS; I've
had that service for a couple of years from Speakeasy (speakeasy.net
 -- a Seattle, Washington based ISP with PoPs all over the country).


Dave Anderson


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

Date: Tue, 15 Oct 2002 19:59:39 -0400
From: Monty Solomon 
Subject: News Headlines of Interest 10/16/02


Shattering the 3G Myth

By Kimberly Hill
October 14, 2002

Many U.S. wireless service providers have gone to market with 
next-generation networks as they are built in particular regions. The 
exception is Sprint, which rolled out its PCS Vision service 
nationwide after building the entire infrastructure.

While U.S. consumers and the popular press wait with bated breath for
the much-anticipated arrival of 3G wireless, it appears to have snuck
in quietly through the back door. Third-generation wireless services
are here, albeit scattered about the country. The myth that
corporations are not adopting high-bandwidth mobile applications
because the networks are not in place is just that -- a myth.

Aberdeen Group analyst Isaac Ro told Wireless NewsFactor that 
standards and hardware are no longer the main problem. What is 
working against corporate adoption of high-bandwidth wireless 
services is spotty coverage.

http://www.newsfactor.com/perl/story/19668.html


How mobile phones let spies see our every move

Government's secret Celldar project will allow surveillance of 
anyone, at any time and anywhere there is a phone signal

Jason Burke and Peter Warren
Sunday October 13, 2002
The Observer

Secret radar technology research that will allow the biggest-ever 
extension of 'Big Brother'-style surveillance in the UK is being 
funded by the Government.

The radical new system, which has outraged civil liberties groups, 
uses mobile phone masts to allow security authorities to watch 
vehicles and individuals 'in real time' almost anywhere in Britain.

The technology 'sees' the shapes made when radio waves emitted by 
mobile phone masts meet an obstruction. Signals bounced back by 
immobile objects, such as walls or trees, are filtered out by the 
receiver. This allows anything moving, such as cars or people, to be 
tracked. Previously, radar needed massive fixed equipment to work and 
transmissions from mobile phone masts were thought too weak to be 
useful.

http://www.observer.co.uk/uk_news/story/0,6903,811027,00.html


               Motorola Reports Third Quarter Financial Results

     -- Third Quarter Sales of $6.4 Billion
     -- Earnings, Excluding Special Items, of $.06 per share
     -- GAAP Earnings of $.05 per share
     -- Positive Operating Cash Flow of Approximately $125 million

    SCHAUMBURG, Ill., Oct. 15 /PRNewswire-FirstCall/ -- Motorola, Inc.
(NYSE:MOT) today reported sales of $6.4 billion in the third quarter
of 2002 and net earnings of $111 million, or $.05 per share, presented
in accordance with generally accepted accounting principles (GAAP).
This represents a decrease in sales of 14 percent from $7.4 billion a
year earlier. The year-ago net loss was $1.4 billion, or ($.64) per
share.

    Excluding exited businesses, sales decreased 12 percent from $7.2
billion in the year-ago quarter.  Excluding special items, the company
had net earnings of $141 million, or $.06 per share, compared with a
net loss of $158 million, or ($.07) per share, in the year-ago
quarter.  In the third quarter of 2002, Motorola reported net special
item income of $2 million pre-tax, with a net special item charge of
$30 million after-tax.  Charges were incurred primarily relating to
various cost-reduction activities and asset impairments, many of which
did not result in a tax benefit.  In the third quarter of 2001,
Motorola reported special items resulting in a net charge of $2.0
billion pre-tax, or $1.3 billion after-tax.  (Details of the special
items are presented in a table preceding the footnotes at the end of
this press release.)


     - http://finance.lycos.com/home/news/story.asp?story=29088182


Saving AOL

The online giant's woes are legion. Will new software and a bet on 
broadband come to the rescue?


By Farhad Manjoo

Oct. 15, 2002 | In the mid-1990s, around the time America Online was
last routinely described as a business without a future, folks at the
Usenet newsgroup alt.aol-sucks were preening themselves for their
apparent foresight. For some time they'd been declaring that AOL was
bad news: that it offered a watered-down version of the Internet, that
the company's members were morons and numbskulls and, worse, that the
firm cared little for the free expression that was the hallmark of the
infant World Wide Web. Finally, in 1995 and 1996, important people --
the media and some regulators -- seemed to be agreeing, and
alt.aol-sucks overflowed with anti-AOL glee.

Today, however, as AOL faces what may be its roughest period ever,
with its ad revenue shrinking and subscription growth sluggish,
alt.aol-sucks is strangely quiet. There is the odd "AOL sucks!" post,
or some witless, personal barb aimed at Steve Case, AOL's founder, but
there's no passion to it. "To be honest," wrote one poster recently,
"I can't see why the group wouldn't be overflowing ...  Maybe it's
just common sense nowadays -- everyone knows AOL sucks."

http://www.salon.com/tech/feature/2002/10/15/save_aol/index.html


     Plantronics Introduces Cell Phone Headsets With No Strings Attached
  Bluetooth(TM) Headsets Bring New Level of Freedom to Mobile Professionals

    SANTA CRUZ, Calif., Oct. 15 /PRNewswire-FirstCall/ -- Plantronics
(NYSE:PLT), the world leader in lightweight communications headsets,
announced today that its innovative M1500 and M1000 Bluetooth headset
solutions for cell phones are now shipping to retail and wireless
carrier stores nationwide. Leveraging Bluetooth wireless technology,
Plantronics' M1500 and M1000 literally cut the cords that bind
headsets to cell phones. The Plantronics M1500 comprises a Bluetooth
headset and innovative Bluetooth cellular phone adapter that plugs
directly into the headset jack of most of today's popular cell phone
models. The Plantronics M1000 headset works with new cell phones and
smartphones that support the Bluetooth v1.1 headset profile.

http://finance.lycos.com/home/news/story.asp?symbols=NYSE:PLT&story=29086691


Phone slamming complaints rise   
FCC reports the number of Americans complaining about telephone
slamming jumped 30.5% in 2Q.

October 15, 2002: 7:21 PM EDT

WASHINGTON (Reuters) - The number of Americans who complained about
having their local and long-distance telephone service changed without
their permission jumped 30.5 percent in the second quarter, the
Federal Communications Commission said Tuesday.

"We aren't sure if the actual incidences of slamming are up, but we do
know that more consumers are taking advantage of the FCC's complaint
process because of the refunds and absolutions available under our
rules," said FCC spokeswoman Rosemary Kimball.

The number of complaints rose to 1,001 between April and June from 767
during the prior three months, the agency, which regulates the
telephone and media industries, said in its quarterly release of
complaints.

http://money.cnn.com/2002/10/15/news/fcc.reut/index.htm


My Outrageous Cellular Call
Virtually no one is willing to predict that CDMA will unseat GSM. Except me.

FORTUNE
Monday, October 28, 2002
By Stewart Alsop

Hold on to your seat; I'm going to make a major prediction here. CDMA 
will unseat GSM as a worldwide standard by 2010.

Now that you've calmed your beating heart, you might wonder what geek
drug I took. Take my word for it: What I'm saying is heresy in the
world of cellular phones. I'm anticipating that within eight years the
system that powers 70% of the more than one billion cellphones used
today will be mostly replaced by a system that runs only about 5% of
today's cellphones. People in Europe will rear back in disgust at how
the Ugly American Technology Columnist is blinded by his parochialism. 

Wireless carriers, particularly ones that have recently installed GSM
equipment (AT&T, Cingular, and T-Mobile in the U.S.), will shake their
heads in disgust. Technologists from all over will just mutter,
"Betamax," referencing Sony's costly VCR-era lesson that proven
technical superiority doesn't make for global standards.


http://www.fortune.com/indext.jhtml?channel=print_article.jhtml&doc_id=209811


October 16, 2002

E-ZPass Users in New Jersey Will Get Replacement Devices
By RONALD SMOTHERS

More than 200,000 E-ZPass users in New Jersey are scheduled to get 
free replacements for their windshield transponders, after 
transportation officials found that the devices were wearing out 
sooner than expected and resulting in hundreds of thousands of 
mistaken violation notices being issued.

The replacement program in the state is part of a larger effort by the
manufacturer of the transponders, Mark IV Industries of Canada, to
address problems that have surfaced in 14 states from Maine to
Virginia where the devices are used to allow traffic to move briskly
through toll gates. Not all of those states participate in the E-ZPass
program.

Some New York and Connecticut E-ZPass users will also get free
replacements, the manufacturer said, but numbers were not immediatenly
available. In all, about 900,000 of the estimated six million to nine
million tags now in use along the East Coast are to be replaced.

http://www.nytimes.com/2002/10/16/nyregion/16PASS.html

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

From: John Higdon 
Subject: Re: Filtering
Organization: Green Hills and Cows
Date: Tue, 15 Oct 2002 19:14:51 -0700


In article , Joey Lindstrom
 wrote:

> And I have to ask the question (of these people): what has gone so
> very wrong in your life that even one single spam is enough to ruin
> your day, make you see red, and contemplate homicide?  I think
> sometimes we all (me included) need to just take a step back, relax,
> and calm down.

"One single spam?" Every day I open up to find approximately forty to 
fifty spams in my email box. Occasionally, there is not one message 
among them that is legitimate. Sometimes, legitmate messages get tossed 
with the crap. And those spams are the ones that made it past my 
server-level filtering which consists of a MAPS-RBL+ check, 
sender-routability check, HELO/EHLO syntax check, valid recipient check, 
local RBL check, dictionary attack lockout, and. after the server. my 
local client filters. After all that, forty to fifty messages come in 
overnight...and another thirty to forty come in during the day. Since I 
have been typing this followup, two spams have come in.

My server logs reveal that for every message that is even accepted by 
the server at all, a dozen or more were rejected.

Some of us are not dealing with "one single spam".


John Higdon     | Email Address Valid | SF:  +1 415 428-COWS
+1 408 264 4115 |     Anytown, USA    | FAX: +1 408 264 4407

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

From: John Higdon 
Subject: Re: SBC/Yahoo!
Organization: Green Hills and Cows
Date: Tue, 15 Oct 2002 19:20:12 -0700


In article , NotGiven
 wrote:

> Its sad to hear that SNET has fallen so far.

I think it is safe to assume that everything under SBC is going to hell 
in a handbasket. Pacific Bell is a shadow of its former self. By the 
time SBC manages to scrape the PacBell logo off all the trucks and 
buildings, it will truly NOT be Pacific Bell anymore. 

The same most assuredly goes for the other companies that SBC has 
swallowed up.


John Higdon     | Email Address Valid | SF:  +1 415 428-COWS
+1 408 264 4115 |     Anytown, USA    | FAX: +1 408 264 4407

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

From: John David Galt 
Subject: Re: Last Laugh!  Jesus Joke
Date: Mon, 14 Oct 2002 16:21:09 -0700
Organization: Diogenes the Cynic Hot-Tubbing Society


Kenneth P. Stox wrote:

> Come on Pat, let's leave the religous and lawyer jokes in the
> newsgroups where they belong. I will admit that prayers, and thoughts
> of lawyers, have become a part of dealing with telecom, these days,
> though. What we really need is ILEC/RBOC jokes! Lucent jokes. Worldcom
> jokes. There does seem to be a shortage in these important areas. Of
> course, when many of us need a good laugh, we just call customer
> service.

I have yet to see better telecom humor than
http://groups.google.com/groups?selm=telecom16.565.5%40massis.lcs.mit.edu&output=gplain

[TELECOM Digest Editor's Note: That would be the item in Volume 16,
Issue 565 for those of you who cannot use the link above. A good
repeat I guess.    PAT]

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

TELECOM Digest is an electronic journal devoted mostly but not
exclusively to telecommunications topics. It is circulated anywhere
there is email, in addition to various telecom forums on a variety of
networks such as Compuserve and America On Line, 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: 620-870-9697
                        Fax 1: 775-255-9970
                        Fax 2: 775-306-8390
                        Fax 3: 775-642-0603
                        Fax 4: 530-309-7234
                        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 second 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)

Email <==> FTP:  telecom-archives@telecom-digest.org 

      Send a simple, one line note to that automated address for
      a help file on how to use the automatic retrieval system
      for archives files. You can get desired files in email.

*************************************************************************
*   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.
Access to Premium (P) links requires upgrade to a paid subscription.

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

Only subscribers or registered users of ICB Toll Free News web site
will be able to access all or some of the full text of URLs provided.

LEGAL STUFF: TELECOM Digest (sm) is owned by Patrick Townson.
Copyright 2000 ICB, Inc. and TELECOM Digest. All rights reserved.
Our attorney is Bill Levant, of Blue Bell, PA.

   ---------------------------------------------------------------
    
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 twenty 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 V22 #82
*****************************
    
    
From editor@telecom-digest.org Thu Oct 17 00:20:01 2002
Received: from localhost (localhost [[UNIX: localhost]])
	by massis.lcs.mit.edu (8.11.3nb1/8.11.3) id g9H4K1f12409;
	Thu, 17 Oct 2002 00:20:01 -0400 (EDT)
Date: Thu, 17 Oct 2002 00:20:01 -0400 (EDT)
From: editor@telecom-digest.org
Message-Id: <200210170420.g9H4K1f12409@massis.lcs.mit.edu>
X-Authentication-Warning: massis.lcs.mit.edu: ptownson set sender to editor@telecom-digest.org using -f
To: ptownson
Approved: patsnewlist
Subject: TELECOM Digest V22 #83

TELECOM Digest     Thu, 17 Oct 2002 00:20:00 EDT    Volume 22 : Issue 83

Inside This Issue:                            Editor: Patrick A. Townson

    Re: No Reverse DNS?  Then Get a New ISP (Barry Margolin)
    Re: No Reverse DNS?  Then Get a New ISP (temp6@thewolfden.org)
    Re: No Reverse DNS?  Then Get a New ISP (John Higdon)
    Re: No Reverse DNS?  Then Get a New ISP (johna@onevista.com)
    Re: No Reverse DNS?  Then Get a New ISP (Mark Crispin)
    Balkanization (Joey Lindstrom)
    Re: Filtering (Mark Crispin)

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. WE DO NOT PERMIT NAME/EMAIL ADDRESS
HARVESTING FROM THIS JOURNAL. 'SALTED' EMAIL ADDRESSES APPEAR
HEREIN TO VERIFY THIS. YOU GET SUED IN SMALL CLAIMS COURT IF YOU
GET CAUGHT SPAMMING OR SENDING VIRUSES. DON'T DO IT.

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

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

From: Barry Margolin 
Subject: Re: No Reverse DNS?  Then Get a New ISP
Organization: Genuity, Woburn, MA
Date: Wed, 16 Oct 2002 14:55:49 GMT


In article , Mark Crispin
 wrote:

> On Tue, 15 Oct 2002 johna@onevista.com wrote:

>> It seems that you have failed to learn much about mail.

> Few people know as much about mail as I do.  Have you ever read the
> various email RFCs?  My name is on most of them.

So?  Do you think the guy who invented the picture tube would be
expected to know much about the television industry?  There's a big
difference between knowing the technical details of the mail protocols
versus the way they're used in the real world.

In article , 
wrote:

> It seems that you have failed to learn much about mail.  When you get
> a mail message thru sendmail you get both an IP address and a name
> supplied to the HELO (EHLO) request.  You are taking the reverse DNS
> from the IP address and comparing it to the name.

Bad idea.  If a mail server has multiple interfaces (as many of the
servers operated by large ISPs do), the name in the HELO is likely to
match one of the addresses, but not necessarily the one used for that
connection.


Barry Margolin, barmar@genuity.net
Genuity, Woburn, MA
*** DON'T SEND TECHNICAL QUESTIONS DIRECTLY TO ME, post them to newsgroups.
Please DON'T copy followups to me -- I'll assume 
it wasn't posted to the group.

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

Date: Wed, 16 Oct 2002 10:14:01 -0500
From: temp6@thewolfden.org
Subject: Re: No Reverse DNS? Then Get a New ISP


johna@onevista.com wrote:

> In article , Barry Margolin 
>  wrote:

> What you think Mark is saying is that in order to have an email 
> conversation with him a business grade DSL must be purchased. Even though 
> I have a static IP address and have had it for more than a year. And even 
> though low volume mail servers are allowed. He's not that ...
> There are only two ISP that serve this area, the ILEC and DirectvDSL. 
> Dynamic addresses from the former, static addresses from the latter. 
> Mark's suggestion to get another ISP will not solve the problem. Neither 
> will his suggestion to start a new ISP myself. As an academic he does not 
> seem to fully understand the business issues concerning Mom and Pop DSL 
> providers.

sjsobol@JustThe.net (Steven J. Sobol) wrote:

> Well, yeah, that's the thing. It is his right, and I can see a certain 
> level of justification in doing so, and I definitely can understand why 
> someone might want to block mail from IPs with screwy DNS.

Mark Crispin  replied:

>> So what Mark is saying is that if you want to run your own mail
>> server, you need to get a business connection, which probably costs
>> upwards of $100/mo.

> Perhaps it's that high in Boston, but it's $30/month for SOHO with a /29 
> in the Puget Sound area plus $30/month for the DSL line.

Please don't forget the many of us who are running virtual web servers
(I host about a dozen domains, many of which are a public service),
which means we're also running "virtual" mail servers that accept the
incoming mail for those domains.  A reverse lookup of those addresses
will never provide the "correct" domain, so I don't even bother with
reverse DNS.  Of course, that would be an additional charge on top of
the existing $130 I already have to pay for commercial grade access in
Houston, TX.

> I wrote one of the first SMTP servers (before any UNIX servers
> existed). I remember when sendmail first implemented SMTP; it had a
> lot of trouble communicating with my server because the first
> version sent UNIX-style LF-only newlines instead of proper
> Internet-style CRLF newlines.

Ahhh.  Acadamia vs real world.  Needs to be robust out here.

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

From: John Higdon 
Subject: Re: No Reverse DNS?  Then Get a New ISP
Organization: Green Hills and Cows
Date: Wed, 16 Oct 2002 10:15:28 -0700


In article , johna@onevista.com 
wrote:

> Unfortunately, other people blindly follow his
> thinking without analyzing it, leading to a Balkanization of the net.

First, people who are capable of imitating him are in all likelihood
not "blindly" doing anything. Second, protecting one's resources from
mountains of crap is not what is causing any "Balkanization of the
net".  It is the people sending the mountains of crap that deserve
your condemnation.

> Feel free to wall yourselves off from the rest of us.  I see this
> attitude mostly among people who do not directly acquire their own net
> connection, but get it from their employer or university.

In my case, you couldn't be more wrong. I have procured (and paid for)
my own net connections since the eighties and have handled my own
services for the fifteen years I have been on the net. My email
servers perform no less than fifteen separate checks on an incoming
email connnection before the SMTP banner is given, and each response
during the conversation is scrutinized. Even so, spam has reached such
a proportion that email utility is severely compromised.

If you are going to engage in generalities, indulge me the same 
privilege: most of the people who complain about others' anti-spam 
tactics are not in touch with how serious the problem really is.

> There are only two ISP that serve this area, the ILEC and DirectvDSL.
> Dynamic addresses from the former, static addresses from the latter.
> Mark's suggestion to get another ISP will not solve the problem.
> Neither will his suggestion to start a new ISP myself.  As an academic
> he does not seem to fully understand the business issues concerning
> Mom and Pop DSL providers.

With all due respect, neither do you, apparently. I have seen high speed 
connectivity established in one of the most remote areas of California's 
Mojave desert ... at a reasonable price. I cannot imagine that where you 
live could be any more difficult than that.

However, if what you say is true, then perhaps you should consider
doing what many other people do: make arrangements with someone who
operates an SMTP server with appropriate connectivity to act as
"smarthost" for your outbound messages. That way you won't have any
problems with sites that filter out messages from "bad
neighborhoods". I do exactly that for a number of people who have
dialups and other unsuitable-for-SMTP connections.

Sometimes you cannot have everything you want in a given area. I live
in the heart of Silicon Valley, but until recently have had neither
DSL nor cable modems available. I understand that it will be YEARS
before cable modems are available. And this is ground zero.

Yet, we have all managed to make do.


John Higdon     | Email Address Valid | SF:  +1 415 428-COWS
+1 408 264 4115 |     Anytown, USA    | FAX: +1 408 264 4407

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

From: johna@onevista.com
Subject: Re: No Reverse DNS?  Then Get a New ISP
Date: Thu, 17 Oct 2002 02:30:28 GMT


In article , Steven J. Sobol
 wrote:

>> From 'johna@onevista.com' :

>> In article , Mark Crispin
>>  wrote:

>>> I too have been doing networking since the 1970s.

>>> ... from an earlier posting  ...
>>> No, only from people who do not get real reverse DNS names for their
>>> static IPs instead of a 123.45.67.89-dsl.blurdybloop.net name.  If
>>> I require that people who wish to send me mail have real computers
>>> with real DNS and reverse DNS names.  If you do not like that
>>> requirement, that's just too bad.  Live with it.  Learn to use postage
>>> stamps.

>> It seems that you have failed to learn much about mail.

> #1. I agree with Mark. If he decides to place that restriction on
> people sending mail to him, who are you to tell him not to?

See the line you quoted lower down in that post. (Feel free ...)

> #2. Failed to learn about mail? Are you aware who Mark Crispin is? He
> works for the University of Washington and has done much work on the
> IMAP e-mail protocol, as well as being the primary maintainer of
> UW-IMAPD and the Pine e-mail client. While that may not mean he's God,
> he might qualify as a minor deity ;) Seriously, though, I would
> suspect that he knows the issues surrounding what he's doing.

Yes, I knew who Mark Crispin is.  Minor deity?  (like Lucifer?) Are
you trying to tell me something?

Bear with me while I recount a short allegory.  There was this
world-renowned expert in human relations.  He moved into a beautiful
house which could be seen by the entire community.  After a short time
he was visited by a few salesmen, missionaries and flim-flam men.  He
suffered their visits in silence.  Time passed.  These salesman,
missionaries and flim-flam men were knocking at his door incessantly.
Our expert was at his wits end.  He thinks "My friends all know about
my back door, so I'll solve this problem at my front door
permanently."  

He bricks up his front door.  The flood of unwanted visitors to his
house stops.  The rest of the community, which has similar problems
with unwanted door visitors, sees that the human relations expert has
"solved" the problem, and brick up their own front doors.  Pretty soon
every front door in the community is sealed.  No one meets anyone who
does not arrive at their back door.  The community stagnates.

That's the problem with a recognizable figure taking the easy way out.
And wholesale blocking is the easy way out.

More and more places are getting DSL and the supplier is refusing to
do custom reverse DNS, even though it takes about 30 seconds to change
the data in the record.  Other businesses are charging in excess of
$50/mo to have this one-time edit done one time.  It's interesting
that one of the posters to this thread, who works for a major DSL
supplier, advocates this ongoing payment.


johna

In article , Dave Anderson
 wrote:

> On Mon, 14 Oct 2002 at 23:53:12 GMT, Barry Margolin
>  wrote:

>> The  kind  of  service  that  Mark is  suggesting  is  generally  only
>> available  with commercial Internet  connections.  Almost  no consumer
>> ISPs offer  custom reverse  DNS.  ATTBI  is rare in  that it  offers a
>> static  name (the h.ne.attbi.com  thing) that  tracks your
>> dynamic address, but when your  address changes it usually takes hours
>> before the DNS  catches up, and these names  are almost as meaningless
>> as the blah-dsl.isp.net type names.

>> So what Mark is saying is that if you want to run your own mail
>> server, you need to get a business connection, which probably costs
>> upwards of $100/mo.

> I don't think that blocking everything with 'dsl' in the
> reverse-lookup string is a good idea (though maybe I would if I got
> more spam), but there are some (U.S.) nation-wide ISPs offering
> consumer-priced service which includes fully-custom reverse-DNS; I've
> had that service for a couple of years from Speakeasy (speakeasy.net
> -- a Seattle, Washington based ISP with PoPs all over the country).

I had a Speakeasy connection. 144/144 for $105/mo. Now I have DTV
1500/256 for $50/mo.  The one thing Speakeasy supplied that is not
supplied by DTV was custom reverse DNS.  Quite a price to pay, more
than two times the dollars for less than 1/10th the bandwidth. Oh
yeah, I could send mail to the person who "knows more about mail than
anyone else".  Can't anymore, what a shame!  I don't block everything
with 'dsl' nor do I block dialups.  I get virtually no spam delivered
to my mailbox using whitelists, blacklists, firewall entries and a
modified SpamAssassin as the final step.  Yesterday, onevista got 27
spam attempts, 16 were stopped at the firewall and the rest were
stopped before they reached any mailbox.  Wholesale blocking just
because a certain string appears in the reverse DNS is a sign of
laziness at best, elitism at worst.


 "To announce that there must be no criticism of the president, or that
 we are to stand by the president right or wrong, is not only unpatriotic
 and servile, but is morally treasonable to the American public."
 ---Theodore Roosevelt  (editorial in the Kansas City Star   May 7, 1918)

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

From: Mark Crispin 
Subject: Re: No Reverse DNS?  Then Get a New ISP
Date: Wed, 16 Oct 2002 10:16:48 -0700
Organization: Networks and Distributed Computing


On Wed, 16 Oct 2002 johna@onevista.com wrote:

> What you think Mark is saying is that in order to have an email
> conversation with him a business grade DSL must be purchased.

Wrong.

To have an email conversation with my home machine your SMTP client
has to have a reverse DNS name that does not match one of the patterns
that I block.  Those patterns include dialup, dsl, and IP addresses.

Even in the bad old days when I bought a single static IP address via
dialup, I still was able to set its reverse DNS name.

I see no moral difference between this and blocking calls which do not
transmit a proper Caller ID.

> Unfortunately, other people blindly follow his
> thinking without analyzing it, leading to a Balkanization of the net.

The Balkanization is happening.  Live with it.

I'm not to blame for it.  If you want to stop it, you're not going to
do so by attacking the spam blocking rules on my private home
computer.

> Feel free to wall yourselves off from the rest of us.  I see this
> attitude mostly among people who do not directly acquire their own net
> connection, but get it from their employer or university.

Red herring, and I resent the insinuation.

My email address at washington.edu is not spam-blocked in any way.  As
a result the Washington State taxpayer is paying a growing portion of
my salary to delete spam.  A year ago, less than half of my mail was
spam.  Spam now outnumbers legitimate mail by 20 to 1.

The spam blocks are on my privately-owned home computer.  I paid for
the computer with my private funds.  I paid for the DSL modem with my
private funds.  I pay for the DSL charges with my private funds.  I
pay for the ISP charges with my private funds.  I selected that ISP
because they had the product that I wanted to buy.

You also have a completely false notion about the people who block
spam at the SMTP level.

People who get their IP connectivity from their employer or university
(which I am *NOT*) have the advantages of gigapop access with
essentially unlimited bandwidth.  In fact, it's the damn university
policy of "no censorship" based upon this extreme bandwidth that has
caused the 20 to 1 spam/useful content in my mailbox.  Finally, they
are getting the message and are moving to offer spam filtering.

People like me, who pay for a DSL line to a small ISP, see bandwidth
(which we *pay* for) being eaten up by spam and virus attempts.
Blocking at the SMTP level reduces the bandwidth consumption since the
payload never gets transmitted.

> As an academic
> he does not seem to fully understand the business issues concerning
> Mom and Pop DSL providers.

Another red herring.

I work at a university, but I am not an academic.

The university does not provide me with IP service at home.

I provide my IP service at home, by paying Qwest for the DSL line and
paying a "Mom and Pop DSL provider"  (your words) to route my packets.

I am sorry that you had such an unpleasant experience in school that your
thinking has become so muddled.

 -- Mark --

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

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

From: Joey Lindstrom 
Date: Wed, 16 Oct 2002 12:46:43 -0600
Subject: Balkanization
Reply-To: joey@lairdsflooring.com


> From: Mark Crispin 
> Subject: Re: No Reverse DNS?  Then Get a New ISP
> Date: Tue, 15 Oct 2002 17:07:53 -0700
> Organization: Networks & Distributed Computing

> On Mon, 14 Oct 2002, Barry Margolin wrote:

>> The  kind  of  service  that  Mark is  suggesting  is  generally  only
>> available  with commercial Internet  connections.

>It's called SOHO.

>> So what Mark is saying is that if you want to run your own mail
>> server, you need to get a business connection, which probably costs
>> upwards of $100/mo.

> Perhaps it's that high in Boston, but it's $30/month for SOHO with a /29
> in the Puget Sound area plus $30/month for the DSL line.

It's quite a bit higher than that here, and in many areas.  Here in
Calgary you can get a "business" connection for $50 to $55 per month
(Canadian: multiply by about 0.63 for US dollars), but you're
prohibited from running servers.  Wanna run a server?  Gotta upgrade
to more-expensive service, from $85 per month and up.

Interestingly enough, that's exactly what I've got.  Still not enough
to get control of my reverse DNS entries though - for that, I checked
around and the cheapest package I can get with this feature, from any
of the ISP's, is Telus Advanced Communications "Managed DSL" package,
starting at $550 per month.

Sorry Mark, but I really don't need to talk to you THAT badly.  :-)

> Few people know as much about mail as I do.  Have you ever read the
> various email RFCs?  My name is on most of them.

> I wrote one of the first SMTP servers (before any UNIX servers
> existed).  I remember when sendmail first implemented SMTP; it had a
> lot of trouble communicating with my server because the first
> version sent UNIX-style LF-only newlines instead of proper
> Internet-style CRLF newlines.

Yes, you're a "leader"...

> I have a blacklist of names which are unacceptable in reverse DNS,
> HELO/EHLO, or MAIL FROM names.  This includes wildcard patterns,
> including patterns which indicate dialup, DSL, or embedded IP
> addresses.  There are many other rules besides this, all based upon
> empirical evidence from past spam and a study of ongoing spam trends.

> All this, by the way, only applies to unsolicited messages from
> sources which are not in my whitelist.  I know people who use *only* a
> whitelist; meaning that you can't mail to them if you aren't on the
> whitelist.

> You can rage on about the unfairness of blacklisting; but the worse
> some Internet neighborhoods get, the more blacklisting will take
> place.  I feel sorry for people who are stuck in bad neighborhoods,
> but not that sorry.

 ... but many of us don't care to follow where you would lead us (by
your example).  Have fun in your little sandbox.  Just do us one
little favour, ok?  When you post here, and invite reply, use a reply
address that anyone OUTSIDE of your little circle can mail to, ok?
Thanks.

> From: sjsobol@JustThe.net (Steven J. Sobol)
> Subject: Re: No Reverse DNS?  Then Get a New ISP
> Date: Wed, 16 Oct 2002 01:13:56 -0000
> Organization: JustThe.net LLC

> #1. I agree with Mark. If he decides to place that restriction on
> people sending mail to him, who are you to tell him not to?

Nobody's telling Mark what he may or may not do with his own equipment
(short of running a kiddie porn site or something like that).  But
when Mark (or anyone, including me) comes into this public forum and
tells us all how he runs his server, the implication -- whether
intended or not -- is that he is recommending that others follow in
his footsteps (else why bother telling us?)  And when he's advocating
such draconian measures, we do have a right to call him on it.  There
are many people here who are going to be influenced by both sides of
these debates (which is the main reason we have them, no?), and it's
MY feeling that if we don't shoot holes in Mark's logic, and leave it
unchallenged, then some people are gonna start thinking "hey, Mark's
got something there, maybe I should try it?"  So we challenge it and
try to show just how shortsighted it is, and convince people that this
approach MAY work for Mark but probably WILL NOT work for them.

Bear in mind also that Mark's system is "private".  I don't know how
many users he's got there but he led me to believe that the number was
very small.  I have a reasonable number of users here - 214 as of
yesterday.  Many people here administrate MUCH larger systems.  Is
Mark's suggested course of action appropriate for those who admin
larger systems, with a userbase that demands as much flexibility as
possible?  Of course not.

I'd like my users to be able to send email to someone and actually
have it arrive there.  With very few exceptions, this is still the
case.  I am MORE than willing to go along with REASONABLE precautions
against spam.  I've got my mail server secured: it comes
out-of-the-box relatively insecure.  If some systems have reasonable
requirements for exchanging mail, I'll work with that.

The key to this is the word "reasonable".  Along comes Mark (and
others) saying things like "you shouldn't have the string DSL in your
reverse lookup, regardless of whether your IP is static or dynamic",
or "you shouldn't use a .info or .biz domain name", and I have to
believe that we've crossed the line from "reasonable" to
"unreasonable".  Just as Mark is free to refuse to accept email from
people/systems that don't adhere to his requirements, so am I free to
say "get bent!" and refuse to make the adjustments he would have me
make.  I accept the consequence that I can't send mail to him: I just
don't need to talk to him that badly.

And I am also free to make an impassioned plea to everyone here: don't
follow the isolationist lead.  Yes, we need to keep up the fight
against spam, but we can easily take this too far.  I'm very heartened
to see lately that several others are starting to make similar
arguments as well (thought usually more tactfully and succinctly than
I manage).

>> Feel free to build as many walls around yourself as you see fit.

> Well, yeah, that's the thing. It is his right, and I can see a
> certain level of justification in doing so, and I definitely can
> understand why someone might want to block mail from IPs with screwy
> DNS.

"Screwy DNS"?  Please explain this one to me.  There's nothing
"screwy" about my DNS.  My ISP has put into place a set of consistent,
easy-to-manage reverse lookup names and I really don't see the need to
press the issue with them.

> You're entitled to your opinion, of course, I just disagree that the
> approach being discussed is necessarily too heavy-handed for some
> people (though it might not work for me as a commercial e-mail service
> provider).

Then you should be arguing on our side.  :-)

> From: johna@onevista.com
> Subject: Re: No Reverse DNS?  Then Get a New ISP
> Date: Wed, 16 Oct 2002 02:13:22 GMT

> What you think Mark is saying is that in order to have an email
> conversation with him a business grade DSL must be purchased.  Even
> though I have a static IP address and have had it for more than a
> year.  And even though low volume mail servers are allowed.  He's not
> that important to me.  Unfortunately, other people blindly follow his
> thinking without analyzing it, leading to a Balkanization of the net.
> Feel free to wall yourselves off from the rest of us.  I see this
> attitude mostly among people who do not directly acquire their own net
> connection, but get it from their employer or university.

> There are only two ISP that serve this area, the ILEC and DirectvDSL.
> Dynamic addresses from the former, static addresses from the latter.
> Mark's suggestion to get another ISP will not solve the problem.
> Neither will his suggestion to start a new ISP myself.  As an academic
> he does not seem to fully understand the business issues concerning
> Mom and Pop DSL providers.

Thank you.  This backs up my point to Steve above (re: blindly
following the lead of those with ultra-protectionist mail systems).
In an earlier thread to this discussion, I used the word "elitist".
Does not what you say in your last sentence make you feel like Mark,
and others, are looking down on you in a condescending way?  Cuz I
sure as hell feel that way.  :-) Maybe they don't mean to, but gosh
 ... y'know, I "get" that Mark was a big deal in the early days of the
internet.  I don't need it repeated beaten into my skull, nor does it
mean that he's infallible today.

> Date: Tue, 15 Oct 2002 20:17:13 EDT
> From: Dave Anderson 
> Subject: Re: No Reverse DNS?  Then Get a New ISP

> I don't think that blocking everything with 'dsl' in the
> reverse-lookup string is a good idea (though maybe I would if I got
> more spam), but there are some (U.S.) nation-wide ISPs offering
> consumer-priced service which includes fully-custom reverse-DNS; I've
> had that service for a couple of years from Speakeasy (speakeasy.net
> -- a Seattle, Washington based ISP with PoPs all over the country).

My old ISP, CADVision, used to allow me to do this, with a handy
web-based interface.  Unfortunately they got bought out by Telus and
everybody had to migrate to the Telus system (which didn't allow it).
I chose to jump to another ISP, which also doesn't allow it but they
had something else in their favour: they weren't Telus.  :-)


Joey Lindstrom - Laird's Flooring
joey@lairdsflooring.com

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

From: Mark Crispin 
Subject: Re: Filtering
Date: Wed, 16 Oct 2002 11:03:32 -0700
Organization: Networks and Distributed Computing


On Tue, 15 Oct 2002, John Higdon wrote:

> "One single spam?" Every day I open up to find approximately forty to
> fifty spams in my email box. Occasionally, there is not one message
> among them that is legitimate.
> Some of us are not dealing with "one single spam".

This morning was a good one.  Out of 105 new messages at work, a mere
77 were spam.  I haven't seen a 3 to 1 spam/legitimate ratio in a
while.  Then again, there was an extended thread regarding a document
that I am assisting on, so that boosted the signal.

Meanwhile, my home computer blocked 214 spams since midnight, but
allowed one to leak through.  The spammer who used that trick to get
around my blocks will have to use something else now, since that one
won't work any more.


 -- Mark --

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


[TELECOM Digest Editor's Note: Your ratio of spam to good stuff, if
it is a typical, average day, is about the same as mine. Thank goodness
LCS-MIT has started working along with me on this; there has been a 
noticeable decrease in the amount of spam in recent days. All kinds of
spam is getting turned around by the mail server, I am no longer
seeing  it. That which I *do* see, 'only' 30-40 pieces per day are
treated to SpamAssassin once they get through. I understand (please,
Noah, Mary Ann, correct me as needed) the *b-i-g* humongous things
of more than 50 K in size are being turned around direct at the mail
server are they not?  Mostly those were viruses. Back earlier this
summer, it was really wild around here, with me shoveling them out as
fast as I could. 

And didn't I say recently the 'death of the net' would come from the
gross misuse/abuse of email and people eventually getting a belly full
of it and deciding they were no longer going to bother attempting to
outwit the spammers. The spammers have accomplished one thing: They
have succeeded in getting *all of us* to squabble and quarrel among
ourselves about the best way to get rid of them. And the more naive
and impressionable among our readers will say 'well, Mark says that's
the way he does it', so they try that idea. Then they read later about
John Higdon or Joey Lindstrom using other techniques and they try
that instead. Either way, they wind up losing valuable mail which does
not get through  :(   ... and they get discouraged by that. I sincerely
wish -- and I say this equally to Mark, John, Joey and the other
reasonably intelligent users here talking about outwitting spammers --
that you would realize MOST netters haven't got the vaguest idea what
works and what won't work. It is going to get around eventually -- 
sooner or later, and probably sooner -- that no one will be able to
get email from anyone else, and the Balkanization of the net will 
indeed be underway. You heard it here first. Call me a prophet if you
wish, or a crackpot, I don't care.    PAT] 

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

TELECOM Digest is an electronic journal devoted mostly but not
exclusively to telecommunications topics. It is circulated anywhere
there is email, in addition to various telecom forums on a variety of
networks such as Compuserve and America On Line, 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: 620-870-9697
                        Fax 1: 775-255-9970
                        Fax 2: 775-306-8390
                        Fax 3: 775-642-0603
                        Fax 4: 530-309-7234
                        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 second 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)

Email <==> FTP:  telecom-archives@telecom-digest.org 

      Send a simple, one line note to that automated address for
      a help file on how to use the automatic retrieval system
      for archives files. You can get desired files in email.

*************************************************************************
*   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.
Access to Premium (P) links requires upgrade to a paid subscription.

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

Only subscribers or registered users of ICB Toll Free News web site
will be able to access all or some of the full text of URLs provided.

LEGAL STUFF: TELECOM Digest (sm) is owned by Patrick Townson.
Copyright 2000 ICB, Inc. and TELECOM Digest. All rights reserved.
Our attorney is Bill Levant, of Blue Bell, PA.

   ---------------------------------------------------------------
    
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 twenty 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 V22 #83
*****************************
    
    
From editor@telecom-digest.org Thu Oct 17 00:51:13 2002
Received: from localhost (localhost [[UNIX: localhost]])
	by massis.lcs.mit.edu (8.11.3nb1/8.11.3) id g9H4pDF13796;
	Thu, 17 Oct 2002 00:51:13 -0400 (EDT)
Date: Thu, 17 Oct 2002 00:51:13 -0400 (EDT)
From: editor@telecom-digest.org
Message-Id: <200210170451.g9H4pDF13796@massis.lcs.mit.edu>
X-Authentication-Warning: massis.lcs.mit.edu: ptownson set sender to editor@telecom-digest.org using -f
To: ptownson
Approved: patsnewlist
Subject: TELECOM Digest V22 #84

TELECOM Digest     Thu, 17 Oct 2002 00:50:00 EDT    Volume 22 : Issue 84

Inside This Issue:                            Editor: Patrick A. Townson

    Headline News of Interest  10/17/02 (Monty Solomon)
    Re: No Reverse DNS?  Then Get a New ISP (johna@onevista.com)
    MSL-100 SMDI Card for voicemail integration (Dave Watson)
    WorldCom's Want Ad  (Eric Friedebach)

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. WE DO NOT PERMIT NAME/EMAIL ADDRESS
HARVESTING FROM THIS JOURNAL. 'SALTED' EMAIL ADDRESSES APPEAR
HEREIN TO VERIFY THIS. YOU GET SUED IN SMALL CLAIMS COURT IF YOU
GET CAUGHT SPAMMING OR SENDING VIRUSES. DON'T DO IT.

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

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

Date: Wed, 16 Oct 2002 22:11:36 -0400
From: Monty Solomon 
Subject: Headline News of Interest 10/17/02


     Verizon Wireless Selects Airborne Entertainment As Exclusive
     Provider Of Alerts To Help Sports Fans Score Big
     - Oct 16, 2002 04:54 PM (BusinessWire)

MONTREAL--(BUSINESS WIRE)--Oct. 16, 2002--
                                               
   Real-Time Sports Scores And Summaries Delivered Straight To Their
                       Verizon Wireless Handset

    Verizon Wireless, the nation's largest wireless carrier and the
leader in mobile data, today named Airborne Entertainment as the
exclusive supplier of Verizon Wireless' full slate of We've Got Scores
real-time sports information alerts, sending up-to-the-minute sports
information to fans of the NBA(TM), WNBA(TM), NCAA(TM) Basketball,
NHL(TM), Major League Baseball, NFL(TM), NCAA(TM) Football and Men's
and Women's Soccer.  Fans can completely customize the sports alerts
they receive based on their level of interest. Die-hard sports
enthusiasts can sign up to receive alerts with every change in score
(including summaries) for Major League Baseball, NHL(TM), NFL(TM), and
Soccer. 

Alerts are also available for the end of every inning,
quarter, and half time for all previously mentioned sports, as well as
college football and basketball, and women's soccer. Those who want
just highlights can get scores at the beginning and end of a game,
with summaries for all teams and leagues.  To activate the sports
alerts, digital customers with two-way text-messaging capable phones
simply need to log on to the Verizon Wireless text-messaging companion
Web site at www.vtext.com to become a registered user in just three
steps. vtext.com is a lifestyle companion that keeps people
entertained, informed and organized. At vtext.com, customers can also
customize their messaging preferences, sign up to receive automatic
news and entertainment updates or SMS with friends, family or
coworkers.


     - http://finance.lycos.com/home/news/story.asp?story=29110545


     HP Expands Mobile Print Offerings to Make Wireless Printing
     Simple; Company Drives Growing Market for Mobile Printing with
     New Solutions, Technology Relationships
     - Oct 16, 2002 03:30 PM (BusinessWire)

LAS VEGAS--(BUSINESS WIRE)--Oct. 16, 2002--HP (NYSE:HPQ) today
announced new mobile print offerings and relationships with Adobe,
Cisco Systems, Inc., Guest-Tek, PalmSource, Inc., Research In Motion
(RIM) and Sony Ericsson that help customers print from any mobile
device.  In support of its four-year investment in mobile printing, HP
has expanded its portfolio of mobile wireless print solutions to
include:

    --  The HP Mobile Enterprise Printing Solution, developed with
        Adobe and RIM's Blackberry(TM) technology to enable mobile
        wireless printing to any networked printer within an
        enterprise;

    --  HP Mobile Printing for Pocket PC, enabling users of HP iPAQ
        and other Pocket PC 2002 devices to print to wireless and
        networked printers;

    --  The HP Mobile Public Printing Solution, integrating Cisco and
        Guest-Tek technology to enable notebook PC printing within
        public venues with high-speed Internet access;

    --  New HP Jetdirect print server security features, including
        Cisco's 802.11 LEAP authentication technology, ensuring secure
        access to wireless-enabled printers; and

    --  New HP Developers Program solutions, delivering the HP Mobile
        Printing Software Development Kit (SDK) for mobile printing
        and enabling companies such as PalmSource to add printing
        capabilities for the Palm OS(R) and Sony Ericsson to add print
        functionality to mobile devices and applications.


    A large portion of the workforce -- 165 million professionals
worldwide -- is mobile today, representing nearly 30 percent of the
U.S. workforce, according to e-Trends. This trend toward mobility is
expected to continue as IT mobile/wireless spending grows to $83
billion by 2005, according to IDC. HP is working with partners and
promoting standards to make printing simple for mobile professionals.


     - http://finance.lycos.com/home/news/story.asp?story=29108228


A Murdoch bid for Hughes seen able to win approval

16 Oct 2002, 3:15pm ET

By Peter Kaplan

WASHINGTON, Oct 16 (Reuters) - Media giant News Corp. would probably
win approval from U.S. regulators if it revives its bid for satellite
television provider Hughes Electronics Corp. , according to antitrust
attorneys.

Some consumer groups are already objecting to the idea, saying it
could be as anti-competitive as the current bid from EchoStar
Communications Corp., which has run into opposition from government
agencies.

Consumer advocates say News Corp. could combine its vast array of TV
programming with purchase of Hughes' DirecTV to force EchoStar and
cable TV providers to pay more for content.


http://finance.lycos.com/home/news/story.asp?story=29108019


Mac Toters Push Wireless Bounds

By Paul Boutin 
02:00 AM Oct. 16, 2002 PDT

Apple's Titanium PowerBook is one step short of being the ultimate
war-driving machine.  Despite its higher price, its owners and
reviewers agree the TiBook's wireless range falls short of many other
notebooks.

For the Wi-Fi hackers of Silicon Valley's Bay Area Wireless Users
Group (BAWUG), though, the PowerBook isn't a problem -- it's a
project.

Using a mix of open-source software and cards sold for PCs, BAWUG
TiBook owners claim to get "three to four times the range" of the
notebook's built-in AirPort card, according to BAWUG member Cliff
Skolnick.

Stuffing an 802.11b card into the TiBook's PCMCIA socket might seem
obvious, but "most people haven't tried it," Skolnick said.  If they
did, they'd find that neither Apple's OS X operating system nor most
Wi-Fi cards come with the necessary drivers to make them work
together.

http://www.wired.com/news/mac/0,2125,55742,00.html


Consumers Face Tricky Maze in Guarding Privacy
By JOHN SCHWARTZ

Businesses, responding to lawmakers and consumers, say they are giving
customers more ways than ever to control how their personal
information is used and sold. But, in fact, many companies all but
frustrate their customers' attempts to exercise that control.

Barbara Bechtold of Sacramento, Calif., recounts the unending process
of trying to keep companies from selling her e-mail address and the
details of her credit card accounts, insurance policies and mortgage
inquiries.

When she tried to tell Pacific Bell not to share information that some
phone companies sell - including calling habits - she found herself
confronted with a voice automation system maze.

"Push `1' for this, push `2' for this," she recalled. "Twenty
different steps to say, `I don't want you to sell my information,
please!' "


http://www.nytimes.com/2002/10/17/business/17PRIV.html


     The Nokia 6650 WCDMA/GSM Phone Passes Type Approval Tests in
     Europe and Japan; Shipments for Operators to Commence Immediately
     - Oct 16, 2002 12:07 PM (BusinessWire)

HELSINKI, Finland--(BUSINESS WIRE)--Oct. 16, 2002--Nokia has today
announced that it has passed all regulatory WCDMA and GSM type
approval tests for the Nokia 6650 WCDMA/GSM dual mode mobile phone
conforming to the requirements of European Union CE mark under the
R&TTE directive.

    The Nokia 6650 has also received the type approval certificate
 from Japan concerning regulatory requirements tested by local official
test authority TELEC. Passed type approval tests mean that the
shipments can now begin to operators.

    The Nokia 6650, introduced on 26 September in Helsinki, is the
world's first 3GPP compliant WCDMA/GSM dual mode phone. Operators
across the world will now start receiving the Nokia 6650 terminals for
their network optimization and interoperability testing, preceeding
the estimated commercial availability of the terminal in the first
half of 2003.

     - http://finance.lycos.com/home/news/story.asp?story=29102430

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

From: johna@onevista.com
Subject: Re: No Reverse DNS?  Then Get a New ISP
Date: Thu, 17 Oct 2002 04:06:01 GMT


In article ,
Mark Crispin   wrote:

> On Tue, 15 Oct 2002 johna@onevista.com wrote:

>> It seems that you have failed to learn much about mail.

> Few people know as much about mail as I do.  Have you ever read the
> various email RFCs?  My name is on most of them.

> I wrote one of the first SMTP servers (before any UNIX servers
> existed).  I remember when sendmail first implemented SMTP; it had a
> lot of trouble communicating with my server because the first version
> sent UNIX-style LF-only newlines instead of proper Internet-style CRLF
> newlines.

I guess in academia it's part of the greeting ritual to whack each
other with wet noodles called credentials.  I usually tell people who
ask about my credentials that "I was sent by God".

> We have come a long way from the days when promiscuous email
> acceptance was necessary.  We don't rely upon out-of-date host table,
> and upon the receipt of email from a site to get the word that it's
> time to update the host table to include it.  The reasons for
> universal open relays (once a vital aspect of the net) no longer exist
> either.

Yes we have. Unfortunately. And without universal accountability for
mail messages we have the chaos we have today.  People who want
anonymity can use postal mail.

< ...some supposition about how you are handling incoming mail elided...>
< ...some description about verifying senders in mail elided...>

Here follow two paragraphs that you wrote.  I'll label them A & B

> A>Evidentally you don't understand that this blocking is implemented in
> A>an SMTP server.  There is no "IP address from sendmail" since sendmail
> A>is not doing the SMTP.  The IP address of the client SMTP is derived
> A>from the socket.  If the message is to be blocked, it never gets
> A>accepted by the SMTP server.

> B>I have a blacklist of names which are unacceptable in reverse DNS,
> B>HELO/EHLO, or MAIL FROM names.  This includes wildcard patterns,
> B>including patterns which indicate dialup, DSL, or embedded IP
> B>addresses.  There are many other rules besides this, all based upon
> B>empirical evidence from past spam and a study of ongoing spam trends.

In para A you mention an SMTP server.  And also mention that sendmail
is not doing the SMTP.  Funny, I thought sendmail was an SMTP server.
And Washington.edu responds to mail messages with 'mxu3.washington.edu
ESMTP Sendmail 8.12.1+ ...'.  Are you sure you know a lot about mail?

In para B you mention that you use HELO/EHLO name blocking.  If you
get that name from sendmail (not an SMTP server), then you will also
get the IP address.  Maybe, since you don't actually talk to the
outside world with your local (not Washington.edu) copy of sendmail,
you do not get the sending IP address.  It must be tough to block spam
wearing furry mittens (being one step removed from the actual process
that talks to the outside world).

> All this, by the way, only applies to unsolicited messages from
> sources which are not in my whitelist.  I know people who use *only* a
> whitelist; meaning that you can't mail to them if you aren't on the
> whitelist.

Of course I understand how to block spam.  I use firewalling,
whitelists, blacklists and a modified SpamAssassin on my incoming port
25.  About people who only use whitelists, I have a related story.
There is this group of people who only speak to others of their
religion.  In the summer of 2001 four foreigners rent apartments in
their community.  The name of the community is 'The Hamlet' in Delray
Beach, Florida.  You can guess the rest.  If you can't, the four
foreigners were part of the 9/11/2001 event.

> You can rage on about the unfairness of blacklisting; but the worse
> some Internet neighborhoods get, the more blacklisting will take
> place.  I feel sorry for people who are stuck in bad neighborhoods,
> but not that sorry.

As I said before, feel free to block whomever you want.  As someone
who claims expertise in the email field, you should be setting a
better example than 'bricking-up your front door'.  Others may decide
that you really don't know how to handle this plague of unwanted mail.


johna

 "To announce that there must be no criticism of the president, or that
 we are to stand by the president right or wrong, is not only unpatriotic
 and servile, but is morally treasonable to the American public."
 ---Theodore Roosevelt  (editorial in the Kansas City Star   May 7, 1918)

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

From: dave@advancedcall.com (Dave Watson)
Subject: MSL-100 SMDI Card For Voicemail Integration
Date: 16 Oct 2002 15:29:55 -0700
Organization: http://groups.google.com/


Does anyone know what model of I/O card to use in an MSL-100 to
deliver SMDI packets to a third party PBX?  Part Number?

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

(Dated: Sat, 14 Sep 2002 16:39:54 PDT)
From: Eric Friedebach 
Reply-To: friedebach@yahoo.com
Subject: WorldCom's Want Ad 
Date: Thu, 17 Oct 2002 00:00:00 EDT


[TELECOM Digest Editor's Note: This message was blocked by SpamAssassin
and sat in a file here for close to a month. I am sorry I do not 
remember if I ran it here or not; but I think not. So, Eric, with my
apologies, here is your message from a month ago.  :(     PAT]

WorldCom's Want Ad 
Mark Lewis, 09.11.02, Forbes.com

NEW YORK - John Sidgmore is on the way out as WorldCom's chief
executive, and the firm will seek a fresh start with a
yet-to-be-identified savior. There should be no shortage of
applicants: Who would turn down a board that gave its former CEO $1.5
million a year for life when it shoved him out the door?
    
We refer, of course, to Bernard Ebbers, who resigned under pressure
in April and was succeeded by Sidgmore. Critics have been clucking
this week at the generous retirement perks that General Electric 
gave to Jack Welch, but at least Welch was a successful CEO. WorldCom
was generous to Ebbers, even though the telco was spiraling toward
bankruptcy by the time he left. 

Besides the annual stipend, Ebbers was granted easy terms on a $408
million loan. Now WorldCom's board may try to revoke the severance
deal. But that will be problematic -- unless of course federal
investigators end up charging Ebbers in connection with the firm's
massive accounting scandal. 

Despite WorldCom's epic woes, its board may have little trouble
lining up a telecom heavyweight to take the helm. Unlike Enron,
WorldCom is not a house of cards: There is a real company here,
providing an important service to thousands of customers. Stripped of
its crippling debt load, WorldCom conceivably could reemerge from
Chapter 11 proceedings as a viable player.

http://www.forbes.com/2002/09/11/0911worldcom.html

Eric Friedebach

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

TELECOM Digest is an electronic journal devoted mostly but not
exclusively to telecommunications topics. It is circulated anywhere
there is email, in addition to various telecom forums on a variety of
networks such as Compuserve and America On Line, 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: 620-870-9697
                        Fax 1: 775-255-9970
                        Fax 2: 775-306-8390
                        Fax 3: 775-642-0603
                        Fax 4: 530-309-7234
                        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 second 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)

Email <==> FTP:  telecom-archives@telecom-digest.org 

      Send a simple, one line note to that automated address for
      a help file on how to use the automatic retrieval system
      for archives files. You can get desired files in email.

*************************************************************************
*   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.
Access to Premium (P) links requires upgrade to a paid subscription.

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

Only subscribers or registered users of ICB Toll Free News web site
will be able to access all or some of the full text of URLs provided.

LEGAL STUFF: TELECOM Digest (sm) is owned by Patrick Townson.
Copyright 2000 ICB, Inc. and TELECOM Digest. All rights reserved.
Our attorney is Bill Levant, of Blue Bell, PA.

   ---------------------------------------------------------------
    
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 twenty 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 V22 #84
*****************************
    
    
From editor@telecom-digest.org Thu Oct 17 18:54:29 2002
Received: from localhost (localhost [[UNIX: localhost]])
	by massis.lcs.mit.edu (8.11.3nb1/8.11.3) id g9HMsTP18616;
	Thu, 17 Oct 2002 18:54:29 -0400 (EDT)
Date: Thu, 17 Oct 2002 18:54:29 -0400 (EDT)
From: editor@telecom-digest.org
Message-Id: <200210172254.g9HMsTP18616@massis.lcs.mit.edu>
X-Authentication-Warning: massis.lcs.mit.edu: ptownson set sender to editor@telecom-digest.org using -f
To: ptownson
Approved: patsnewlist
Subject: TELECOM Digest V22 #85

TELECOM Digest     Thu, 17 Oct 2002 18:54:00 EDT    Volume 22 : Issue 85

Inside This Issue:                            Editor: Patrick A. Townson

    Re: No Reverse DNS?  Then Get a New ISP (John Higdon)
    Re: No Reverse DNS?  Then Get a New ISP (Dave Anderson)
    Re: No Reverse DNS?  Then Get a New ISP (Mark Crispin)
    Re: No Reverse DNS?  Then Get a New ISP (johna@onevista.com)
    Re: Squirrels (Robert Bonomi)
    SIT Detection on H.323 (Thomas Renner)
    Re: Phone Directory Pictures (joe@obilivan.net)
    Leasing a PBX (rosalind.agee@publicisgroupe.com)
    Creation of a Traced GSM phones File in France (jbc)
    Does Slamming Work? (byeman@gmx.net)

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. WE DO NOT PERMIT NAME/EMAIL ADDRESS
HARVESTING FROM THIS JOURNAL. 'SALTED' EMAIL ADDRESSES APPEAR
HEREIN TO VERIFY THIS. YOU GET SUED IN SMALL CLAIMS COURT IF YOU
GET CAUGHT SPAMMING OR SENDING VIRUSES. DON'T DO IT.

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

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

From: John Higdon 
Subject: Re: No Reverse DNS?  Then Get a New ISP
Organization: Green Hills and Cows
Date: Wed, 16 Oct 2002 21:46:02 -0700


In article , johna@onevista.com 
wrote:

> That's the problem with a recognizable figure taking the easy way out.
> And wholesale blocking is the easy way out.

No, the easy way out is to simply dispose of email facilities and
forget about email altogether. That's the "easy way out". Wholesale
blocking is a desperate attempt to avoid that final action.

I fear that our moderator's prediction may have more truth in it than
most people would like. But the death of the net will be when we all
chuck it as useless garbage.

> More and more places are getting DSL and the supplier is refusing to
> do custom reverse DNS, even though it takes about 30 seconds to change
> the data in the record.  Other businesses are charging in excess of
> $50/mo to have this one-time edit done one time.  It's interesting
> that one of the posters to this thread, who works for a major DSL
> supplier, advocates this ongoing payment.

As someone who has set up a number of DSL accounts with clients and
other associates, I'm not finding this to be true at all. I have
DSL. My own provider bent over backwards to work with me to establish
"classless delegation" with my own address space. In other words, I do
my own reverse DNS in cooperation with my provider. Oh ... no charge
for any of it, including his guiding me in setting up my end of it.

SBC/PacBell will do classless reverse DNS delegation for its /29 
customers. If PacBell will do it, then by gawd ANYONE will do it. If 
they won't, they you probably should walk. No, run to someone else.


John Higdon     | Email Address Valid | SF:  +1 415 428-COWS
+1 408 264 4115 |     Anytown, USA    | FAX: +1 408 264 4407

[TELECOM Digest Editor's Note: John is correct (in agreeing with me).
The death of the net will come when enough of it amounts to useless
garbage and people get tired of it and burned out trying to outsmart
the spammers and the virus writers. It can't be done.  Y'all can stand
around with your fingers stuck in holes in the dike, while others are
busily bailing out the ocean with small buckets.  PAT]

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

Date: Thu, 17 Oct 2002 00:46:48 EDT
From: Dave Anderson 
Subject: Re: No Reverse DNS?  Then Get a New ISP


On Thu, 17 Oct 2002 at 02:30:28 GMT, johna@onevista.com wrote:

> In article , Dave Anderson
>  wrote:

>> I don't think that blocking everything with 'dsl' in the
>> reverse-lookup string is a good idea (though maybe I would if I got
>> more spam), but there are some (U.S.) nation-wide ISPs offering
>> consumer-priced service which includes fully-custom reverse-DNS; I've
>> had that service for a couple of years from Speakeasy (speakeasy.net
>> -- a Seattle, Washington based ISP with PoPs all over the country).

> I had a Speakeasy connection. 144/144 for $105/mo.

Sounds like you were far enough from the CO that you could only get
IDSL -- which definitely is both slow and expensive.  I have 608/128
ADSL for about $60/month, which is a lot more reasonable.

Rereading my original comment, "nation-wide" isn't exactly the right
term to use; while I expect that these services are available to most
of the population of the U.S., I'm sure that they're *not* available
in most of the *area* of the U.S.  ['Most' meaning 'more than half
of'.]


Dave Anderson


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

From: Mark Crispin 
Subject: Re: No Reverse DNS?  Then Get a New ISP
Date: Wed, 16 Oct 2002 23:29:49 -0700
Organization: Networks and Distributed Computing


On Thu, 17 Oct 2002 johna@onevista.com wrote:

> I guess in academia it's part of the greeting ritual to whack each
> other with wet noodles called credentials.

I am terribly sorry that you had such a bad experience in school that you
have such a blind and unrelentling hostility to anyone with a .EDU
address.

You claimed that I am ignorant about email.  I pointed out that I invented
much of email.  Then off you go with your ridiculous "academia" and
"credentials" whine.

> As I said before, feel free to block whomever you want.  As someone
> who claims expertise in the email field, you should be setting a
> better example than 'bricking-up your front door'.  Others may decide
> that you really don't know how to handle this plague of unwanted mail.

I know how to handle the plague of unwanted mail.  I block it.  I'm
sorry that you are upset that you're being treated as a second-class
citizen because you don't have a proper reverse DNS name, but if the
foo shits ...

Rather than address any of the issues, you persist upon repeating this
silly little "academia" red herring -- ignoring the fact that the
machine in question is a privately owned home computer in a .com
domain having nothing whatsoever to do with washington.edu.

You have no right to send email to anyone.  Rather, people choose to
grant you a privilege to send email to them.  If they choose not to do
so because you don't have a proper reverse DNS name, that is their
privilege.

 -- Mark --

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

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

From: johna@onevista.com
Subject: Re: No Reverse DNS?  Then Get a New ISP
Date: Thu, 17 Oct 2002 06:55:09 GMT


In article , Barry Margolin
 wrote:

> In article , 
> wrote:

>> It seems that you have failed to learn much about mail.  When you get
>> a mail message thru sendmail you get both an IP address and a name
>> supplied to the HELO (EHLO) request.  You are taking the reverse DNS
>> from the IP address and comparing it to the name.

> Bad idea.  If a mail server has multiple interfaces (as many of the
> servers operated by large ISPs do), the name in the HELO is likely to
> match one of the addresses, but not necessarily the one used for that
> connection.

It seems he was just looking for certain strings in the reverse DNS.

I hope he doesn't get mail from yourpaycheck.xyz.dns.net!

Doing a forward lookup from the HELO(EHLO) name may return multiple
addresses.  Matching multiple addresses is left as an exercise for the
reader.  I didn't think I had to spell out the problem of multi-homed
hosts.

In article , John Higdon
 wrote:

> In article , johna@onevista.com 
> wrote:

>> As an academic
>> he does not seem to fully understand the business issues concerning
>> Mom and Pop DSL providers.

> With all due respect, neither do you, apparently. I have seen high speed 
> connectivity established in one of the most remote areas of California's 
> Mojave desert ... at a reasonable price. I cannot imagine that where you 

Feel free to set up the Mom and Pop (that's you) DSL provider here.  We'll
pay you less than $80/mo.  Good luck.  You can take your foot out of your
mouth now.

It seems I've been responding to someone (not you) that speaks a lot
about spam but does not actually connect to the outside world.  What a
waste of bits.

Telephone:  I've used one, but I really like to hear stories about them
from PAT.  I've been reading this digest since JSol days.

In article , Mark Crispin
 wrote:

> On Wed, 16 Oct 2002 johna@onevista.com wrote:
>> What you think Mark is saying is that in order to have an email
>> conversation with him a business grade DSL must be purchased.

> Wrong.

The response was directed at barmar, not you.

> To have an email conversation with my home machine your SMTP client
> has to have a reverse DNS name that does not match one of the patterns
> that I block.  Those patterns include dialup, dsl, and IP addresses.
 
As I've said before, feel free to block whomever you want.  Just don't
advertise it as the ultimate cure.

> Even in the bad old days when I bought a single static IP address via
> dialup, I still was able to set its reverse DNS name.

Those were the 'good old days', they didn't exist where I've lived.

>> Unfortunately, other people blindly follow his
>> thinking without analyzing it, leading to a Balkanization of the net.

> The Balkanization is happening.  Live with it.  I'm not to blame for
> it.  If you want to stop it, you're not going to do so by attacking
> the spam blocking rules on my private home computer.

Live with it, why?  In the beginning, it seemed you were espousing
rules about spam blocking and seeming to come from Washington.edu.
Lately, it has become obvious that you are the man behind the curtain.
One who doesn't talk directly to the outside world and has only one
user on his home machine.

>> Feel free to wall yourselves off from the rest of us.  I see this
>> attitude mostly among people who do not directly acquire their own net
>> connection, but get it from their employer or university.

> Red herring, and I resent the insinuation.

You get your mail thru Washington.edu, your employer. Resent away.

> My email address at washington.edu is not spam-blocked in any way.  As
> a result the Washington State taxpayer is paying a growing portion of
> my salary to delete spam.  A year ago, less than half of my mail was
> spam.  Spam now outnumbers legitimate mail by 20 to 1.

Spam is a problem. Advocating blocking all sites based on some
arbitrary string in their reverse DNS will not stop spam.  It will
stop legitimate mail from reaching you.  It has been mentioned that
you support an open-source product.  How do you get mail from your
users if you arbitrarily block mail?  I'm interested.  I also support
an open-source piece of code.

> The spam blocks are on my privately-owned home computer.  I paid for
> the computer with my private funds.  I paid for the DSL modem with my
> private funds.  I pay for the DSL charges with my private funds.  I
> pay for the ISP charges with my private funds.  I selected that ISP
> because they had the product that I wanted to buy.

But you don't pay for your mail transmission with your own funds.  You
stated that the State of Washington is paying an ever increasing bill
on your behalf to handle your mail.

> You also have a completely false notion about the people who block
> spam at the SMTP level.

Probably, enlighten me. Remember, I'm one of those people who block
spam at the SMTP level.

> People who get their IP connectivity from their employer or university
> (which I am *NOT*) have the advantages of gigapop access with
> essentially unlimited bandwidth.  In fact, it's the damn university
> policy of "no censorship" based upon this extreme bandwidth that has
> caused the 20 to 1 spam/useful content in my mailbox.  Finally, they
> are getting the message and are moving to offer spam filtering.

Since you're a University employee, but not an academic, you could add
filters on their machines before the mail is sent to your home
machine.

> People like me, who pay for a DSL line to a small ISP, see bandwidth
> (which we *pay* for) being eaten up by spam and virus attempts.
> Blocking at the SMTP level reduces the bandwidth consumption since the
> payload never gets transmitted.

You're not alone.  A lot of us pay for bandwidth including mail
transmission.  No one has said you shouldn't block spam. We're trying
to understand how bricking up your front door will prevent future
spam.

>> As an academic he does not seem to fully understand the business
>> issues concerning Mom and Pop DSL providers.

> Another red herring.
> I work at a university, but I am not an academic.

Let me rephrase.  As an employee of a University, he does not seem to
fully understand the business issues concerning Mom and Pop DSL
providers.  If you think you do, feel free to set up one of those Mom
and Pop DSL providers in this area.  We'll pay you at most $80/mo.
Good Luck.

> The university does not provide me with IP service at home.
> I provide my IP service at home, by paying Qwest for the DSL line and
> paying a "Mom and Pop DSL provider"  (your words) to route my packets.

> I am sorry that you had such an unpleasant experience in school that your
> thinking has become so muddled.

School? Can't remember that far back.  Muddled Thinking? Old age
strikes again.

> -- Mark --

johna

This would be much better transmitted via email.

 "To announce that there must be no criticism of the president, or that
 we are to stand by the president right or wrong, is not only unpatriotic
 and servile, but is morally treasonable to the American public."
 ---Theodore Roosevelt  (editorial in the Kansas City Star   May 7, 1918)

[TELECOM Digest Editor's Note: Umm yes! This whole thread would be
better off transmitted in personal email between interested parties.
I remember when I said something similar back about 1990 when
caller-id  was making a big fuss here. (Remember those days, guys?)
Anyway, when I suggested it then about caller-id  the end result
was formation of Comp-Priv, a digest which had a five or six year
lifespan. Maybe the professor up in Milwaukee is still running it.
PAT]

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

Subject: Re: Squirrels
Organization: Not Much
From: bonomi@c-ns (Robert Bonomi)
Date: Thu, 17 Oct 2002 09:24:34 GMT


In article , Dave Garland
 wrote:

> It was a dark and stormy night when Howard S Wharton
>  wrote:

>> They also love cable TV lines. 

> And other similar things.  Twice this summer I've been jolted by the
> sound of a nearby explosion (louder than a gunshot), accompanied by my
> UPS alarms going off.  In both cases, the explodee was a squirrel who
> had stepped (or chewed) on the wrong place on the pole transformer
> outside my house, and killed not only himself but power to my end of
> the block.

The local University campus has a major power failure every couple of
years when squirrels get into one of the main underground feeder
vaults and make too much of a meal on the insulation.  Sounds like a
*big* gun going off.  and half-a-mile or so of campus goes dark.
They've got two separate feeds into campus, at opposite ends, so it
doesn't take terribly long to switch 'necessary' affected buildings to
the other feed.  Fixing the damaged wiring is another story -- they
_never_ nibble on an easy-to-access part.  'Rodent' does make a good
enough conductor, when subjected to several KV at several hundred
amps, that there is little left but a grease spot.  Unfortunately, it
_is_ an "explosive" clearing of the short, and the shockwave tends to
damage surrounding materials as well.  Repair crew working on site for
6-8 hours is not unusual.  On one occasion things were two days in the
rebuilding.

In article , Wes Leatherock
 wrote:

> On Mon, 14 Oct 2002 10:44:29 +0100 Alan Burkitt-Gray
> ABurkitt@EUROMONEYPLC.COM> wrote:

> Gail M. Hall  wrote: 

>>> Since squirrels seem to like vinyl and whatever else they make phone
>>> lines and cables out of, it would help if scientists could investigate
>>> to see what would make squirrels avoid them.

>> So do other rodents. My son has a pair of chinchillas, which love to
>> nibble black plastic watch straps. We have to ensure they keep well
>> clear of electric wiring.

> TV news reported that a squirrel today knocked out electric 
> service to 17,000 Washington, D.C., area customers. 

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

> [TELECOM Digest Editor's Note: Yeah, they did; after first
> contemplating that it might have been the work of a 'terrorist'.
> Imagine, a squirrel as a terrorist!  The little creatures have
> never been accused of that before.  PAT]

They _have_ been, on the Northwestern University campus !   circa 1980.

No, I'm not kidding, 

It seems that a bicyclist had been making a practice of bringing,
_daily_, bags of peanuts, to feed the squirrels.  Would stop her bike,
here and there on campus, and toss peanuts to the _large_ squirril
population.  They got "trained", and would come a running when they
saw her ride up and stop.  Braver ones took to climbing up on the bike
-- like up the front wheel to the handle-bar yoke.  And would take the
peanuts directly from her hand.

All "well-and-good", until the new crop of freshmen showed up that
fall.  Somebody stopped their bike in the 'right' wrong place,
*without* any peanuts, and got "attacked" by the squirrels.  Between
20 and 30 of them.  No injuries -- the livestock all departed
immediately at the peircing scream.  :) There was _quite_ a story,
front-page, on the campus newspaper, the next day.  Subsequent years,
the new student handbook *did* carry a "cautionary note" about the
squirrels.


[TELECOM Digest Editor's Note: Well, speaking of terrorists and the
tiny creatures of our world, old time readers (that makes me feel old
phrasing it like that!) may recall when I lived and worked in Skokie,
IL for a few years back in the 1990's. I was employed as the bus agent
at Skokie Greyhound. There was an *absolutely horrible* problem with
pigeons and squirrels there. All the little guys were very brazen
about coming to look for their dinner (and breakfast) each day,
grabbing things from the pedestrians and bus passengers. If you had a
bag of popcorn, they would jump on your arm and eat from the bag. The
Village of Skokie first responded with a couple of signs (which the
ceatures could not read; but the bus passengers could) which said
rather bluntly "ground feeding of animals is not permitted. Violators
are fined."  Those signs did very little good, and in fact the signs
were defaced by disobedient, rebellious bus passengers who scribbled
obscenities on them, tore them down, etc.

The Village's next idea was to turn loose a couple of falcons which
built a nest on the roof and periodically would swoop down with their
wings and claws outstretched, looking for *their dinner*. I would see
the falcons acting like they were paying no attention, then suddenly
one of them would at a high speed fly down to the sidewalk and its
claws would grab a screaming, terrified pigeon and carry it away. They
were not quite as successful with squirrels however. A few of each
species would get run over and squashed flat by busses each day and of
the ones left who were too dumb to know better than stand in the
street to peck at food people tossed to them (a hundred percent of the
survivors), a good percentage were caught in traps that the Village
left there for them, baited with their favorite foods, popcorn, bread,
etc. Every day or two the village came out and took away the traps
with the creatures, and left new fresh traps there for others. 

A little boy about four years old was there with his mother one day to
get the bus and he saw the village workers come to haul away the full
traps. The little guy was going to open the traps and let the
squirrels and pigeons out; the village worker yelled at him and said
'get away from those nasty things.' The kid says, 'what are you gonna
do with them?'  The village guy told him, 'we are going to gas them,
put them to sleep!' The poor little guy had big tears well up in his
eyes and he went running to his mother crying.  After they loaded the
full traps on the back of their truck, the guy took a scoop shovel in 
the the bus driveway and scooped up the remains of (what appeared to
have been) a squirrel who had had the misfortune to be getting his
dinner out of the driveway when the southbound bus for Chicago had
pulled in earlier.    PAT]

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

From: tom_5pam@gmx.ch (Thomas Renner)
Subject: SIT Detection on H.323
Date: 17 Oct 2002 09:03:54 -0700
Organization: http://groups.google.com/


Hi,

Someone knows how SIT tones are transmitted over H.323 networks?

Thomas

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

From: joe@obilivan.net
Subject: Re: Phone Directory Pictures
Date: Thu, 17 Oct 2002 18:35:40 GMT
Organization: Cox Communications



Mark Roberts wrote:

> I finally managed to get some of the pages up: the cover and first
> three pages of the 1972 Centerville, Iowa telephone directory.

> Drumroll please ....

>    

I just get a blank yellow page.

[TELECOM Digest Editor's Note:  Mark, can you fix that please?    PAT]

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

From: rosalind.agee@publicisgroupe.com
Subject: Leasing a PBX
Date: 17 Oct 2002 12:48:12 -0700
Organization: http://groups.google.com/


Has anyone heard of anyone leasing a PBX for a large enterprise
(approx 3300 phones)?  I'm trying to get a feel for PBX leasing in the
market place.  Any expience or knowledge in this area is helpful.


Thanks.

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

From: jbc 
Subject: Creation of a Traced GSM Phones File in France
Date: Thu, 17 Oct 2002 08:21:25 +0200
Organization: Chrystol, B.P. 59, 93402 Saint-Ouen Cedex, France


Bonjour,

Orange, SFR (Group Cegetel) and Bouygue Telecom try to have a new
commun idea for all GSM-portable phones that will be declared stollen
at the French policy desks. With the IMEI code, a new file will be
created beginning November 2002 and the policy department will send
some SMS: "this portable phone is traced by the policy. Don't use it!"

Do you have some experience like this one in Europe or worldwide?

Only one file of the no-paid GSM's abonnements will be created some
time ago with name PREVENTEL.


Regards,

Jean-Bernard Condat
CHRYSTOL
B.P. 59, 93402 Saint-Ouen Cedex, France
condat@chrystol.com
fax: +33153013874

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

Date: Thu, 17 Oct 2002 09:51:30 -0500
From: byeman@gmx.net
Reply-To: byeman@gmx.net
Subject: Does Slamming Work?
Organization: Nyx, the Spirit of the Night (www.nyx.net)


Last June my local phone service was slammed.  The company that did it
had been fined twice by the state of Texas (one of them was very
recent).  I heard on the news last night the same company is under
investigation for slamming.  In the end do they make enough money so
that the fines and ill-will they generate can be swept under the rug?

Here's what happened.  Right about this time four months ago I
discovered none of my phone features were working.  I called
Southwestern Bell and learned I was no longer with them.  I called
company "X" and they said yes, I was now with them.  Prior to this,
company "X" was my long distance provider.  I told them I wasn't happy
about the switch and that I would be dropping all service with them.
They promised to "investigate".  I called Southwestern Bell and was
reconnected.  The agent told me 85% of people who leave SWB leave
without their knowledge.

All was well until the end of July when I got a past-due notice from
"X".  I called and said I wasn't paying because I was slammed.  She
first denied she knew what the term "slamming" meant and asked me to
explain.  I told her and she said "X" doesn't do that.  I pointed out
Texas had fined them twice recently for this practice.  I never
resolved anything and we hung up with them still expecting payment.  I
sent a letter to them explaining what had happened and why I wouldn't
be paying their bill.  In the meantime I got my SWB bill with a large
reconnect charge.

At the end of July I got a second past due notice, this time with new
charges.  I was with them about a week, yet they were continuing to
bill me close to $50/month for plain ole, no frills telephone service.
I called again and got nowhere.  I then filed a formal complaint with
the Texas Public Utility Commission.

At the end of August a collection agency started calling and mailing
me notices.  I called the PUC.  The company had 21 days to respond to
the charges and they failed to do so.  An investigator was being
assigned to the case.  I called "X" back and after being transfered
about 4 or 5 times got someone who actually seemed to give a flip.  At
first she took the same attitude that I had to pay the charges.  She
then said, "Oh, wait a minute" and put me on hold for about five
minutes.  When she came back it might as well have been a new person.
She couldn't apologize enough, offered to refund me the charge SWB
levied to reconnect me, etc.

It's been about a month since my last "bill" from "X".  So far I have
not received the check for my SWB expenses.  They still haven't
responded to the state PUC.  And now the news is reporting they're
under investigation again.

What I can't figure from all of this is, does crime really pay?  Why
would a nationally known telephone company systematically slam people,
charge them outrageous rates, charge them for service they aren't
providing, then send collection agencies after their unwilling
customers.  If it was profitable, they wouldn't do it, right?


[TELECOM Digest Editor's Note: Most PUC's and state commissions in 
charge of phone service are worse than squirrels when it comes to
eating out of the hands of their keepers. They seem to know very
little about life and the telcos, and do whatever the telcos tell them
to do. Most telcos have a service representative (actually a highly
placed flunky) in charge of receiving/investigating 'commission 
complaints'. The service rep is told by the company, 'whatever you
say or do, get the commission off our case'. So the rep hastens to
assure the commission 'the customer's complaint is being handled.'
Then the commission reports back to the customer 'we told the telco
and got them to work on your problem, and all is well ... all is
well.'  That, to the commission, resolves the problem. Did you ever
wonder when waiting on hold for a service rep at the phone company
about the pecking order?  First come the commission complaints, second
come the management complaints (persons who are friends of a telco
executive and have gone to him directly), then finally, as time 
permits, calls from the public.  PAT]

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

TELECOM Digest is an electronic journal devoted mostly but not
exclusively to telecommunications topics. It is circulated anywhere
there is email, in addition to various telecom forums on a variety of
networks such as Compuserve and America On Line, 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: 620-870-9697
                        Fax 1: 775-255-9970
                        Fax 2: 775-306-8390
                        Fax 3: 775-642-0603
                        Fax 4: 530-309-7234
                        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 second 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)

Email <==> FTP:  telecom-archives@telecom-digest.org 

      Send a simple, one line note to that automated address for
      a help file on how to use the automatic retrieval system
      for archives files. You can get desired files in email.

*************************************************************************
*   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.
Access to Premium (P) links requires upgrade to a paid subscription.

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

Only subscribers or registered users of ICB Toll Free News web site
will be able to access all or some of the full text of URLs provided.

LEGAL STUFF: TELECOM Digest (sm) is owned by Patrick Townson.
Copyright 2000 ICB, Inc. and TELECOM Digest. All rights reserved.
Our attorney is Bill Levant, of Blue Bell, PA.

   ---------------------------------------------------------------
    
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 twenty 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 V22 #85
*****************************
    
From editor@telecom-digest.org Fri Oct 18 01:27:08 2002
Received: from localhost (localhost [[UNIX: localhost]])
	by massis.lcs.mit.edu (8.11.3nb1/8.11.3) id g9I5R8W21246;
	Fri, 18 Oct 2002 01:27:08 -0400 (EDT)
Date: Fri, 18 Oct 2002 01:27:08 -0400 (EDT)
From: editor@telecom-digest.org
Message-Id: <200210180527.g9I5R8W21246@massis.lcs.mit.edu>
X-Authentication-Warning: massis.lcs.mit.edu: ptownson set sender to editor@telecom-digest.org using -f
To: ptownson
Approved: patsnewlist
Subject: TELECOM Digest V22 #86

TELECOM Digest     Fri, 18 Oct 2002 01:26:00 EDT    Volume 22 : Issue 86

Inside This Issue:                            Editor: Patrick A. Townson

    Re: Balkanization (Steven J. Sobol)
    Re: Filtering (Mark Crispin)
    Re: Filtering (The Poster)
    Re: AntiSpam Screening Algorithm (Robert Bonomi)
    Email Terrorism (Joey Lindstrom)
    GPRS PBBCH (Keval)
    Re: Squirrels (or Some Rodent) (Neal McLain)
    Re: Squirrels (Jim Hopkins)
    Re: Leasing a PBX (Chip G)
    News Headlines of Interest  10/18/02 (Monty Solomon)
    Is there a Telephone Industry Magazine? (Danny Ocean)
    Wierd Voicemail Message (John A. Weeks III)

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. WE DO NOT PERMIT NAME/EMAIL ADDRESS
HARVESTING FROM THIS JOURNAL. 'SALTED' EMAIL ADDRESSES APPEAR
HEREIN TO VERIFY THIS. YOU GET SUED IN SMALL CLAIMS COURT IF YOU
GET CAUGHT SPAMMING OR SENDING VIRUSES. DON'T DO IT.

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

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

From: sjsobol@JustThe.net (Steven J. Sobol)
Subject: Re: Balkanization
Date: Thu, 17 Oct 2002 16:28:21 -0000
Organization: JustThe.net LLC


Joey Lindstrom :

> when Mark (or anyone, including me) comes into this public forum and
> tells us all how he runs his server, the implication -- whether
> intended or not -- is that he is recommending that others follow in
> his footsteps (else why bother telling us?)  And when he's advocating
> such draconian measures, we do have a right to call him on it. 

Noted and agreed.

> Bear in mind also that Mark's system is "private".  I don't know how
> many users he's got there but he led me to believe that the number was
> very small.  I have a reasonable number of users here - 214 as of
> yesterday.  Many people here administrate MUCH larger systems.  Is
> Mark's suggested course of action appropriate for those who admin
> larger systems, with a userbase that demands as much flexibility as
> possible?  Of course not.

Right, I don't think it scales either.

>> Well, yeah, that's the thing. It is his right, and I can see a
>> certain level of justification in doing so, and I definitely can
>> understand why someone might want to block mail from IPs with screwy
>> DNS.

> "Screwy DNS"?  Please explain this one to me.  There's nothing
> "screwy" about my DNS.  My ISP has put into place a set of consistent,
> easy-to-manage reverse lookup names and I really don't see the need to
> press the issue with them.

I only block against mail using non-registered and/or non-resolvable
domains in the envelope, as far as DNS goes (at this particular
moment).

I guess DNS that doesn't resolve the same way both backwards and
forwards could qualify too, though there are many legitimate cases
where you might have a situation like that.

>> approach being discussed is necessarily too heavy-handed for some
>> people (though it might not work for me as a commercial e-mail service
>> provider).

> Then you should be arguing on our side.  :-)

I think I misunderstood the initial argument.


Steve Sobol, CTO  JustThe.net LLC, Mentor On The Lake, OH
http://JustTheNetLLC.com/ http://JustThe.net/ 888.480.4NET (4638)
Verizon Nokia 3285 for sale; six months old, runs perfectly. Also
should work fine on Alltel. Lots of goodies for $100 obo-e-mail for details.

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

From: Mark Crispin 
Subject: Re: Filtering
Date: Wed, 16 Oct 2002 23:44:19 -0700
Organization: Networks and Distributed Computing


On Wed, 16 Oct 2002, Mark Crispin wrote:

> It is going to get around eventually -- sooner or later, and
> probably sooner -- that no one will be able to get email from anyone
> else, and the Balkanization of the net will indeed be underway. You
> heard it here first. Call me a prophet if you wish, or a crackpot, I
> don't care.  PAT]

You're not a crackpot, Pat; but you aren't completely accurate as a
prophet either.

People will be still able to communicate with their selected
correspondents.  What won't work is unsolicited communication from sites
without accountability.

The same core of sites which were on the Internet in the 1970s and
1980s will continue to communicate with each other unimpeded.  It's
the newcomers who won't get with the program who will find themselves
shut out.


 -- Mark --

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

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

From: The Poster 
Subject: Re: Filtering
Date: Thu, 17 Oct 2002 09:58:29 -0500


Just installed TMDA (Tagged Mail Distribution Agent) on my mail server
last week and it has close to 100% hit rate -- I have received ONE spam
message since last week where I usually get 50 or more per day.

Mark Crispin  wrote in message
news:telecom22.83.7@telecom-digest.org:

> On Tue, 15 Oct 2002, John Higdon wrote:

>> "One single spam?" Every day I open up to find approximately forty
>> to fifty spams in my email box. Occasionally, there is not one
>> message among them that is legitimate.  Some of us are not dealing
>> with "one single spam".

> This morning was a good one.  Out of 105 new messages at work, a mere
> 77 were spam.  I haven't seen a 3 to 1 spam/legitimate ratio in a
> while.  Then again, there was an extended thread regarding a document
> that I am assisting on, so that boosted the signal.

> Meanwhile, my home computer blocked 214 spams since midnight, but
> allowed one to leak through.  The spammer who used that trick to get
> around my blocks will have to use something else now, since that one
> won't work any more.

>  -- Mark --

> http://staff.washington.edu/mrc
> Science does not emerge from voting, party politics, or public debate.

> [TELECOM Digest Editor's Note: Your ratio of spam to good stuff, if
> it is a typical, average day, is about the same as mine. Thank goodness
> LCS-MIT has started working along with me on this; there has been a
> noticeable decrease in the amount of spam in recent days. All kinds of
> spam is getting turned around by the mail server, I am no longer
> seeing  it. That which I *do* see, 'only' 30-40 pieces per day are
> treated to SpamAssassin once they get through. I understand (please,
> Noah, Mary Ann, correct me as needed) the *b-i-g* humongous things
> of more than 50 K in size are being turned around direct at the mail
> server are they not?  Mostly those were viruses. Back earlier this
> summer, it was really wild around here, with me shoveling them out as
> fast as I could.

> And didn't I say recently the 'death of the net' would come from the
> gross misuse/abuse of email and people eventually getting a belly full
> of it and deciding they were no longer going to bother attempting to
> outwit the spammers. The spammers have accomplished one thing: They
> have succeeded in getting *all of us* to squabble and quarrel among
> ourselves about the best way to get rid of them. And the more naive
> and impressionable among our readers will say 'well, Mark says that's
> the way he does it', so they try that idea. Then they read later about
> John Higdon or Joey Lindstrom using other techniques and they try
> that instead. Either way, they wind up losing valuable mail which does
> not get through  :(   ... and they get discouraged by that. I sincerely
> wish -- and I say this equally to Mark, John, Joey and the other
> reasonably intelligent users here talking about outwitting spammers --
> that you would realize MOST netters haven't got the vaguest idea what
> works and what won't work. It is going to get around eventually --
> sooner or later, and probably sooner -- that no one will be able to
> get email from anyone else, and the Balkanization of the net will
> indeed be underway. You heard it here first. Call me a prophet if you
> wish, or a crackpot, I don't care.    PAT]

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

Subject: Re: AntiSpam Screening Algorithm
Organization: Not Much
From: bonomi@c-ns (Robert Bonomi)
Date: Thu, 17 Oct 2002 09:07:28 GMT


In article , Wes Leatherock
 wrote:

> Pat wrote:

>> [TELECOM Digest Editor's Note: That's why most large telemarketers
>> located themselves in Iowa, Missouri or Kansas. All they want for
>> workers are people with very plain, bland middle America voices.
>> No 'black' accents; some people hate Negroes. No 'southern' accents;
>> some people might be prejudiced against that. No 'eastern' accents, for
>> example people from Massachusetts or Maine; some people don't like
>> that either. If you have a bland 'middle-America' accent, then the
>> telemarketer doesn't have to repeat him/herself over and over; they
>> can make their pitch in a hurry. Besides which, years ago, being 
>> located in Omaha, Nebraska got them very cheap rates for WATS
>> lines. PAT]

>     We have plenty of them in Oklahoma, too, for both of the reasons
> you mention.

>     The "accent" you speak of, or some call it "accentless," is also
> "Broadcast English," the accent, or lack thereof, that is more or less
> at the midpoint of the various speech patterns common in the U.S.A.

>     St. Louis is more or less an exception, but otherwise the band
> where that speech pattern is usual extends into most parts of Illinois
> and Indiana.  The Dictionary of American Regional English, and many
> other works on speech in the U.S.A., have maps which generally are
> pretty well in agreement as to the area in which this speech pattern
> is the dominant native speech.

>      As to WATS rates being a major factor, remember that rates were
> mileage based in the early days of WATS, and so a location midway
> between coasts was the most cost effective.  Not only Omaha, but
> everywhere in Nebraska, Kansas and Oklahoma had this cost advantage,
> which among other things is why the Hertz and Avis call reservations
> centers are in Oklahoma, and National not too far from the middle part
> of the country in Minneapolis.

Omaha is, =historically=, a special case. This becomes 'painfully
obvious' when you compare the number of call-centers in metro Omaha
with say, Lincoln, NE (less than 90 miles away), Des Moines, IA,
(roughly 130 miles away), or Kansas City, Mo, Wichita, KS, Souix City
IA, etc.

The 'accents' are indistinguishable.  The 'cost of living' is
comparable.  The available labor pool is comparable, or larger.  Thus
labor costs are not particularly preferable in Omaha.  Nor is
real-estate.

So, what's the explanation?  It *was* the cost of phone service.  And
there is a reason why Omaha 'wins' in that area.

A (*WILDLY* so, for the population size) disproportionate amount of
long- distance trunk service exists there.  Infrastructure that was
put in place for 'at time of need' use by a government facility
located approximately 13 miles south of downtown Omaha, along the
river.  What was known, then, as the Strategic Air Command
headquarters, at Offutt AFB, in Bellvue, NE.  (Note: "SAC" is no more,
it was replaced by "StratCom" (simply the 'Strategic Command'),
several years ago.  And, incidentally, "looking glass" is no longer
always airborne -- it now spends most of its time on the ground,
albeit ready for take-off on short notice.)

With all that 'reserve capacity' sitting there -- i.e., with the
physical plant _already_built_ -- AT&T Long Lines had motivation to
promote 'non- emergency' use of those resources.  And did so, by
offering cheaper 'bulk' rates for people who located call centers
there.  I believe that many of those contracts for dedicated
IN-/OUT-WATS expressly specified that the service *was* 'pre-emptable'
in the event that 'priority' users had need of the resources.  The
identity of said 'priority' user(s) was not specified, although it was
no real secret.

WATS was, as pointed out, "sort-of" mileage based.  Just to add
complexity to the mix, charges were, however "not necessarily" *time*
based.  There were 'metered' lines, where costs were figured 'per
minute' of use, and you paid extra if you went over the 'bundled'
minute-count.  There were also *unmetered* lines, which were
flat-rate, regardless of usage.  *Dim* memories say an un-metered line
was priced at the equivalent of about 550 hours of use per month.  Big
call-centers would have 'mostly' un-metered lines, along with a
handful of low-minutes metered lines (for 'peak' load handling).
Telecomm management was not only juggling how many lines for which
'bands', but also metered vs. un-metered, and what level of 'bundled'
minutes on the metered lines, in their efforts to mimimize costs.

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

From: Joey Lindstrom 
Date: Thu, 17 Oct 2002 09:23:52 -0600
Subject: Email Terrorism
Reply-To: joey@lairdsflooring.com


On Thu, 17 Oct 2002 00:51:13 -0400 (EDT), johna wrote:

> Of course I understand how to block spam.  I use firewalling,
> whitelists, blacklists and a modified SpamAssassin on my incoming port
> 25.  About people who only use whitelists, I have a related story.
> There is this group of people who only speak to others of their
> religion.  In the summer of 2001 four foreigners rent apartments in
> their community.  The name of the community is 'The Hamlet' in Delray
> Beach, Florida.  You can guess the rest.  If you can't, the four
> foreigners were part of the 9/11/2001 event.

I know we're supposed to be on the same side in this argument (grin!),
but this is a completely unfair attack on Mark.  The events of 9/11
cannot in any way be attributed to the pre-existing residents of
Delray Beach.  It was the four terrorists, who went to great pains to
disguise their activities, that caused this attack to take place.
Would you have preferred that the people of Delray Beach have come
from the 1950's, and insisted on knowing the intimate details of every
person's lives in their community?  We all have a right to privacy:
white, dark, man, woman, spammer or spamfighter.

By your analogy, you are painting Mark as some sort of "terrorist" and
he should feel quite offended at that.  Furthermore, you're implying
that we should be nosier, and should pry into his affairs, to make
sure he isn't up to something.  Not only should Mark take offense with
that, so should all of us.

(Don't get me wrong - I'm not a politically correct type who deems
certain topics off-limits no matter what.  As George Carlin says, you
can joke about ANYTHING, it just depends what the exaggeration is.
The problem here is that your analogy fails on its merits.)


Joey Lindstrom - Laird's Flooring
joey@lairdsflooring.com

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

From: keval@xtra.co.nz (Keval)
Subject: GPRS PBBCH
Date: 17 Oct 2002 18:12:41 -0700
Organization: http://groups.google.com/


Does anyone have any info on the deployment of the pbcch on GPRS?
Basics such as what, why, when and how?

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

Date: Thu, 17 Oct 2002 20:49:28 -0500
From: Neal McLain 
Reply-To: nmclain@annsgarden.com
Organization: Ann's Garden
Subject: Re: Squirrels (or some rodent)


A picture of a cable TV feeder cable damaged by squirrels
(or some rodent with sharp teeth) is posted at:
.

These cable samples were removed from a damaged feeder line in
Merrill, Wisconsin when the local cable system was rebuilt back in
1981 or 82.  This is (or was) type 500 coaxial cable, sheathed with
solid aluminum, but without any external jacket.  Apparently, the
squirrels even like aluminum.


Neal McLain
nmclain@annsgarden.com

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

From: Jim Hopkins 
Subject: Re: Squirrels
Reply-To: bwanajim@swbell.net
Organization: Prodigy Internet http://www.prodigy.com
Date: Thu, 17 Oct 2002 23:21:06 GMT


I haven't seen any mention of it yet in this thread, but the phone
companies, at least here in Oklahoma, have a tough plastic shield that
they can tie over aerial cables with zip ties. I think it may be
called 'Squirrel Guard' but don't quote me. Another thing I've seen
done here is to wrap a 4-5 foor piece of hard black plastic around the
pole about 3/4 of the way up, the idea being that the squirrel can't
climb past it. That idea, however, doesn't work.


Jim Hopkins     
"A man's got to know his limitations." - Dirty Harry

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

From: Chip G 
Subject: Re: Leasing a PBX
Organization: AT&T Broadband
Date: Fri, 18 Oct 2002 04:14:18 GMT


Sure. Avaya and Alcatel systems are leased almost all the time. I am
sure others are as well.

 wrote in message
news:telecom22.85.8@telecom-digest.org:

> Has anyone heard of anyone leasing a PBX for a large enterprise
> (approx 3300 phones)?  I'm trying to get a feel for PBX leasing in the
> market place.  Any expience or knowledge in this area is helpful.

> Thanks.

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

Date: Fri, 18 Oct 2002 00:09:28 -0400
From: Monty Solomon 
Subject: News Headlines of Interest  10/17.02


     Nokia Sales Return to Growth With Strong Profitability
     - Oct 17, 2002 05:42 AM (BusinessWire)

HELSINKI, Finland--(BUSINESS WIRE)--Oct. 17, 2002--Nokia (NYSE:NOK)-- 

    Third-quarter 2002 (IAS) compared with third-quarter 2001: 

    --  Net sales increased 2% to EUR 7 224 million (EUR 7 050 million
        in 3Q 2001).

    --  Pro forma operating profit increased by 14% to EUR 1 219
        million (EUR 1 071 million); pro forma operating margin
        increased to 16.9% (15.2%).

    --  Reported operating profit increased to EUR 859 million (EUR
        284 million); reported operating margin increased to 11.9%
        (4.0%).

    --  Pro forma adjustments: a one-time charge of EUR 306 million
        related to outstanding long-term financing to MobilCom and EUR
        54 million in goodwill amortization.

    --  Pro forma earnings per share (diluted) increased to EUR 0.18
        (EUR 0.16).

    --  Reported net profit increased to EUR 610 million (EUR 186
        million) and reported earnings per share (diluted) increased
        to EUR 0.13 (EUR 0.04).

    --  Operating cash flow in the third quarter was EUR 2.2 billion
        (EUR 1.4 billion).

http://finance.lycos.com/home/news/story.asp?story=29117479


  PalmSource and Sony Ericsson Team for Optimized Bluetooth Interoperability
 Industry Leaders Sign a Memorandum of Understanding to Advance Compatibility
              Of Mobile Communications and Personal Information

    LAS VEGAS, Oct. 17 /PRNewswire-FirstCall/ -- PalmSource, Inc.,
provider of the world's leading operating system for handheld devices,
and Sony Ericsson, a leader in mobile communications products, today
announced their plans surrounding optimization of the Bluetooth
interoperability between Sony Ericsson mobile phones and Palm
Powered(TM) mobile devices. The companies released the news at the
Cellular Telecommunications Internet Association (CTIA) in Las
Vegas. Sony Ericsson is a leading provider of mobile phones enabled
with Bluetooth, a short-range wireless connectivity technology
invented by Ericsson. PalmSource is the Palm OS(R) subsidiary of Palm,
Inc. (NASDAQ:PALM).  

The two companies plan to work closely together to enable
out-of-the-box compatibility between Bluetooth-enabled Sony Ericsson
mobile phones and Palm Powered handhelds. Users of future
Bluetooth-enabled products will be able to more easily access
information, entertainment, and communicate across a wide variety of
devices -- without cumbersome cords and wires. For example, a user
could select a phone number from a Palm Powered handheld device and
have it automatically dialed on the SonyEricsson mobile phone -- via
the Bluetooth wireless technology. Seamless General Packet Radio
Services (GPRS) dial-up will make mobile e-mail and Internet browsing
an unparalleled experience, using services on demand with their PDA,
still having the phone in their pocket or wallet. Thanks to Palm OS's
ease of use, users will get the best benefit of wireless data network
capabilities driving demand for 2.5 and 3G network services. Carriers
will see that as an expanded opportunity to drive Average Revenue Per
User on data services.

     - http://finance.lycos.com/home/news/story.asp?story=29117638


      Verizon Wireless Launches Text Messaging Communities On vtext.com
  Nation's Largest Wireless Provider Drives Text Messaging with Upoc Powered
                               SMS Communities

    NEW YORK, Oct. 17 /PRNewswire/ -- In an agreement with Verizon
Wireless, Upoc announced today the nationwide launch of Verizon
Wireless Communities on vtext.com. Together with Upoc, Verizon
Wireless, the nation's largest wireless service provider and the
leader in mobile data, offers a community platform that allows
customers to exchange text messages with groups of people.  Upoc will
manage the Verizon Wireless communities that include chat rooms,
groups and channels for branded wireless content.

http://finance.lycos.com/home/news/story.asp?story=29119550


 Don't Email the Old Fashioned Way; With Verizon Wireless Business Customers
   Can Use Voice Commands to Access Corporate Email, Make Calls and Access
                            Internet-Based Content

    BEDMINSTER, N.J., Oct. 17 /PRNewswire/ -- Verizon Wireless, the
nation's largest wireless service provider and a leader in mobile
data, today announced the availability of Voice Gear, a new suite of
services that lets subscribers access personal corporate email, make
calls and access news, weather, sports and other content from their
wireless phone using voice commands.  Because Verizon Wireless has the
most expansive nationwide wireless network, access to email using
Voice Gear is now just a phone call away.

    With Voice Gear's Email Reader, subscribers can listen to and
manage corporate email over their Verizon Wireless handset.  While on
the Verizon Wireless national network, subscribers can easily dial
into the service by pressing #VG (#84) on the keypad and saying
"Corporate Access."  Voice Gear then allows subscribers to manage
their email from the phone: listen, reply, compose, forward, delete,
and store emails - just like the keyboard-based capabilities on
Microsoft Outlook or Lotus Notes today. Spontaneous Technology's (ST)
VPN technology enables Voice Gear's corporate access features.  ST
provides easily administered software that allows enterprises to
extend secure access to applications behind the corporate firewall.

http://finance.lycos.com/home/news/story.asp?story=29120275

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

From: vipvideo@onebox.com (Danny Ocean)
Subject: Is there a Telephone Industry Magazine?
Date: 17 Oct 2002 18:25:43 -0700
Organization: http://groups.google.com/


I currently subscribe to Internet Telephony but am wondering if there
are any other monthly magazines that cater to the Telephone industry?


Thanks in advance,

D. Ocean
Miami, FLA

[TELECOM Digest Editor's Note: There is the old *Telephony* Magazine
which used to be headquartered in Chicago for many years but has
moved somewhere else in recent years. Also don't forget Harry Newton
and his *Teleconnect Magazine* which comes from New York City.   PAT] 

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

Subject: Wierd Voicemail Message
Date: Thu, 17 Oct 2002 20:59:09 -0500
From: John A. Weeks III 
Organization: Newave Communications


I have been getting a wierd voice mail message over the past few
weeks.  I have a normal POTS line from Frontier.  I have voicemail for
this line from Frontier.  I have the pager notification feature
enabled.

Every few days, usually just once, but sometimes twice, I get a
voicemail that says "the number you have dialed is no longer in
service".  It is a recording because the message is exactly the same
each time.

Anyone have any idea what this is?

====================================================================
John A. Weeks III            952-432-2708         john@johnweeks.com
Newave Communications                       http://www.johnweeks.com
====================================================================

[TELECOM Digest Editor's Note: You are receiving calls from some
person who does not wish to leave a message and he disconnects the
very instant he hears voicemail come on the line. But it times out
in such a way that before his line disconnects totally (and allows
supervision to drop [and thus the voicemail to stop recording]) it
goes to one of those 'hang up your phone' messages on his end, only
instead of 'hang up your phone' there is some error which instead
keeps your voicemail in listening mode while the incorrect message
about 'the number you dialed is not in service' gets played out
instead of the 'hang up your phone now' message. In any event, the
voicemail is giving you what you are paying for: it listens and 
takes 'messages'; not knowing the difference.

I used to get that same thing on my EAS machine now and then. It
was supposed to be CPC (called party controlled) meaning it would
disconnect when battery on the line went away. But if the caller
chose to disconnect in just the right way at the right time, the
EAS would stay on line and record the several seconds of dead air,
the several more seconds of dial tone, followed by the incessant
'beep beep beep beep' signals of an impatient central office urging
me to hang up my phone.    PAT]

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

TELECOM Digest is an electronic journal devoted mostly but not
exclusively to telecommunications topics. It is circulated anywhere
there is email, in addition to various telecom forums on a variety of
networks such as Compuserve and America On Line, 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: 620-870-9697
                        Fax 1: 775-255-9970
                        Fax 2: 775-306-8390
                        Fax 3: 775-642-0603
                        Fax 4: 530-309-7234
                        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 second 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)

Email <==> FTP:  telecom-archives@telecom-digest.org 

      Send a simple, one line note to that automated address for
      a help file on how to use the automatic retrieval system
      for archives files. You can get desired files in email.

*************************************************************************
*   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.
Access to Premium (P) links requires upgrade to a paid subscription.

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

Only subscribers or registered users of ICB Toll Free News web site
will be able to access all or some of the full text of URLs provided.

LEGAL STUFF: TELECOM Digest (sm) is owned by Patrick Townson.
Copyright 2000 ICB, Inc. and TELECOM Digest. All rights reserved.
Our attorney is Bill Levant, of Blue Bell, PA.

   ---------------------------------------------------------------
    
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 twenty 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 V22 #86
*****************************
    
    
From editor@telecom-digest.org Sat Oct 19 16:24:11 2002
Received: from localhost (localhost [[UNIX: localhost]])
	by massis.lcs.mit.edu (8.11.3nb1/8.11.3) id g9JKOAN00672;
	Sat, 19 Oct 2002 16:24:11 -0400 (EDT)
Date: Sat, 19 Oct 2002 16:24:11 -0400 (EDT)
From: editor@telecom-digest.org
Message-Id: <200210192024.g9JKOAN00672@massis.lcs.mit.edu>
X-Authentication-Warning: massis.lcs.mit.edu: ptownson set sender to editor@telecom-digest.org using -f
To: ptownson
Approved: patsnewlist
Subject: TELECOM Digest V22 #87

TELECOM Digest     Sat, 19 Oct 2002 16:23:00 EDT    Volume 22 : Issue 87

Inside This Issue:                            Editor: Patrick A. Townson

    Re: Filtering (John Higdon)
    Re: Filtering (Gail M. Hall)
    Re: Filtering (Scott Dorsey)
    Toll Interceptor (Restrictor) and Redials With (Anonymous)
    Adding SMS to Web Site USA (Oleg)
    News Headlines of Interest 10/19/02 (Monty Solomon)
    Re: Big Bad DSL (Scott Dorsey)
    Integrated Credit Solutions at it Again (Mark Crispin)
    TVS100 Hard Drive (Philip)
    Re: Squirrels (or Some Rodent) (Dale Farmer)
    New Scam? (Gail M. Hall)
    Is This True on Cisco? (Rich Campbell)
    More on The New Call From Integrated Credit Solutions (Mark Crispin)
    Re: Is there a Telephone Industry Magazine? (John R. Levine)

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. WE DO NOT PERMIT NAME/EMAIL ADDRESS
HARVESTING FROM THIS JOURNAL. 'SALTED' EMAIL ADDRESSES APPEAR
HEREIN TO VERIFY THIS. YOU GET SUED IN SMALL CLAIMS COURT IF YOU
GET CAUGHT SPAMMING OR SENDING VIRUSES. DON'T DO IT.

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

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

From: John Higdon 
Subject: Re: Filtering
Organization: Green Hills and Cows
Date: Thu, 17 Oct 2002 23:55:15 -0700


In article , Mark Crispin
 wrote:

> People will be still able to communicate with their selected
> correspondents.  What won't work is unsolicited communication from sites
> without accountability.

> The same core of sites which were on the Internet in the 1970s and
> 1980s will continue to communicate with each other unimpeded.  It's
> the newcomers who won't get with the program who will find themselves
> shut out.

Right on the money. When my company (and I) got into email in the
1980s, it was to communicate with select people including our clients,
vendors, and developers. The idea of general, "universal" email wasn't
even on the menu in those days. Many sites still communicated via
UUCP, Internet connectivity still being rare among non-governmental
and non-educational institutions.

If worse comes to worst, we could easily go back to that model, only
accepting connections from the handful of sites with whom we actively
trade messages. Yes, that would pretty well kiss off "commerce on the
web", but we lived without it before and we could do it again. The
public at large could schlog around in the email sewer, and the rest
of us who operate our own email facilities will go back to closed,
private email exchange, shutting out the mega-crap that
commercialization of the net has brought us.

I suspect that eventually, the public at large will find 50:1 and
100:1 spam/message ratios to be not worth its time, and universal
email will become extinct.

I see that coming.


John Higdon     | Email Address Valid | SF:  +1 415 428-COWS
+1 408 264 4115 |     Anytown, USA    | FAX: +1 408 264 4407

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

From: Gail M. Hall 
Subject: Re: Filtering
Date: Fri, 18 Oct 2002 21:56:51 -0400
Reply-To: gmhall@apk.net


On Wed, 16 Oct 2002 23:44:19 -0700, in comp.dcom.telecom, (Mark Crispin
) wrote:

> On Wed, 16 Oct 2002, Mark Crispin wrote:

>> It is going to get around eventually -- sooner or later, and
>> probably sooner -- that no one will be able to get email from anyone
>> else, and the Balkanization of the net will indeed be underway. You
>> heard it here first. Call me a prophet if you wish, or a crackpot, I
>> don't care.  PAT]

> You're not a crackpot, Pat; but you aren't completely accurate as a
> prophet either.

> People will be still able to communicate with their selected
> correspondents.  What won't work is unsolicited communication from sites
> without accountability.

I can certainly understand a company wanting to restrict e-mail for
employees in and out of the company's equipment or service.  I'm
surprised they haven't done it sooner.  I have heard of people surfing
the net for their own pleasure while at work, subscribing to mailing
lists such as joke lists from their work address, etc., using their
employer's equipment and their company e-mail addresses.

Many, many companies restrict employees' use of their office phones
and require them to use pay phone for personal calls to places outside
the company's facility.  The companies made those rules because
employees abused their privileges of using phones from work.

I do think it is a good idea to have at least some company phone
numbers that are open to the public so that people can contact
employees in case of emergency.

> The same core of sites which were on the Internet in the 1970s and
> 1980s will continue to communicate with each other unimpeded.  It's
> the newcomers who won't get with the program who will find themselves
> shut out.

Even the universities hate spam!  I'm sure some of their geeks have worked
out some clever filters to keep the spam down to a manageable amount.

I got spam for a bulk mailing service today.  This one didn't have a
toll-free number, though.  The address in the From line was someone at
"pacbell.net" but the one they offered in the message was an address
on Yahoo.com.sg (anyone know what country .sg is?).  Oh, and they said
if that address didn't work to call them.

All the phone numbers were in different area codes, but in this day
and age, you can live next door from someone and have a different area
code.  They gave two fax numbers, one in a/c 630 and the other in a/c
443.  Their voice phone was in a/c 905.

Oddly, even though the lowest price for services they offered was $99,
this spam company didn't provide their company name in any obvious
place or their physical address.  People can pay via PayPal or credit
card.  So they expect customers to pay with credit card of PayPal for
"services" from a company that refuses to give a postal address in
their advertisement.

The message has a form that the customer is supposed to fill out and
fax to them.  No fax machine?  Call them on the phone.  But no way to
mail in your payment.  I guess they don't take checks and they don't
want ordinary people to know where they are located.  You phone
experts probably know how to look up area codes easily, but most of us
don't have that information handy.

I guess it's easier to disconnect a phone than to risk getting the
postal inspectors on their case by giving a real physical address.

I agree with the people who think that filtering on one string in the
address such as "dsl" is not good.  Legitimate customers may have such
an address and not have any choice about having another service.

But I can sympathize with companies who want to limit incoming phone
calls from outside, especially sales calls, and who also want to limit
the e-mail that comes in to the company's computer system.

Many internet providers charge a reasonable enough rate for people to
subscribe on their own such that a company should not feel obligated
to provide total Internet access to all their employees.

I added a new domain to my spam filters today.  In Agent it is:

   Any-Sender: evaluemail.com

They call themselves a permission based email site.  But we all know
what going to their site to unsubscribe really means.  They claim I
signed up for something or other or logged into a site that has
contracted with them.  It's too bad they weren't willing to tell me
WHICH company was partnered with them.  They call themselves E&R
Media.  Most of the places that say you signed into their web site are
out-and-out lying.


Gail in Ohio USA

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

From: kludge@panix.com (Scott Dorsey)
Subject: Re: Filtering
Date: 18 Oct 2002 11:31:50 -0400
Organization: Former users of Netcom shell (1989-2000)


In article , Joey Lindstrom
 wrote:

> And I have to ask the question (of these people): what has gone so
> very wrong in your life that even one single spam is enough to ruin
> your day, make you see red, and contemplate homicide?  I think
> sometimes we all (me included) need to just take a step back, relax,
> and calm down.

It's not a matter of one single spam.  It's a matter of 150 to 200
spam messages a day, a lot of them in Korean, all sent either to my
personal mailbox here or to my old netcom address which forwards here.
Two years ago the volume of spam I received exceeded the volume of
legitimate mail and that was before the Koreans got into the act.

Under these conditions, it is not possible to use email for actual
communication without extreme blocking measures, and I for one do not
find that acceptable.


--scott

"C'est un Nagra.  C'est suisse, et tres, tres precis."

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

From: usenet@post.com (Anonymous)
Subject: Toll interceptor (restrictor) and redials with
Date: 18 Oct 2002 09:48:19 -0700
Organization: http://groups.google.com/


Is there a device on the market where it will intercept a long
distance call i.e. those with a 1, or 011 and then dials a programmed
number (such as a 101xxx, dial around service, etc) then dials the
number that was originally dialed?  ie. I want a device that makes a
LD call transparent, even though I am using a dial around service and
not the LD service that is assigned on that line.

I saw a device at Office Depot that connects between your phone and
the phone line.  It is fixed for a LD company, so you don't have to
change your LD service through the local phone company.

I'd like something similar, but that I can re-program to any dial
around service.


Thanks.

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

From: soleg1234@yahoo.com (Oleg)
Subject: Adding SMS to Web Site USA
Date: 18 Oct 2002 13:30:39 -0700
Organization: http://groups.google.com/


Hello,

   Who in the USA, UK, and Canada sells SMS messaging in bulk for
small/medium sized web sites?  We want to interface with their site,
and allow our users to shoot off SMS messages.  Also, is the USA SMS
integrated enough that a message can be sent to any mobile US phone
with no problem?


Thank you,

Oleg

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

Date: Fri, 18 Oct 2002 01:19:56 -0400
From: Monty Solomon 
Subject: News Headlines of Interest 10/19/02


GAO: Commercial Satellite Security Should Be More Fully Addressed

http://www.gao.gov/new.items/d02781.pdf


     Nortel Networks Reports Results for Third Quarter of 2002
     - Oct 17, 2002 04:10 PM (BusinessWire)
 
TORONTO--(BUSINESS WIRE)--Oct. 17, 2002--Nortel Networks
Corporation (NYSE:NT) (TSX:NT.):

    --  Revenues of US$2.36 billion, down sequentially approximately
        15%

    --  Strong cash performance

    --  Cost structure significantly improved over Q2 2002

    --  Continuing to target profitability by the second quarter of
        2003

    Nortel Networks Corporation (NYSE:NT) (TSX:NT.) today reported
results for the third quarter and the first nine months of 2002
prepared in accordance with United States generally accepted
accounting principles, except as noted with respect to pro forma
results(a).

    Revenues from continuing operations were US$2.36 billion for the
third quarter of 2002 compared to US$3.69 billion in the same period
in 2001. Nortel Networks reported a net loss in the third quarter of
2002 of US$1.80 billion, or US$0.42 per common share, compared to a
net loss of US$3.47 billion, or US$1.08 per common share, in the third
quarter of 2001(b). 

Pro forma net loss from continuing operations(a) for the third quarter
of 2002 was US$420 million, or US$0.10 per common share, compared to
pro forma net loss from continuing operations(a) of US$2.18 billion,
or US$0.68 per common share, in the third quarter of 2001. Included in
the pro forma net loss from continuing operations(a) for the third
quarter of 2002 was an incremental charge of approximately US$120
million for increased provisioning related to trade and customer
financed receivables. Pro forma net loss from continuing operations(a)
for the third quarter of 2002 excluded US$1.38 billion, comprised of:
special charges (US$1.19 billion) primarily related to restructuring
(US$599 million) and a write down of goodwill related to Optical
Networks (US$595 million); certain costs related to acquisitions
(US$60 million); and a net income tax charge (US$125 million).
Consistent with its quarterly review procedures, the company performed
an evaluation of the recoverability of its deferred income tax assets
as at September 30, 2002 and determined that it was appropriate to
recognize certain additional tax valuation allowances of US$450
million (which more than offset the US$325 million income tax benefit
recorded in the third quarter of 2002), resulting in a reported net
income tax charge of US$125 million for the third quarter. The
increase in the valuation allowance was primarily the result of the
uncertainty regarding the timing of a meaningful recovery in the
telecom market.  

The company had a strong cash balance at the end of the third quarter
of 2002 of approximately US$4.59 billion, which included approximately
US$420 million of restricted cash used as cash collateral for certain
customer performance bonds and contracts. In light of the cash
position and anticipated financial performance, the company expects
the US$1.5 billion in credit facilities, that mature mid-December 2002
and which are currently undrawn, will not be amended or extended and
will expire on that date. The company will continue to monitor its
financial position in light of the terms of the remaining syndicated
credit facilities.

    - http://finance.lycos.com/home/news/story.asp?story=29130105

Calling Cell Phones Could Cost More

By BRIAN BERGSTEIN AP Business Writer

NEW YORK (AP) - Here's another reason to check your telephone bill
closely.

A subtle realignment this fall in the nation's inscrutable tangle of
phone systems could cause a surprising increase in what some consumers
pay to call cell phones from traditional landlines.

The change, rooted in the different ways landline and wireless phone
networks are laid out, means some calls to cell phones that were once
considered local now incur higher toll charges.

http://finance.lycos.com/home/news/story.asp?story=29146163


Sprint PCS rolls out new price plans

OVERLAND PARK, Kan., Oct 18 (Reuters) - Sprint PCS Group, the No. 4
U.S. wireless telephone company, on Friday introduced more competitive
price plans in a bid to regain customers after posting its first-ever
subscriber loss.

Sprint PCS shares rose 9.24 percent early on Friday on the New York
Stock Exchange, where it was among the top percentage gainers.

The company said the new calling plans for consumers will range from
$30 to $150 with a one-year contract. Customers will be able to tailor
the plans by adding features for a fee.

Consumers, for example, can sign up for unlimited data access on PCS
Vision, Sprint's new high-speed wireless data network, for $10 a month
after a three-month free trial period.

This is by far the lowest price in the industry for high-speed
data.

http://finance.lycos.com/home/news/story.asp?story=29141229


Panasonic Signs PHILA Accord

By Matt Stump
Multichannel News
10/17/2002 6:00:00 PM

Cable Television Laboratories Inc. announced that Panasonic Consumer
Electronics is the first major television manufacturer to sign a
POD-Host Interface License Agreement (PHILA) with the cable industry.

The deal means Panasonic can build digital televisions for consumers
to directly receive high-definition-TV and digital-cable programming,
without the need for a set-top box.

http://www.tvinsite.com/multichannelnews/index.asp?layout=story&doc_id=105108


October 17, 2002
Panasonic Gets Digital Cable-Ready TV Deal  
By Jon Healey

Panasonic Technologies has struck a deal with the cable industry that
will enable the company to build cable-ready digital TV sets, starting
as early as next year. The agreement, which gives Panasonic a license
to the industry's security technology, is the first to be signed by a
television manufacturer.

http://www.calendarlive.com/tv/cl-fi-rup17.9oct17.story


Ericsson's loss widens
Telecom-gear maker sees slowdown continuing through 2003

By Buster Kantrow
DOW JONES NEWSWIRES

STOCKHOLM, Sweden, Oct. 18 - Telefon AB L.M. Ericsson Friday reported
a wider third-quarter net loss and a 46% decline in orders, signaling
that the mobile telecommunications-equipment market continues to
deteriorate.

        THE WORLD'S LARGEST SUPPLIER of mobile-phone network 
equipment said its net loss totaled five billion Swedish kronor ($532 
million or 542.8 million) for the latest quarter, compared with a net 
loss of 3.96 billion kronor a year earlier.

       Ericsson warned that industry sales of equipment for 
mobile-phone networks would fall around 20% this year and are likely 
to decline further in 2003. It had earlier predicted market demand 
would stabilize next year. Nevertheless, it said it still expects to 
return to profitability sometime next year.

http://www.msnbc.com/news/822781.asp


Copyrights, Wrongs Get a Review 

By Brad King
02:00 AM Oct. 16, 2002 PDT

A controversial portion of digital copyright law will get a public 
airing next month.

Starting Nov. 19, the United States Copyright Office will begin taking
public comments on the section of the Digital Millennium Copyright
Act, known as the DMCA, which prohibits people from breaking
encryption technologies.

When the DMCA was enacted Oct. 28, 1998, a provision was built in that
requires the registrar of copyrights and the assistant secretary for
communications and information to revisit certain aspects of the law
every three years.

On the surface, the law protects music and movie companies from having
their digital files stolen, and pirated. However, consumer advocates,
academics and technologists believe the statute went too far, limiting
a host of research activities and revoking fair-use rights.

The rulemaking is supposed to determine what circumvention activities
are legal. But some say the discussion will have little immediate
impact on what people can do to circumvent digital copyright
protection.

http://www.wired.com/news/digiwood/0,1412,55801,00.html

Cell Phones More Than Just Talk 

By Elisa Batista
02:00 AM Oct. 16, 2002 PDT

Most people use their cell phones to make calls, but soon they will 
send text messages, view work presentations, play games and take 
pictures with them, too.

It's a phenomenon that has taken hold in various countries in Europe 
and Asia, and it's slowly seeping into the United States.

The trickling trend won't be more evident anywhere than at this 
year's Cellular Telecommunications and Internet Association (CTIA) 
trade show in Las Vegas, where approximately 200 wireless companies 
will compete for customers and hawk their wares.

http://www.wired.com/news/business/0,1367,55805,00.html


ACLU Acts Against Patriot Act 

By Julia Scheeres
02:00 PM Oct. 16, 2002 PDT

The American Civil Liberties Union rolled out a national campaign
Wednesday to challenge government anti-terror policies that the group
deems undemocratic.

Dubbed Keep America Safe and Free, the multimillion-dollar effort was
announced by the ACLU at a Washington press conference that
highlighted accounts from several peace activists who claimed they'd
been singled out by authorities because of their political views.

"The Bush administration has presented Americans with a false
dichotomy that we must choose between being safe or free," said ACLU
national spokeswoman Emily Whitfield. "We're saying there doesn't have
to be a choice. We can stay safe and free at the same time."

The ACLU has filed 24 lawsuits for civil liberties violations since
the Sept. 11 attacks, including several for airline passengers who
claim they were kicked off flights or singled out for questioning
because of their dark skin.

http://www.wired.com/news/conflict/0,2100,55838,00.html

Glitches irk online bill payers
Some Internet bank payments are getting lost in cyberspace

By Michelle Higgins
THE WALL STREET JOURNAL

Oct. 17 - When he signed up for service three years ago, Greg Judd
thought paying his bills online would mean no more late payments.
Then last week, a representative from the local water company knocked
on Mr. Judd's door holding a receipt book of missed payments and a
work order to shut off his water. Turns out the company wasn't getting
its money even though Mr. Judd pays the bill online automatically.

http://www.msnbc.com/news/822305.asp


Inmarsat could be put up for sale
A number of bids mulled for satellite company

By Andy Pasztor and Kara Scannell
THE WALL STREET JOURNAL

Oct. 18 - Inmarsat Ventures PLC, the largest provider of
telecommunication services to commercial aircraft, oceangoing vessels
and many other mobile users worldwide, has become the latest satellite
company on the block in the industry's accelerating consolidation
drive, according to people familiar with the matter.

http://www.msnbc.com/news/822780.asp


If I tell you that I'll have to kill you: Red Hat fights the DMCA

By John Lettice
Posted: 10/16/2002 at 04:33 EST

Red Hat has struck a small blow against the DMCA, by publishing a
security patch which can only be explained fully to people who are not
within US jurisdiction. The company's position here seems to be not
altogether voluntary - according to a spokesman "it is bizarre, and
unfortunately something Red Hat cannot easily do much about," but like
it or not Red Hat has been recruited to the campaign to make the DMCA
look ridiculous.

The patch itself is on the Red Hat site, on this page, and the oddity
here can be seen if you go down to the bottom. Under the heading
"references" there is a link to http://www.thefreeworld.net/non-US/.
At this point, those of you reading this while within US jurisdiction
should have a care. We will endeavour to unfold the tale to you
without exposing ourselves to action under the DMCA, but we stress now
that we are not encouraging you to do so, nor is it our intention to
provide you with the tools to do so.

 ...

http://www.theregus.com/content/4/26656.html

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

From: kludge@panix.com (Scott Dorsey)
Subject: Re: Big Bad DSL
Date: 18 Oct 2002 11:27:49 -0400
Organization: Former users of Netcom shell (1989-2000)


In article ,
Joey Lindstrom   wrote:

> On Mon, 14 Oct 2002 19:39:48 -0400 (EDT), Mark Crispin wrote:

>> It sounds to me like you've made a good business case to put in a T1
>> or better to one of the main carriers and start your own ISP.  Clearly
>> there is a demand for such service in your town.

> So you're saying that everybody who is frustrated with their ISP
> should go out and start their own ISP?

Hey, it worked for Sidgemore.

 --scott

"C'est un Nagra.  C'est suisse, et tres, tres precis."

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

From: Mark Crispin 
Subject: Integrated Credit Solutions at it Again
Date: Fri, 18 Oct 2002 13:43:35 -0700
Organization: Networks & Distributed Computing


At 12:56PM PDT today (October 18), my cell phone rings with a strange
caller ID: 727-532-9155.  I answer it am find myself talking with some
sort of automated system which wants me to enter my "menu choice."

I hang up on it and check my records.  Sure enough, that number is
known; it's one of the numbers belonging to well-known sleazy
automated telemarketer Integrated Credit Solutions in Largo Florida, a
non-profit shell company that was set up specifically to evade the
TCPA. They've been harassing people nationwide; their "business" is to
find people who are in over their head with credit problems, and to
offer them "credit counseling"; http://panda.com/telesleaze has more
details and links.

 -- Mark --

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

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

From: Philip 
Subject: TVS100 Hard Drive
Organization: MediaCom High Speed Internet
Date: Fri, 18 Oct 2002 10:38:17 GMT


Can anyone tell me if you can replace the hard drive on a panasonic
TVS100 voice mail system.  If so, what restrictions are there?
Certain brand, speed, size, etc ...

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

From: Dale Farmer 
Subject: Re: Squirrels (or Some Rodent)
Date: Fri, 18 Oct 2002 02:59:58 -0400
Organization: Furry green fuzz in the back of the refrigerator


Neal McLain wrote:

> A picture of a cable TV feeder cable damaged by squirrels
> (or some rodent with sharp teeth) is posted at:
> .

> These cable samples were removed from a damaged feeder line in
> Merrill, Wisconsin when the local cable system was rebuilt back in
> 1981 or 82.  This is (or was) type 500 coaxial cable, sheathed with
> solid aluminum, but without any external jacket.  Apparently, the
> squirrels even like aluminum.

> Neal McLain
> nmclain@annsgarden.com

Rodents have to gnaw at things all their life long.  Their incisors
never stop growing, so they have to have to gnaw at hardish materials
to keep wearing down those teeth.  If they don't, they are unable to
eat because their teeth are in the way, and they drop themselves out
of the gene pool.  Rodents have gnawing programmed into their genes.


    --Dale

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

From: Gail M. Hall 
Subject: New Scam?
Date: Fri, 18 Oct 2002 21:56:53 -0400
Reply-To: gmhall@apk.net


I was watching late-night television and saw an advertisement offering
people the opportunity to get into the business of offering Internet
access sites around the country.  The thing looked something like a
pay telephone but had a screen on it.  They claimed that if you got in
on it now, they could have their choice of locations because locations
everywhere were available.

This sure sounds like a scam to me.  My wireless phone company is
bugging me all the time to start using my cell phone to access the net
or send text messages, etc.  And with more and more people getting
wireless phones these days, who would really use a pay-phone-like
gizmo to access the internet?

I didn't say if they expected these things to use phone lines to
connect or if they were wireless connecting via satellite or a tower
somewhere.

But it sure looked like a new version of the old vending machine
business "opportunities" from a few years ago.  If there were any
vending machines, they didn't work.  The only people to get rich were
the scammers, not the people buying into the "opportunity."

Do you all agree that this is probably a scam?  If so, am I just now
finding out about it? Or is this a new one?


Gail in Ohio USA

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

From: Rich Campbell 
Subject: Is This True on Cisco?
Organization: AT&T Broadband
Date: Sat, 19 Oct 2002 16:09:34 GMT


Hi everyone, 

I need to pick some brains here.  Is it true you cannot do intercom
paging on Cisco phone systems as well as zone paging?  Also, does the
system have multi-line capabilty as well as ring group capability?

Rich

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

From: Mark Crispin 
Subject: More on the New Call From Integrated Credit Solutions
Date: Fri, 18 Oct 2002 22:53:28 -0700
Organization: Networks and Distributed Computing


This is really strange.  My caller ID boxes all show the number
727-532-9155 for that automated call earlier today, which is one of
the numbers used by well-known automated telesleaze operator
Integrated Credit Solutions.  However, for the name, one caller ID box
indicates it as "ANONYMOUS CALL", "PRIVATE" on another, and "PRIVATE
CALL" on a third.

So it was sent as a Caller-ID blocked call, but with the number anyway?

On top of all this, I have Anonymous Call Rejection, so I shouldn't
receive blocked calls at all.

My guess is that ICS has programmed their automated dialer to start
sending "1" to get past caller ID blocks and No Solicitation
announcements.

And, of course, ICS's "vice president and general counsel" William
K. Budd promised in a letter last May that I was added to their on the
Do Not Call list and they wouldn't call me again.

 -- Mark --

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

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

Date: 18 Oct 2002 02:20:31 -0400
From: johnl@iecc.com (John R. Levine)
Subject: Re: Is there a Telephone Industry Magazine?
Organization: I.E.C.C., Trumansburg NY USA


> I currently subscribe to Internet Telephony but am wondering if there
> are any other monthly magazines that cater to the Telephone industry?

America's Network, formerly TE&M.  It's aimed at telco engineering
managers but has a lot of good telco business analyses.  It's free if
you check the right boxes on the subscription card.


http://www.americasnetwork.com/

John R. Levine, IECC, POB 727, Trumansburg NY 14886 +1 607 387 6869
johnl@iecc.com Village Trustee and Sewer Commissioner http://iecc.com/johnl, 
Member, Provisional board, Coalition Against Unsolicited Commercial E-mail

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

TELECOM Digest is an electronic journal devoted mostly but not
exclusively to telecommunications topics. It is circulated anywhere
there is email, in addition to various telecom forums on a variety of
networks such as Compuserve and America On Line, 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: 620-870-9697
                        Fax 1: 775-255-9970
                        Fax 2: 775-306-8390
                        Fax 3: 775-642-0603
                        Fax 4: 530-309-7234
                        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 second 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)

Email <==> FTP:  telecom-archives@telecom-digest.org 

      Send a simple, one line note to that automated address for
      a help file on how to use the automatic retrieval system
      for archives files. You can get desired files in email.

*************************************************************************
*   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.
Access to Premium (P) links requires upgrade to a paid subscription.

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

Only subscribers or registered users of ICB Toll Free News web site
will be able to access all or some of the full text of URLs provided.

LEGAL STUFF: TELECOM Digest (sm) is owned by Patrick Townson.
Copyright 2000 ICB, Inc. and TELECOM Digest. All rights reserved.
Our attorney is Bill Levant, of Blue Bell, PA.

   ---------------------------------------------------------------
    
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 twenty 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 V22 #87
*****************************
    
    
From editor@telecom-digest.org Sat Oct 19 17:00:34 2002
Received: from localhost (localhost [[UNIX: localhost]])
	by massis.lcs.mit.edu (8.11.3nb1/8.11.3) id g9JL0YV01274;
	Sat, 19 Oct 2002 17:00:34 -0400 (EDT)
Date: Sat, 19 Oct 2002 17:00:34 -0400 (EDT)
From: editor@telecom-digest.org
Message-Id: <200210192100.g9JL0YV01274@massis.lcs.mit.edu>
X-Authentication-Warning: massis.lcs.mit.edu: ptownson set sender to editor@telecom-digest.org using -f
To: ptownson
Approved: patsnewlist
Subject: TELECOM Digest V22 #88

TELECOM Digest     Sat, 19 Oct 2002 17:00:00 EDT    Volume 22 : Issue 88

Inside This SPECIAL Issue:                    Editor: Patrick A. Townson

    Towns and Townships - Part 1 of 4 - Civil Townships (Neal McLain)
    Towns and Townships - Part 2 of 4 - Congressional Townships (Neal McLain)

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. WE DO NOT PERMIT NAME/EMAIL ADDRESS
HARVESTING FROM THIS JOURNAL. 'SALTED' EMAIL ADDRESSES APPEAR
HEREIN TO VERIFY THIS. YOU GET SUED IN SMALL CLAIMS COURT IF YOU
GET CAUGHT SPAMMING OR SENDING VIRUSES. DON'T DO IT.

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

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

Date: Thu, 17 Oct 2002 21:18:33 -0500
From: Neal McLain 
Reply-To: nmclain@annsgarden.com
Organization: Ann's Garden
Subject: Towns and Townships - Part 1 of 4


[TELECOM Digest Editor's Note: In the next two issues of the Digest
to be distributed over the weekend, I am presenting a special topic
of interest on the subject of 'Towns and Townships'; a four part essay
written by Neal McLain. The first two parts, on civil and
congressional townships appears here. The final two parts will appear
in the next issue. McLain begins by quoting some text from the Digest
which served as the starting point for his essay. My thanks to Neal
for preparing this report. These two special issues will be filed in
the Telecom Archives in the /reports area.    PAT]


 .        =======================================
 .           TOWNS AND TOWNSHIPS - PART 1 of 4
 .                   CIVIL TOWNSHIPS
 .        =======================================

Wes Leatherock  wrote: 

> Towns, in the sense used in New England, do not seem
> to have any corresponding type of entity in other 
> parts of the country.

Whereupon Mark Roberts  wrote:

> There are townships in some states (Illinois and 
> some Missouri counties for instance) ... the farther
> west you go, though, the less likely you are to find
> governmental townships ...

And Wes responded: 

> There are townships in Oklahoma, but their function
> as governmental entities (mostly dealing with road 
> maintenance, I believe) could be eliminated by a vote
> of the people in that township and indeed every one 
> was eliminated within a relatively short time after 
> statehood in 1907.
>
> They remain as townships in the surveyor's sense 
> (every place surveyed in the standard form customary
> in most of the U.S.A. except the very early states 
> and Texas) have townships six miles on a side, with
> names although the more usual designation nowadays 
> is by range and township (numeric) from the various
> initial points.

There are "governmental townships" (properly called "civil 
townships," but often called "towns") in just about every state in 
the northeast, the Midwest, and the Great Plains.  Depending on 
state policy, their powers vary from non-existent to strong.  At 
one end of the scale, township governments in many Great Plains 
states have very limited powers, or they may not exist at all; 
civil townships without functioning governments are said to be 
"unorganized."  At the other end of the scale, township 
governments in northeastern states and some Midwestern states have 
functioning local governments with broad powers.  In states where 
civil townships exist, they co-exist with incorporated 
municipalities (boroughs, cities, or villages).  The combination 
of civil townships and incorporated municipalities forms a 
continuous web covering the entire state and every county within 
it (as Kirtley Stanfield  pointed out in TD 22:37, 
you can't be just 'in the county' in these states). 

There are "townships in the surveyor's sense" (properly called 
"Congressional townships," but often called "towns") in 30 so-
called "Public-land States."  These are the states that have been 
(mostly) surveyed into a more-or-less regular grid by lines at 
one-mile intervals -- a pattern that stands out clearly from the 
air today in a regular rectangular pattern of fences, treelines, 
and roads.  They are called "Congressional townships" because they 
were created pursuant to an act of the United States Congress: the 
Land Ordinance of 1785.

The states of the United States fall into four categories:

  - STATES WITH CIVIL TOWNSHIPS ONLY.  States that have organized 
civil townships, but do not have Congressional townships, include 
the New England states, New York, Pennsylvania, and New Jersey.  
These states were originally colonies located north of the Mason-
Dixon Line [1] (the Pennsylvania/Maryland state line), or they 
were split off from states that were northern colonies.  This 
category also includes Vermont, which was a sovereign nation 
before it was admitted to the United States.  Since these states 
pre-date the Land Ordinance of 1785, their townships (and 
counties) are often quite irregular in shape.  These townships are 
generally well-known locally, and their governments have elected 
governing boards; levy taxes; own and maintain roads, cemeteries, 
parks, and similar facilities; exercise control over such issues 
as zoning and building inspection; and hold elections.  In three 
New England states (Connecticut, Massachusetts, and Rhode Island), 
county governments don't exist (except as judicial districts), so 
the town[ship]s are the only local-government subdivisions of the 
state.  Many heavily-urbanized townships provide a full range of 
municipal services, and are virtually indistinguishable from 
incorporated cities (e.g. Town of Stoughton, MA; Hamilton 
Township, NJ; Upper Darby Township, PA).

 - STATES WITH CONGRESSIONAL TOWNSHIPS ONLY.  States that have 
Congressional townships, but do not have civil townships, include 
southern and western states from Florida to Arizona, north to 
Montana and Washington, plus Alaska.  In these states, the county 
(or county-equivalent) government is the only form of local 
government outside of incorporated municipalities.  These are 
among the 30 Public-land States that were surveyed into 
Congressional townships, but these townships were never organized 
as civil townships.  The regular rectangular shape of their 
Congressional townships is reflected in the north-south and east-
west orientation of their state and county boundaries.

 - STATES WITH NO TOWNSHIPS.  States that do not have either 
organized civil townships or Congressional townships include 
Maryland, Virginia, West Virginia, the Carolinas, Georgia, 
Kentucky, and Tennessee.  These states were originally colonies 
located south of the Mason-Dixon line, or they were split off from 
states that were southern colonies.  This category also includes 
Delaware, Texas, and Hawaii, which already had existing sub-county 
land-subdivision systems (but not townships) when they were 
admitted to the United States.  In these states, the county 
government is the only form of local government outside of 
incorporated municipalities.  Since they pre-date the Land 
Ordinance of 1785, their counties are often quite irregular in 
shape.

 - STATES WITH BOTH TYPES OF TOWNSHIP.  States that have both 
Congressional townships and civil townships include northern and 
central states throughout the Midwest and the Great Plains, from 
Ohio to the Dakotas, and south to Oklahoma and Arkansas, plus 
Nevada and California.  These are among the 30 Public-land States 
that were surveyed into Congressional townships; the regular 
rectangular shape of the Congressional townships is reflected in 
the north-south and east-west orientation of their state, county, 
and township boundaries.  At one time or another, many of the 
Congressional townships were organized as civil townships, 
although many of them remain unorganized to this day; in some 
states (notably California), they exist only as Judicial 
Districts.  Many, but by no means all, civil townships are 
coextensive with Congressional townships.  Depending on state 
policy, the power of the civil townships varies widely.  Some 
states (including Oklahoma, as Wes Leatherock noted [2]) have all 
but eliminated civil townships (although old township names often 
still exist for historical, cultural, or sentimental reasons).  In 
other states (notably Michigan and Wisconsin), civil townships 
have strong local governments that have elected governing boards; 
levy taxes; own and maintain roads, cemeteries, parks, and similar 
facilities; exercise control over such issues as zoning and 
building inspection; and hold elections.  Some urbanized townships 
provide a full range of municipal services, and are all but 
indistinguishable from incorporated cities (e.g. Clinton Charter 
Township, MI; Town of Grafton, WI).

Why, one might ask, does such a hodgepodge of townships exist?  
Why do some states have one type of township, but not the other?  
Why do some have both, while others have neither?  In states that 
have both, are the boundaries the same?

Here's my theory, starting with some definitions:

 .                  =================== 
 .                  === DEFINITIONS ===
 .                  =================== 

The following definitions apply only within the fifty states of 
the United States, plus the District of Columbia.  They are based 
on web research, personal experience (mostly in the cable 
television industry, where I dealt with franchising issues in 
several states), and a big pile of books and atlases.  I believe 
these definitions are correct as far as they go, but they're 
probably not as inclusive as they could be.  Suggestions and 
clarifications are welcome, either by personal e-mail 
(nmclain@annsgarden.com) or by posting to the list.

BOROUGH:

 - In some New England states, New Jersey, and Pennsylvania,
   an incorporated municipality identified as a "borough" 
   under state law.

 - In New York, one of five former counties that have been
   incorporated into the City of New York:
          Bronx County (Bronx Borough)
          Kings County (Brooklyn Borough)
          New York County (Manhattan Borough)
          Queens County (Queens Borough)
          Richmond County (Richmond Borough)
   Richmond County is coextensive with, and commonly
   known as, Staten Island.

 - In Alaska, the primary civil subdivision, equivalent
   to a county, in the portions of the state where 
   organized boroughs have been established.  But much
   of Alaska is outside of any organized borough: "Areas 
   of the state that are not within the boundaries of 
   an organized borough constitute a single unorganized
   borough." [3]

CITY.  In all states, an incorporated municipality identified as a 
"city" under state law.  Most cities are located inside of 
counties (or county-equivalents); however, some are "independent 
cities" (see INDEPENDENT CITY).

COUNTY.  The primary civil subdivision in 48 of the 50 states.  
According to the U.S. Census Bureau, this definition applies even 
in the three states (Connecticut, Massachusetts, and Rhode Island) 
where county government has been abolished. [4]  See PRIMARY CIVIL 
SUBDIVISION.

INDEPENDENT CITY.  A city that lies outside of any county.  The 
following are independent cities:

 - Alaska: any city lying outside of an organized borough
   (e.g. City of Nome), or a "Unified Municipality" (see
   MUNICIPALITY, UNIFIED). [5]
   
 - California: San Francisco (incorporated as "City and
   County of San Francisco"). [6]

 - Colorado: Denver (incorporated as "City and County of
   Denver"). [7]

 - District of Columbia: Washington ("The government of 
   the District of Columbia holds a unique status in the
   country's political system, functioning as a state,
   county, and city.") [8]  

 - Hawaii: Honolulu (incorporated as "City and County of
   Honolulu"; coextensive with, and often known as, [the 
   island of] Oahu). [9]

 - Maryland: Baltimore (incorporated as "City of
   Baltimore"). [10] 

 - Missouri: St. Louis (incorporated as "City of 
   St. Louis"). [11]

 - Nevada: Carson City (incorporated as "Municipality
   of Carson City", but often referred to as "Carson 
   City County"). [12]
      
 - Virginia: most large cities (e.g. City of Fairfax;
   City of Richmond).  But this term does not include
   Charles City County or James City County which are
   counties, not cities. [13]

Several states also have "consolidated city-counties" which 
combine some (or all) municipal and county functions under a 
single government (e.g. Athens City/Clark County, Georgia; 
Indianapolis City/Marion County, Indiana; New Orleans City/Orleans 
Parish, Louisiana). [14, 15]  The distinction between "independent 
city" and "consolidated city-county" seems to be rather fuzzy.

MINOR CIVIL SUBDIVISION.  In all states, the locally-recognized 
political subdivisions of the Primary Civil Subdivisions:

 - Civil Townships, organized or not.

 - Incorporated municipalities.

 - Government reservations (state and national parks and forests,
   military installations, correctional institutions, and similar
   reservations).  These entities typically provide their own
   administrative bureaucracies, law enforcement, fire
   protection, and utility services within their boundaries.
   They are administratively independent of the governments of
   any county, township, or municipality in which they might be
   located. 

 - American Indian Reservations (including American Indian trust
   lands and Alaska Native Regional Corporations). [4]

 - Certain privately-owned entities that provide (or contract
   for) their own administrative bureaucracies, law enforcement,
   fire protection, and utility services within their boundaries
   (e.g., Walt Disney World Resort Complex, in Orange and
   Osceola Counties Florida: under its agreements with the
   State of Florida and the Reedy Creek Improvement District,
   it's a virtual fiefdom within its boundaries). [16]

 - Other county subdivisions that go by a variety of names that
   vary from state to state according to state policy, local
   policy, or tradition: ahupuaas, beats, barrios, civil
   districts, districts, election precincts, gores, grants,
   judicial districts, judicial townships, hundreds, islands,
   magisterial districts, militia districts, plantations,
   precincts, points, police districts, police-jury wards,
   public corporations, purchases, supervisorial districts,
   tracts, and wards.  

The U.S. Geological Survey has published a state-by-state list of  
"local subdivisions" that it deems sufficiently important to show 
on topographic maps (or to explain why they're not shown).  I have 
posted a copy of this list at 
. [17]

MUNICIPALITY, INCORPORATED.  In all states, a generic term for an 
urbanized community having a legal charter (or similar document) 
from its respective state government.  Municipalities have defined 
boundaries that can be changed by actions of their governing 
boards.  Municipalities are legal corporations: they have elected 
local governments, the right to levy and collect taxes, the right 
to collect and disburse funds; and such other rights as are 
specified in state law.  Depending on state policy, incorporated 
municipalities may be called boroughs, cities, city corporations, 
municipalities, towns, or villages.  In point:
  - Borough of Princeton, NJ
  - City of Philadelphia, PA
  - Ogden City Corporation, UT
  - Municipality of Carson City, NV
  - Town of Leesburg, VA
  - Village of Deerfield, IL

MUNICIPALITY, UNIFIED.  In Alaska, a municipality incorporated as 
a consolidated city-borough government. [5]  The Unified 
Municipalities are:

  - Anchorage (incorporated as "Municipality of Anchorage")

  - Juneau (incorporated as "City and Borough of Juneau")

  - Sitka (incorporated as "City and Borough of Sitka")

MUNICIPALITY, UNINCORPORATED.  A community that has not 
established its own local government, but has remained part of a 
larger administrative unit, typically a civil township or a 
county.  Depending on state policy and local tradition, 
unincorporated municipalities are known by a variety of names: 
rural community, rural locality, rural town, rural village, small 
town, town, unincorporated community, unincorporated place, 
unincorporated town, unincorporated village, village, or just 
plain unincorporated.  Unincorporated municipalities do not have 
defined boundaries or local governments, but they usually have 
locally-recognized names.  They can be quite small: even a 
crossroads with a gas station and a couple of houses is an 
unincorporated if it has a name.  My favorite example of a small 
unincorporated is Ladoga, Wisconsin: as you drive into Ladoga, you 
pass the "STOP SIGN AHEAD" sign before you get to the "LADOGA 
UNINCORPORATED" sign.

PRIMARY CIVIL SUBDIVISION.  The primary political subdivision of a 
state below the state government:

  - Borough in Alaska.

  - Parish in Louisiana.

  - Former county in Connecticut, Massachusetts, and
    Rhode Island.

  - County in all other states.

TOWN:

 - In states that have civil townships, an abbreviated word
   for civil township.  But in New York and most New England
   states, civil townships have been called "towns" for so
   long (since Colonial days) that the two words are
   essentially interchangeable.

 - In the 30 Public-land States, an abbreviated word for
   Congressional township.  But its use in land descriptions
   (as in "Town 6 North") is so prevalent that the two words
   are essentially interchangeable.

 - In states that have don't have civil townships (and 
   may or may not have Congressional townships), an 
   incorporated municipality identified as a "town" under
   state law (e.g., Town of Bel Air, MD; Town of Oakland, FL;
   Town of Troy, TN).

 - In vernacular English, any small urbanized community
   without regard to its legal status, size, population,
   or physical boundaries -- except, perhaps, "larger
   than a village, but smaller than city."  The architect
   Eliel Saarinen formalizes this idea: "... men gathered
   together, they lived in close contact, they formed 
   camps, hamlets, and villages; when greater numbers 
   gathered, villages expanded into towns, towns into
   cities, and cities into those extremely concentrated
   great metropolises of the preset era." [18]  

VILLAGE.  An incorporated municipality identified as a "village" 
under state law.  In popular culture, villages are usually thought 
of as small communities (certainly smaller than cities), but this 
distinction is largely cultural rather than legal.  In Illinois, 
many large Chicago suburbs are incorporated as villages: Village 
of Skokie; Village of Hinsdale; Village of Oak Park.  In terms of 
population, the Village of Niles, Illinois is larger than the City 
of Niles, Michigan. [19]

 .            ==================================
 .            === ORIGINS OF CIVIL TOWNSHIPS ===
 .            ==================================

I believe (although I can't prove) that the concept of the civil 
township, as a unit of local government, can be traced all the way 
back to England.  Townships (also known variously as "towns," 
"liberties," "hamlets," or "hundreds") existed in England during 
the Colonial period.

At least one other writer agrees with this theory.  George Walter 
Goodley, in his history of Bethel Township, Pennsylvania, writes:

    "In England, from whence [William] Penn surely 
    took his pattern for local government, there were
    counties and sub-divisions of counties (or shires)
    known as Liberties, or Hamlets, or Towns, or 
    Townships.  And so the earliest subdivisions
    of Counties in Pennsylvania were called Liberties
    or Hamlets.  These were the titles attached to 
    Bethel, Concord and other townships of Chester 
    County, at their beginning." [20]

Following this pattern, the northern colonies (except Delaware) 
established dual-level local governments: counties and organized 
civil townships.  In New England and in New York, the townships 
were called "towns"; in Pennsylvania and New Jersey, they were 
called "townships."  These towns and townships still exist today, 
and they still have functioning governments.

Most of the southern colonies did not follow this pattern: they 
established counties, but not civil townships.  The exceptions:

  - The Carolinas established counties with civil townships.

  - Delaware and Virginia (and perhaps others) established 
    counties with township-like entities called "hundreds."

The townships and the hundreds no longer exist today, although 
their historic boundaries are still shown on some maps.  In these 
states today, the counties and incorporated municipalities are the 
only form of local government.

This division between the policies of the northern colonies and 
those of the southern colonies is vividly illustrated by the 
example of two adjacent counties separated by the Mason-Dixon 
Line: York County Pennsylvania and Harford County Maryland.

   - Like most Pennsylvania counties, York County is 
     subdivided into townships that were settled and named
     over two centuries ago.  One can deduce much about the
     county's history by noting the names of its townships,
     and the municipalities that grew from them.  On one
     side of the county, we find townships named Lancaster,
     Manchester, Shrewsbury, and Windsor, and the City of
     York.  On the other side, we find the Townships of
     Heidelberg and Manheim, and the Borough of Hanover.
     Anyone familiar with the geography of Europe will
     surely recognize the nationalities of the immigrants
     who originally settled these townships -- even if
     they misspelled Mannheim.

   - Just across the state line south of York County, we
     find Harford County, Maryland.  Like all counties in
     the southern colonies, Harford County has no townships;
     local administration rests with the county government.
     For administrative convenience, the county is subdivided
     into six districts, but the names of these districts
     don't tell us much about the county's history: they're
     called A, B, C, D, E, and F.

Why do these differences exist?

I've pondered this question for years, and I've never been able to 
answer it to my own satisfaction. 

Donald Miller, the host of the PBS television series, "A Biography 
of America," [21] notes the differences between the northern and 
the southern colonies in Program 2.  He describes "two profoundly 
different colonies, Virginia and Massachusetts Bay," noting their 
"vastly different civilizations," "almost as different from one 
another as they were from England."  So perhaps the differences in 
local-government structures is just another manifestation of the 
differences between those two "vastly different civilizations."

A transcript of Program 2 of "A Biography of America" is posted at 
. 

 .         =======================================
 .         === OB-TELECOM: CABLE TV FRANCHISES ===
 .         =======================================

These differences in local-government policy have had some 
interesting consequences for the cable television industry.  Cable 
franchises are issued and regulated at the local level, which, in 
many northern states, means township governments.

One consequence of this situation is that cable systems in 
northern states often have to negotiate more franchise agreements 
than systems in southern states:

  - A cable company in a southern state can serve an 
    entire county with just a few franchises: one for
    each municipality plus one for the county.

  - A cable company in some northern states has to get 
    a separate franchise with each municipality, plus a
    separate franchise with each township.

Although this situation doesn't directly affect franchise fees 
(which are based on subscribership), it certainly drives up 
administrative costs: more money in lawyers' fees; more meetings 
to attend; more office hassle just keeping track of which 
subscribers live in which jurisdiction.

Further adding to costs, some franchise agreements require 
separate public-, government-, and/or educational-access channels.  
I've seen headend buildings feeding dozens of separate trunk 
cables, each cable heading off in a different direction to some 
distant community carrying the same set of signals as all the 
other cables except for one or two access channels.

Another fairly common consequence: adjacent townships sometimes 
award franchises to different cable companies.  More office hassle 
("I'm sorry sir, but that address is in _______ township.  That 
area is served by ______ cable company ... please call them at 
_______."  And more confusion for the technicians, especially when 
there are two CATV cables on the same pole ("Be sure you connect 
that house to the red tap, not the blue one!").

All that said, I also have to note that some of my experiences 
with local governments have been fascinating.  I've seen some 
pretty palatial "town halls" with marble corridors, wood-paneled 
council chambers, and uniformed guards in the lobby.  I've also 
seen town halls that were old frame buildings with just a few 
rooms.  One two-room shack in a certain northern-Wisconsin 
township didn't even have restrooms; just a couple portapotties 
out back.

And the meeting I'll never forget.  Being Item #2 on the agenda, 
we had to wait while the board discussed Item #1: a lengthy 
analysis of the pros and cons of renewing the agreement with the 
high-school kid that mows the grass in the town cemetery.

---------
In Part 2 of this essay, I'll discuss the Congressional Townships 
in more detail. 

   Posted by Neal McLain
   nmclain@annsgarden.com
   Copyright (c) 2002 by Neal McLain

-------------------------------------------------
References:


[1]  John Cletheroe.  John Cletheroe's USA and Canada
Holiday Hints: The Mason-Dixon Line.
.

[2]  Oklahoma Constitution, Section V-5a, 1913. 
.

[3]  Alaska Statutes, Section 29.03.010.
.

[4]  United States Census Bureau, Participant Statistical Areas 
Program.  Census 2000 Statistical Areas Boundary Criteria.  
. 

[5]  Alaska State Legislature's Majority Coalition Web Site, 
Structures of Local Government in Alaska, p. 2.  
.

[6]  Official website for the City and County of San Francisco. 
.

[7]  The official site of the City and County of Denver.
.

[8]  District of Columbia, City Government website.  
.

[9]  This Is Your City and County of Honolulu Government. 
.

[10]  Baltimore City Municipal Departments & Offices.
.

[11]  Official Web Site of the City of St. Louis. 
.

[12]  Carson City, Nevada Online.
.

[13]  Charles City County and James City County are the oldest 
organized counties in the United States.  The first permanent 
settlement by English colonists anywhere in North America was 
Jamestown, settled in 1607, and located in what is now James City 
County.  Jamestown is also the site of the earliest extant land 
patent, dated February 1619, confirming that Georg Yeardley, 
Governor of the Colony, deeded 200 acres of land to William 
Fairefax, "Yeoman of James Citty ... an ancient planter who hath 
remained 8 years in the country & performed all services to the 
Colony that might in any way belong to his charge."  Nell Marion 
Nugent, ed.  Cavaliers and Pioneers: Abstracts of Virginia Land 
Patents and Grants, 1623-1800.  Richmond: Virginia Land Office, 
1934, p. 109.

[14] Welcome to the Indianapolis - Marion County Code of 
Ordinances.  
.

[15]  Two more consolidated city/county governments born.  
Washington: National Association of Counties, 1996.  
.

[16]  About Reedy Creek Improvement District. 
.

[17]  Morris M. Thompson.  Maps for America, Third Edition.  
Washington: United States Department of the Interior, 1988, p 75-
77, uncopyrighted. 

[18]  Eliel Saarinen.  The City: Its growth, Its Decay, Its 
Future.  Cambridge: The M.I.T. Press, 1943, p 175.
 
[19]  Road Atlas: United States - Canada - Mexico.  Rand McNally & 
Company, 2000.

[20]  George Walter Goodley.  Bethel Township, Delaware County, 
Pennsylvania, Thru Three Centuries: A historical account of an 
early Pennsylvania Community.  Boothwyn, Pennsylvania: Bethel 
Township Historical Society, 1987.  Reproduced by permission of 
the publisher, Reece Thomas. 
. 

[21]  Donald L. Miller, John Henry MacCracken Professor of
History at Lafayette College, Easton, Pennsylvania.  
A Biography of America, Program 2.  Boston: WGBH Educational
Foundation, 2000.  
.


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

Date: Thu, 17 Oct 2002 21:18:45 -0500
From: Neal McLain 
Reply-To: nmclain@annsgarden.com
Organization: Ann's Garden
Subject: Towns and Townships - Part 2 of 4

 .        =======================================
 .           TOWNS AND TOWNSHIPS - PART 2 of 4
 .                CONGRESSIONAL TOWNSHIPS
 .        =======================================

In Part 1 of this essay, I discussed Civil Townships, with a few 
brief references to Congressional townships.  In this part, I will 
describe Congressional townships in more detail.

Under the terms of The Paris Peace Treaty of 1783 (which 
officially ended the Revolutionary War), Great Britain ceded the 
Northwest Territory to the United States. [22]  The Northwest 
Territory is the area between the Ohio and the Mississippi Rivers; 
we know it today as the states of Illinois, Indiana, Michigan, 
Ohio, Wisconsin, and part of Minnesota.

After this treaty took effect, things stood more or less as 
follows:

  - The United States Government (specifically, the Second 
    Continental Congress operating under the authority of
    the Articles of Confederation [23]) controlled most of
    the Northwest Territory.  Three states (Connecticut,
    Massachusetts, and Virginia) claimed parts of the
    Northwest Territory under old grants made by various
    English kings during the Colonial period (Connecticut's
    grant extended its boundaries all the way to the
    Pacific Ocean!).  But by 1800, these states had ceded
    most of their old claims to the Congress.

  - The boundaries of the original 13 states were pretty
    much the same as they are today, except that Massachusetts
    included what is now Maine, and Virginia included what
    is now West Virginia. [24, 25]

  - Virginia claimed land outside its boundaries extending
    west all the way to the Ohio and Mississippi Rivers,
    including what is now Kentucky. [25]

  - Virginia also claimed an area in what is now south-
    central Ohio as the "Virginia Military District" for
    the purpose of providing "land bounty warrants" to
    soldiers who had fought in the Revolutionary War. [26]

  - Connecticut claimed an area in what is now 
    northeastern Ohio as its "Western Reserve," based
    on a grant that King Charles II had made back in
    1662.  This area of Ohio is still known as the
    Western Reserve, a name that lives on today in
    the name of Case Western Reserve University. [27]

  - Vermont was an independent republic. [28] 

  - North Carolina, South Carolina, and Georgia all
    claimed lands extending west to the Mississippi
    River, including what is now Tennessee and parts
    of Alabama and Mississippi. [25]

  - Spain controlled Florida, including an extension
    of the panhandle that extended to the Mississippi
    River and included what is now parts of Alabama 
    and Mississippi. [25]

  - France and Spain claimed everything west of the
    Mississippi River.

  - Squatters had staked claims in many parts of what is
    now Kentucky, Tennessee, and Ohio.

  - Native Indians claimed various parcels of land
    throughout the entire United States.

In the years following the Paris Peace Treaty, new states were 
admitted to the United States.  The patterns of local government 
that had been established during the Colonial Period were extended 
into the new states:

  - Maine retained the dual-level structure it had had when
    it was part of Massachusetts.  

  - Vermont retained the dual-level structure it had had as
    a sovereign nation (and before that, as part of New York).

  - Kentucky and West Virginia retained the county-only
    structures they had had when they were part of Virginia.

  - Tennessee retained the county-only structure it had had
    when it was part of North Carolina.

And the Land Ordinance of 1785 extended (or tried to extend) the 
dual-level pattern of the northern colonies to the new territories 
added thereafter.

 .           ==================================
 .           === TWO FUNDAMENTAL ORDINANCES ===
 .           ==================================

Notwithstanding the claims of Connecticut, Virginia, the 
squatters, and the Indians, the Second Continental Congress was 
determined to control the development of the Northwest Territory.
  
The Congress had many reasons for wanting to control its 
development.  It wanted to ensure that the United States -- not 
England, France, Spain, or some independent government -- would 
enjoy the benefits of the westward expansion.  It saw the sale of 
western lands as a source of revenue.  And, perhaps most 
importantly, it wanted to ensure that the democratic form of 
government -- for which it had just fought a long and bloody war -
- would be extended into new territories.

To implement its strategy, the Congress enacted two ordinances 
that stand to this day as the fundamental documents governing the 
westward expansion of the United States:

  - The LAND ORDINANCE OF 1785 ("An Ordinance for ascertaining
    the mode of disposing of Lands in the Western Territory").
    This act dealt with the practical issue of how to subdivide
    almost 250,000 square miles of uncharted land into salable
    parcels.  It specified the procedure for qualifying
    surveyors, and the point at which the surveys were to begin
    ("on the River Ohio, north from the western  termination of
    a line, which has been run as the southern boundary of the
    State of Pennsylvania...").  Most significantly, it
    specified the procedure for subdividing the land: "The
    Surveyors...shall proceed to divide the said territory into
    townships of six  miles square, by lines running due north
    and south, and others crossing these at right angles, as
    near as may be, unless where the boundaries of the late
    Indian purchases may render the same impracticable."  [29]

  - The NORTHWEST ORDINANCE OF 1787 ("An ordinance for the
    government of the Territory of the United States northwest
    of the River Ohio").  This act dealt with political
    issues: it specified how new territories were to be
    created and governed, and it guaranteed  that new
    territories would be admitted as states on an equal
    footing with the original thirteen states.  It also
    established guarantees designed to encourage settlement
    in the new territories: assured civil liberties, trial by
    jury, secure land titles, religious freedom, local self-
    governance, and the prohibition of slavery.  [30]

Note the following words from the Land Ordinance: "...townships of 
six miles square, by lines running due north and south, and others 
crossing these at right angles..."  These units are called 
"Congressional Townships" because they were created by an act of 
the Congress.

Why did the Second Continental Congress want to establish 
townships in the new territories?

Unlike our present-day Congress, the Continental Congress didn't 
publish "legislative histories," so there's no way to know for 
certain.  But a few facts seem obvious.

First of all, the members of the Congress faced the problem of 
surveying and selling land that they had never seen.  Indeed, 
except for a few explorers and fur traders, few United States 
citizens had ever visited the Northwest Territory.  The Congress 
adopted a straightforward solution to this problem: a grid of 
lines oriented north-south and east-west, spaced at one-mile 
intervals. 

The second problem was political: the Congress wanted to create a 
structure that would encourage local residents to form territorial 
and local governments.  But they had to do it with the tools at 
hand: by ordinance, and by whatever procedures they could build 
into the land-surveying process.  The Northwest Ordinance would be 
the vehicle for encouraging the creation of territories and 
states, but they still needed a way to encourage local government.  
Congress' solution to this problem is found in the Land Ordinance: 
"townships of six miles square."  Thus, the concept of the civil 
township, as a unit of local government, was embodied in the land-
surveying process itself.  Once the land was settled, it was 
hoped, the residents of each township would form a township 
government.
 
Of course, until the local residents actually did so, these 
"townships" weren't townships at all; they were just lines drawn 
on a map.  It's a long way from a Congressional township to a 
civil township.  For a civil township to exist, the local 
residents have to organize one: they have to get together, 
petition the county (if one exists) for approval, petition the 
state (or territorial) government for a charter, hold elections, 
enact ordinances, and become a functioning entity.

Nevertheless, the vision of the Second Continental Congress seems 
clear.  If it couldn't pre-ordain the westward expansion, it did 
the best it could: in the process of creating a structure for 
surveying the western lands into salable parcels, it also created 
a structure that would encourage local residents to form local 
governments.

Why "six miles square"?

Why did the Congress decide that Congressional townships should be 
"six miles square," containing 36 square miles?  Again, we'll 
never know the definitive answer, but we can make a reasonable 
guess.

The Congress certainly must have taken a cue from the existing 
civil townships in the northern colonies.  These governmental 
units were relatively small, typically ten to fifty square miles. 
These small units undoubtedly facilitated direct citizen 
participation in such local issues such as public assistance, law 
enforcement, fire protection, and the maintenance of roads, 
bridges, and cemeteries. [31]  Townships were also responsible for 
holding elections.  A classic question -- "How far can you go to 
vote on a horse?" -- aptly illustrates the advantage of small 
governmental units.

The survey plan created by the Land Ordinance of 1785 came to be 
known as the United States Public Lands Survey (USPLS), and formed 
the blueprint for further westward expansion.  I will discuss
the USPLS in detail in Part 3 of this essay.


   Posted by Neal McLain
   nmclain@annsgarden.com
   Copyright (c) 2002 by Neal McLain

-------------------------------------------------
References:

[22]  The Paris Peace Treaty of 1783.  
.

[23]  The Articles of Confederation. 
.

[24]  For a fascinating account of how West Virginia extricated 
itself from Virginia, see Brenda's Wild Wonderful West Virginia 
Webpage at 
.

[25]  A map of the United States, as things stood after the Paris 
Peace Treaty (and showing subsequent cessions by individual states 
to the United States Government), is posted at 
.

[26]  Thomas Aquinas Burke.  Ohio Lands - A Short History, Eighth 
Edition.  Virginia Military District.  Columbus: Ohio Auditor of 
State, 1996, p. 4-7.  Burke notes that the amount of land granted 
by land bounty varied from 100 to 15,000 acres, depending on a 
soldier's rank and length of service.  General George Washington 
was eligible for over 23,000 acres, but he never exercised his 
rights to this land.

[27]  Burke, Op Cite, p. 8-10.

[28]  Vermont, The Green Mountain State: Some Vermont History. 
.

[29]  The Land Ordinance of 1785.
.  

[30]  The Northwest Ordinance of 1787. 
.

[31]  George Walter Goodley, in his history of Bethel Township, 
Pennsylvania, notes a situation that could certainly be called 
public assistance: "[by] the order of 'the court held 11th no 6, 
1684' directing that 'ye inhabitants of Concord, Bethell and 
Chichester doe meet on the 3rd day of next weeke att Henry 
Reynolds to conferre together to provide a maintenance for Miriam 
Thompson and her child.'"  Bethel Township, Delaware County, 
Pennsylvania, Thru Three Centuries: A historical account of an 
early Pennsylvania Community.  Boothwyn, Pennsylvania: Bethel 
Township Historical Society, 1987.  Reproduced by permission of 
the publisher, Reece Thomas.  
.


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

TELECOM Digest is an electronic journal devoted mostly but not
exclusively to telecommunications topics. It is circulated anywhere
there is email, in addition to various telecom forums on a variety of
networks such as Compuserve and America On Line, 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: 620-870-9697
                        Fax 1: 775-255-9970
                        Fax 2: 775-306-8390
                        Fax 3: 775-642-0603
                        Fax 4: 530-309-7234
                        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 second 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)

Email <==> FTP:  telecom-archives@telecom-digest.org 

      Send a simple, one line note to that automated address for
      a help file on how to use the automatic retrieval system
      for archives files. You can get desired files in email.

*************************************************************************
*   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.
Access to Premium (P) links requires upgrade to a paid subscription.

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

Only subscribers or registered users of ICB Toll Free News web site
will be able to access all or some of the full text of URLs provided.

LEGAL STUFF: TELECOM Digest (sm) is owned by Patrick Townson.
Copyright 2000 ICB, Inc. and TELECOM Digest. All rights reserved.
Our attorney is Bill Levant, of Blue Bell, PA.

   ---------------------------------------------------------------
    
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 twenty 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 V22 #88
*****************************
    
    
From editor@telecom-digest.org Sat Oct 19 17:59:27 2002
Received: from localhost (localhost [[UNIX: localhost]])
	by massis.lcs.mit.edu (8.11.3nb1/8.11.3) id g9JLxRl02025;
	Sat, 19 Oct 2002 17:59:27 -0400 (EDT)
Date: Sat, 19 Oct 2002 17:59:27 -0400 (EDT)
From: editor@telecom-digest.org
Message-Id: <200210192159.g9JLxRl02025@massis.lcs.mit.edu>
X-Authentication-Warning: massis.lcs.mit.edu: ptownson set sender to editor@telecom-digest.org using -f
To: ptownson
Approved: patsnewlist
Subject: TELECOM Digest V22 #89

TELECOM Digest     Sat, 19 Oct 2002 18:00:00 EDT    Volume 22 : Issue 89

Inside This SPECIAL Issue:                    Editor: Patrick A. Townson

    Towns and Townships - Part 3 of 4 - US Public Lands Survey (Neal McLain)
    Towns and Townships - Part 4 of 4 - Legacy of USPLS (Neal McLain)
    Towns and Townships - Conclusion (TELECOM Digest Editor)

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. WE DO NOT PERMIT NAME/EMAIL ADDRESS
HARVESTING FROM THIS JOURNAL. 'SALTED' EMAIL ADDRESSES APPEAR
HEREIN TO VERIFY THIS. YOU GET SUED IN SMALL CLAIMS COURT IF YOU
GET CAUGHT SPAMMING OR SENDING VIRUSES. DON'T DO IT.

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

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

Date: Thu, 17 Oct 2002 21:18:53 -0500
From: Neal McLain 
Reply-To: nmclain@annsgarden.com
Organization: Ann's Garden
Subject: Towns and Townships - Part 3 of 4

 .     =============================================
 .           TOWNS AND TOWNSHIPS - PART 3 of 4
 .         THE UNITED STATES PUBLIC LANDS SURVEY  
 .     =============================================

In Part 2 of this essay, I discussed the origin of Congressional
Townships, with a few references to the United States Public Lands
Survey (USPLS).  In this part, I will describe the USPLS in more
detail.

The survey plan created by the Land Ordinance of 1785 came to be known
as the United States Public Lands Survey (USPLS), and formed the
blueprint for further westward expansion.  The United States Congress
reenacted the law in 1796, and it was used for the subdivision of
Alabama, Florida, Mississippi, the Louisiana Purchase, and for most
new territories acquired thereafter.

Congressional townships now cover about 72% of the country. [32]  
The principal exceptions are:

  - The original thirteen states: Connecticut, Delaware,
    Georgia, Maryland, Massachusetts, New Hampshire, 
    New Jersey, New York, North Carolina, Pennsylvania,
    Rhode Island, South Carolina, and Virginia.  These
    states had been settled, and largely surveyed, 
    before the Second Continental Congress even existed.

  - The four states that were geographically part of 
    the original thirteen, but that were subsequently 
    admitted as separate states: Kentucky, Maine,
    Tennessee, and West Virginia. 

  - The District of Columbia, originally part of Maryland.

  - The three formerly-sovereign nations: Hawaii, Texas,
    and Vermont.  These states had already been partially
    settled and surveyed before being admitted to the
    United States.  After admission, Texas continued its
    surveys using a rectangular grid similar to the
    USPLS grid, giving northwest Texas a checkerboard
    appearance similar to Public-land states.

  - Much of Alaska.  Alaska is one of the 30 public-land
    states; much of it has been surveyed, and some surveys
    continue to this day.  But much of the state has been set
    aside as wilderness reserve and may never be surveyed.

  - Connecticut's Western Reserve and the Virginia Military
    District, now both part of Ohio.

  - Innumerable smaller parcels within the 30 Public-land
    States that had been surveyed before the USPLS surveys
    began.

The actual surveys were made by contract surveyors operating under the
supervision of the Treasury Department's General Land Office (GLO), an
organization immortalized in the phrase "Land Office business."

 From all accounts, the survey teams had a difficult time of it: since
the very purpose of the USPLS was to survey the land for potential
sale, the surveys were conducted before the land was cleared.  Tools
were primitive: measurements were made with a 66- foot steel chain
(one can imagine the difficulty of running a steel chain along the
ground in dense underbrush).  Service vehicles were horses or burros,
housing was an impromptu campsite, and the food supply was
live-off-the-land.  Hostile Indians, disease, dangerous animals, and
bad weather undoubtedly made things even worse.

Yet in spite of it all, the surveys were completed, and the maps were
duly filed with the GLO.  Most arable farmland eventually passed into
private ownership, either through sale, or later, under the Homestead
Act of 1862 and the Dawes Act of 1887, by outright grant.

Further information about the history of the USPLS may be found at a
website provided by Dr. Donald J. Huebner of the Department of
Geography at The University of Texas at Austin:

.

 .             ============================
 .             === THE RECTANGULAR GRID ===
 .             ============================

A Congressional township is a square parcel of land measuring six
miles (more or less) on each side.

Congressional townships are identified by a numbering system
referenced to two lines: a "base line" and a "principal meridian."
The intersection of the base line and the principal meridian is called
the "initial point" or the "point of beginning" (POB).  There are many
base lines and principal meridians in the United States; a map is
posted at .  [33]

Each survey was begun by establishing the base line and the principal
meridian.  Some sort of monument (a wood stake, a pit, a pile of
rocks) was placed at the point of beginning, and all surveys were
referenced to that point.  Cardinal directions and latitude were
established using conventional nautical instruments such as the
compass and the sextant. [34] Distances were measured with a Gunter's
Chain, a steel chain 66 feet long consisting of 100 links, each 7.92
inches long.  To measure a mile, the survey team would lay out a
distance of 80 chains.  [35]

Each Congressional township is identified by two numbers: a "town
number" north or south of the base line, and a "range number" east or
west of the principal meridian.  Example:

         Town 6 North Range 9 East 

identifies a township six townships north, and nine ranges east, 
of the POB. 

Taking Wes Leatherock's mention of Oklahoma as an example, following
are the reference lines for most of Oklahoma (everything except the
panhandle):
   
  - The base line is the "Indian Base Line."  Several county
    lines fall on the base line; e.g. the line between Murray
    County and Carter County.  In Stephens County, the base
    line is the centerline of Base Line Road.

  - The principal meridian is the "Indian Meridian."  In
    Garvin County, the principal meridian is the centerline
    of Meridian Road.
 
  - The Point of Beginning is on the county line about halfway
    between Hennipen and Davis, and one mile south of Hoover.
    A copy of the USGS 7.5-minute map for this area is posted
    at . [36]
    The POB is near the center of the map, indicated by a small
    triangle.  It's at 1042 feet AMSL, and the point is marked
    on the ground by a benchmark ("BM").  You can also find
    this point in the southeast corner of Page 52 of the 
    Oklahoma DeLorme Atlas. [37]

There are similar situations (complete with roads named "Base Line
Road" and "Meridian Road") scattered all over the country.

Each Congressional township contains 36 parcels called "sections."
Sections are numbered as follows:

            -------------------------------
            |  6 |  5 |  4 |  3 |  2 |  1 | 
            -------------------------------
            |  7 |  8 |  9 | 10 | 11 | 12 | 
            -------------------------------
            | 18 | 17 | 16 | 15 | 14 | 13 | 
            -------------------------------
            | 19 | 20 | 21 | 22 | 23 | 24 | 
            -------------------------------
            | 30 | 29 | 28 | 27 | 26 | 25 | 
            -------------------------------
            | 31 | 32 | 33 | 34 | 35 | 36 | 
            -------------------------------

Each section contains one square mile, or 640 acres:
  
            -----------------------------
            |                           |
            |                           |
            |                           |
            |                           |
            |                           |
            |        One Section        |
            |      One Square Mile      |
            |  27,878,400 Square Feet   |
            |    6400 Square Chains     |
            |         640 Acres         |
            |                           |
            |                           |
            |                           |
            |                           |
            |                           |
            -----------------------------

Each section can be subdivided into four 160-acre "quarter 
sections" by "quarter-section lines" (sometimes called "quarter 
lines"):

            -----------------------------
            |             |             |
            |             |             |
            |   NW 1/4    |   NE 1/4    |
            | 1/4 Sq Mile | 1/4 Sq Mile |
            |  160 Acres  |  160 Acres  |
            |             |             |
            |             |             |
            |-------------|-------------|
            |             |             |
            |             |             |
            |   SW 1/4    |   SE 1/4    |
            | 1/4 Sq Mile | 1/4 Sq Mile |
            |  160 Acres  |  160 Acres  |
            |             |             |
            |             |             |
            -----------------------------

Each quarter section can be further subdivided into four 40-acre
"quarter quarter sections" by "quarter-quarter-section lines," also
known as "forty lines":
           
            -----------------------------
            |NW 1/4|NE 1/4|             |
            |NW 1/4|NW 1/4|             |
            | 40 a.| 40 a.|   NE 1/4    |
            |------|------|   160 a.    |
            |SW 1/4|SE 1/4|             |
            |NW 1/4|NW 1/4|             |
            | 40 a.| 40 a.|             |
            |-------------|-------------|
            |      |      |   N 1/2     |
            |      |      |   SE 1/4    |
            | W 1/2| E 1/2|   80 a.     |
            |SW 1/4|SW 1/4|-------------|
            | 80 a.| 80 a.|   S 1/2     |
            |      |      |   SE 1/4    |
            |      |      |   80 a.     |
            -----------------------------

When the General Land Office began selling land, it sold it in 40-
acre parcels.  Farm land has been bought and sold in 40-acre parcels
ever since, and the word "forty," used as a noun (as in "the back
forty"), has long been part of the vernacular language of rural
America.

Every 40-acre parcel in any of the 30 Public-land States can be 
uniquely described by seven parameters:

      Quarter-quarter section
      Quarter section
      Section number
      Town[ship] number
      Base Line
      Range number
      Principal Meridian

Example: "The Northeast Quarter of the Northwest Quarter of Section
10, Town 6 South of the Indian Base Line, Range 4 East of the Indian
Meridian."

In modern surveying and tax records, USPLS land descriptions are
usually abbreviated.  The names of the base line the principal
meridian are often omitted (since they're understood by default in
most surveying and tax situations), and what's left is abbreviated.
Typical abbreviations include:

      NE 1/4 NW 1/4 Sec 10 T6S R4E
      NEQ NWQ 10 T6S R4E
      NE-NW-10-6S-4E

Theoretically, this numbering system produces a regular grid of square
townships, each containing 36 square sections, extending across an
entire state or territory.  In fact, there are many discontinuities in
the grid.  Two factors account for this:

  - The earth is a sphere; consequently, meridians get closer 
    together as one moves north.

  - The original surveys contained numerous errors resulting
    from such factors as primitive equipment, difficult working
    conditions, poorly-trained personnel, and shifts in local
    magnetic declination.  An extreme case in point: 
    , a
    portion of El Dorado County, Colorado.

In an attempt to correct for these errors, the original surveyors
reestablished new reference lines at intervals of about four
townships.  These new reference lines stand out clearly on modern maps
as abrupt shifts in the regular grid pattern.  They also account for
some of weird jogs in many country roads.

 .                =========================
 .                === PARTIAL TOWNSHIPS ===
 .                =========================

The ideal rectangular grid described above didn't always work for
another reason: many things interrupted the grid, such as lakes,
rivers, mountains, deserts, existing survey lines, and Indian treaty
boundaries.  The GLO provided the surveyors with specific rules about
handling these situations, but the actual field work didn't always
comply with the rules.  The actual results were generally something
like this:

  - In the case of relatively narrow waterways (creeks, small
    lakes), the survey lines were carried across and continued
    without interruption on the other side.

  - In the case of large waterways (generally, any river wider 
    than three chains) survey lines were run to the edge (the 
    high water mark, but in some cases at the edge of a bank
    above the floodplain), and a "meander corner" marker was
    set.  The survey might have been continued on the other
    side at a later date, or it might have been conducted by a
    different surveyor at a different time, and it might have
    been referenced to a different POB.  In any case, no attempt
    was made to line up the survey lines on the two sides.
  
  - In the case of mountains and deserts, the survey was supposed
    to continue across without interruption.  The surveyors 
    presumably did their best, but the evidence of modern USGS
    maps sometimes casts doubt on their diligence.  In some cases,
    section lines are shown as dashed red lines on USGS topo maps,
    indicating "location doubtful."  In the Wasatch Mountains east
    of Odgen, Utah, even the principal meridian (Salt Lake
    Meridian) is shown as a dashed red line on a 1969 topo map.
    
  - In the case of an existing survey line or treaty line, the
    new survey lines are supposed to "close" against the existing
    line: the surveyor was supposed to establish the point where
    the new survey line meets the existing line, and erect a
    monument at the point, but not encroach beyond the existing
    line.

All of the above situations were (or should have been) described 
in the field notes.

Situations like these resulted in a lot of odd parcels: incomplete 
sections and incomplete Congressional townships.  But as long as 
the situations were accurately described in the field notes and on 
subsequent maps, these parcels could still be sold by the GLO.

Of course, problems arose if the surveyors didn't close to existing
survey lines, but overran them (the surveyors were supposed to know
about existing survey lines, but apparently some of them weren't as
diligent as they should have been).  A case in point: before the
surveys began, a federal reservation had been established in what is
now Pipestone County, Minnesota to protect catlinite quarries used by
native Indians. [38] The USPLS surveyors should have been aware of the
reservation, but apparently they weren't: they ignored it and ran the
USPLS grid right across it.  By the time the problem was discovered, a
railroad had been built across the reservation (presumably because the
railroad's surveyors had relied on the USPLS maps).  The area is now
Pipestone National Monument, [39] but the railroad is still there.

I've posted several examples of the USPLS grid in various situations
at .

 .                ========================
 .                === CORNER MONUMENTS ===
 .                ========================

The original surveyors marked every section corner with some sort of
marker, and recorded its position in a set of field notes.  Most of
the original markers have long since disappeared, and much effort has
been expended recovering "obliterated corners" or "lost corners." [40]
Once recovered, obliterated/lost corners have been marked with
permanent monuments, such as concrete monuments, steel stakes, or
aluminum monuments designed for the purpose.  Images of typical
monuments are posted at
.

The physical location of a monumented corner is inviolate.  Although
the latitude and longitude of a corner may change with every advance
in technology, the actual physical location of a corner on the ground
never moves, If the land itself moves (because of an earthquake or the
motion of the underlying tectonic plate), the corner moves with it,
but its relationship to the surrounding land remains intact.

In the 30 Public-land States, USPLS land descriptions stand today as
the underlying reference grid for all other land descriptions.  Every
recorded plat and every certified survey must be tied to a monumented
USPLS corner.

 .                ====================
 .                === LAND PATENTS ===
 .                ====================

When the General Land Office sold land, it issued "patents" to
identify the land.  Most of the original patents are now in the
custody of the Bureau of Land Management; those issued between 1820
and 1908 are available online at
.

A typical patent (my great-great-great grandfather's farm in 
Raisin Township, Lenawee County, Michigan) is posted at 
.  

---------
In Part 4 of this essay, I'll discuss the legacy of the United 
States Public Lands Survey.

   Posted by Neal McLain
   nmclain@annsgarden.com
   Copyright (c) 2002 by Neal McLain

-------------------------------------------------
References:

[32]  Russell Brinker et al.  Elementary Surveying, Sixth Edition. 
(New York: Harper & Row, 1977), p. 401.

[33]  Morris M. Thompson.  Maps for America, Third Edition 
(Washington: United States Department of the Interior, 1988), p 
82-83, uncopyrighted. 

[34]  Cognitive Technologies Corporation.  The Trigonometry 
Explorer--On-Line.  Sextant.  
.

[35] United States Corps of Engineers, Topographical Engineer 
Detachment, Company B.  The Gunters (Surveyors) Chain. 
.

[36]  United States Geological Survey.  Topographic Map, 7.5-
minute series.  

[37] Oklahoma Atlas & Gazetteer, First Edition.  Yarmouth, Maine: 
DeLorme, 19989.

[38]  Catlinite, also known as "pipestone," is a soft red stone 
mined by Plains Indians for the manufacture of pipe bowls, among 
other objects.  Catlinite, also known as Pipestone: The Real 
McCoy! .

[39]  U.S. Department of the Interior, National Park Service.  
Pipestone National Monument. .

[40]  Jerry L. Wahl.  Coordinate Use in the Restoration of Lost 
And Obliterated Public Land Survey Corners.  Cadastral Survey, 
eastern States USDI, Bureau of Land Management.  
.


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

Date: Thu, 17 Oct 2002 21:19:02 -0500
From: Neal McLain 
Reply-To: nmclain@annsgarden.com
Organization: Ann's Garden
Subject: Towns and Townships - Part 4 of 4

 .       =======================================
 .           TOWNS AND TOWNSHIPS - PART 4 of 4
 .               THE LEGACY OF THE USPLS
 .       =======================================

The legacy of the United States Public Lands Survey is clearly evident
today, particularly in areas with relatively flat terrain, in the
patterns of roads, streets, fences, and treelines; in the orientation
of state, county, and municipal boundary lines; and even in individual
property lines.  From the air, and even on street maps, the regular
rectangular grid pattern stands out clearly, particularly in
Midwestern and Great Plains states with relatively level terrain.

   - Here, for example, is a link to a Yahoo street map
     of Independence, Kansas (home of our illustrious
     moderator): 
.

  - Even if topographic features disrupt the USPLS grid, 
    streets farther away from the disruption often follow
    it anyway.  Here is a link to a street map of Independence,
    Wisconsin, where a lake and a railroad disrupt the grid,
    but most of the streets follow the grid: 
.

  - But there are exceptions.  Independence, California,
    located on relatively flat terrain (the Owens Valley),
    straddles a USPLS range line.  But the orientation of its
    streets completely ignores the USPLS grid: most streets
    are oriented with respect to the federal highway:
.

  - Compare these examples to Independence, Virginia, where
    there is no USPLS grid, and where the entire street
    pattern is dictated by mountainous terrain:
.

  - Of course, if you really want to get carried away
    looking for places named Independence, here's a link to
    Independence, Utah.  Even though it's just a crossroads,
    the streets (all two of them) are oriented along USPLS 
    section lines:
.


In many large metro areas, major streets follow section lines, and 
intermediate streets fall at regular intervals in between.  
Examples:

  - In the Chicago area, numbered streets fall every
    1/8th mile, and main thoroughfares fall on section lines
    at one-mile intervals: 47th Street, 55th Street,
    63rd Street, 71st Street, 79th street, 87th Street,
    95th Street, 103rd Street.

  - In the Detroit area, named streets fall at 1/8th mile
    intervals, and "mile roads" fall on section lines at
    one-mile intervals: 6 Mile Road, 7 Mile Road, 8 Mile Road,
    9 Mile Road.  Of course, Detroit-area residents will
    recognize 8 Mile Road by its other name: Base Line Road.

  - In the Miami area, numbered avenues fall at 1/10-mile
    intervals, and main thoroughfares fall on section lines
    at one-mile intervals: NW 37th Avenue, NW 47th Avenue,
    NW 57th Avenue, NW 67th Avenue.
 
  - In the Ogden area, major streets fall on section lines
    at one-mile intervals: 1900 West, 2700 West, 3500 West,
    4300 West, 5100 West, 5900 West, 6700 West.  Intermediate
    streets are interpolated.

In states that have both civil and Congressional townships, most of
the civil townships are more-or-less rectangular in shape, reflecting
the shapes of the Congressional townships from which they sprang.  In
many cases, civil townships are coextensive with their respective
Congressional townships.  A case in point, Dane County, Wisconsin
(named for Nathan Dane, one of the authors of the Northwest
Ordinance), is posted at:
.

Even the chain has left its mark:

  - Although the Gunter's Chain is no longer used today
    (modern surveyors use steel tapes or electronic measuring
    devices), the word "chain" still means 66 feet. 

  - The chain (as a unit of measure) pops up repeatedly in
    land surveys.  Many older villages were originally platted 
    with 66-foot lots arranged along 66-foot streets. 

  - Since the days of the earliest settlers, the standard
    roadway right-of-way has been one chain.  One can imagine
    the scenario: two adjacent land owners each donates a 
    33-foot strip of land to form the right-of-way for a 
    public road.  Initially a farm lane, it would have
    evolved into a gravel township road, then into a paved
    road.  Even today, many state and federal highways
    still occupy 66-foot rights-of-way.

The number 40, with its multiples and its sub-multiples, has resonated
through history for two centuries.  Land is still bought and sold in
multiples or sub-multiples of 40 acres (although real estate
developers seem to be doing most of the buying these days).

Over the years, multiples of 40 acres have figured in several 
contentious political battles:

 .       =======================================
 .              THE HOMESTEAD ACT OF 1862 
 .       =======================================

The Homestead Act [41] granted 160-acre parcels to any citizen "for
the purpose of actual settlement and cultivation" provided that the
grantee lived on the land for five years.  According to the National
Park Service:

    "A homesteader had only to be the head of a
    household and at least 21 years of age to claim
    a 160-acre parcel of land.  Settlers from all walks
    of life including newly arrived immigrants, farmers
    without land of their own from the East, single 
    women and former slaves came to meet the challenge
    of "proving up" and keeping this "free land".  Each 
    homesteader had to live on the land, build a home,
    make improvements and farm for 5 years before they
    were eligible to "prove up".  A total filing fee of
    $18 was the only money required, but sacrifice and
    hard work exacted a different price from the hopeful
    settlers. [42]

The Homestead Act was a result of many years of controversy over the
disposition of public lands.  In the mid-1800s, northern states viewed
the distribution of free western land as a way to prevent the spread
of slavery into the new territories.  The southern states, of course,
opposed it; however, the secession of eleven southern states during
1860-61, prior to the Civil War, cleared the way for its passage.
After President Lincoln signed the act, it became law on January 1,
1863.

 .       =======================================
 .               "FORTY ACRES AND A MULE" 
 .       =======================================

After the Civil War, "Forty Acres and a Mule" became a rallying cry
for abolitionists who wanted the government to set aside farm land for
freed slaves.  The specific reference to "forty acres" appeared in
Special Field Order No. 15, issued in January 1865 by Union Army Major
General William Tecumseh Sherman during his famous March to the Sea.
This order specified that

    "The islands of Charleston south, the abandoned rice
    fields along the rivers for 30 miles back from the
    sea, and the country bordering the St. John's
    River, Florida, are reserved and set apart for the
    settlement of the Negroes now made free by the acts
    of war and the proclamation of the President of the
    United States." [43]

This document further states that "each family shall have a plot 
of not more than forty acres of tillable ground...," but it 
doesn't mention a mule.

The "Proclamation" that Sherman mentions is, of course, The
Emancipation Proclamation, issued by President Abraham Lincoln in
January 1863: "...all persons held as slaves within said designated
[Confederate] States and parts of States are and hence forward shall
be free...." [44]

Under Sherman's order, many forty-acre parcels actually were
distributed to black families.  However, Lincoln's assassination in
April 1865 changed the course of events.  Lincoln's Vice President,
Andrew Johnson, succeeded Lincoln as President.  Though a southerner
and a Democrat, Johnson had remained loyal to the North during the
Civil War.  But as President during the Reconstruction period after
the War, he frequently bent to the wishes of southerners.  During the
summer and fall of 1865, he issued a number of "special pardons,"
essentially rescinding Sherman's order and returning the deeded lands
back to the former white land owners.

Ironically, these lands contain what is now some of the most expensive
real estate in the United States: Hilton Head Island and Kiawah
Island.  As Franklin Raines, the CEO of Fannie Mae, once noted, "On
Kiawah Island today, a four-bedroom beach house on one acre of land
alone is listed for $3 million." [45]

The 40-acre parcels in question must have been surveyed by the
metes-and-bounds methods [46] used in all of the eastern states --
they apparently weren't surveyed using the town/range/section plan of
the USPLS.  But such was the mindset of the day: "40 acres" was the
magic number for a farm field, whether or not is had been surveyed
under USPLS specifications.

 .               ===========================
 .                  THE DAWES ACT OF 1887
 .               ===========================

The Dawes Act [47] attempted to repeat the success of the Homestead
Act on Indian reservations.  It purported to be a mechanism for
allotting up to "one-quarter of a section" (160 acres) of reservation
land to native Americans in the hope that land ownership would enable
them to become self-sufficient.
 
But there were (at least) four problems with the whole idea:

  - Homesteaders taking land under the Homestead Act did so
    voluntarily, and were able to select from a choice of
    available sites.  By contrast, native Americans had
    little choice: the available land was the land in the
    reservation.

  - On many reservations, there was not enough tillable
    land to satisfy the allotments.

  - Much of the reservation land was of poor quality, or
    lacked irrigation.  

  - By creating a market for reservation land, the act
    opened the reservations to land speculators.  Much
    of the good-quality land (what there was of it) was
    bought up by non-Indians.

But the Act did guarantee that Indians taking up land under the Act
would be United States Citizens.

California State University at San Marcos provides a comprehensive 
explanation of the Dawes Act, and the results of its 
implementation, at .

                 THE CENTRAL VALLEY PROJECT

The Central Valley Project is a complex network of dams and aqueducts
that brings millions of acre-feet of water to farms in California's
Central Valley.  One website makes the dubious claim that, "The
technology used to construct these massive projects was unprecedented
before and since; indeed the Central Valley Project is the only
man-made feature visible on the earth from the moon."  [48]

The project was started in 1933 by the California State Legislature,
and was subsequently taken over by the Department of the Interior's
Bureau of Reclamation. [49] Under the terms of the Reclamation Act of
1902, it was only available to individually- owned farms of less than
160 acres (or 320 acres for a family).  But corporate farms -- some of
them exceeding thousands of acres -- have still managed to get access
to taxpayer-supported water. [50]

This is a battle that continues to this day.  Peter Barnes, among
others, advocates federal action to redistribute California's
water. [51]

------

And finally, there's that word "town."  What is a town?
 - In Massachusetts, it's a civil township.
 - In Oklahoma, it's a Congressional township.
 - In Wisconsin, it's both.
 - In Maryland, it's an incorporated municipality.
 - In everyday vernacular, it's a small urbanized community.  

And that's the enduring legacy of the USPLS: endless confusion for 
everybody involved.

--------

   Posted by Neal McLain
   nmclain@annsgarden.com
   Copyright (c) 2002 by Neal McLain

-------------------------------------------------
References:

[41]  The Homestead Act of 1862.  
.

[42]  Department of the Interior, National Park Service, Homestead 
National Monument of America.  What is the Homestead Act?  
.

[43]  William Tecumseh Sherman.  Special Field Orders, No. 15.  
.

[44]  Abraham Lincoln.  By the President of the United States of 
America: A Proclamation.  
.

[45]  Franklin D. Raines.  Remarks prepared for delivery at Howard 
University Charter Day Convocation, Washington, D.C., March 8, 
2002.  Federal National Mortgage Association. 
.

[46]  Steve Broyles.  Metes and Bounds Surveys.   Direct Line 
Software.  .

[47]  An Act to Provide for the Allotment of Lands in Severalty to 
Indians on the Various Reservations, and to Extend the protection 
of the Laws of the United States and the Territories over the 
Indians, and for Other Purposes.  
.

[48]  Erik Merriman.  Water Policy Review.  Environmental 
Administration 2000, 23 October 2000.  
.

[49]  U.S. Department of The Interior, Bureau of Reclamation, Mid-
Pacific Region.  The Central Valley Project: "It's about Water." 
 .

[50]  Marc Reisner.  Cadillac Desert: The American West and Its 
Disappearing Water, Chapter 10.  (New York: Viking Penguin, Inc., 
1986).

[51]  Peter Barnes.  The Case for Redistribution, Part 4.  
.


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

Date: Sat, 19 Oct 2002 17:38:19 EDT
From: TELECOM Digest Editor 
Subject: Towns and Townships - Conclusion


Again, my thanks for Neal's work in preparing this lengthy essay on
the history of towns and townships for the Digest. This issue and the
onr preceeding have been filed in the reports area of the archives for
future review as desired. I have seen many examples of legal notices
in the newspapers which used very tenuous descriptions of land which
was being sold, collected for taxes due, etc. After at least several
lines of the legal description, with such statements as 'the northeast
one- eighth of the southwest quarter of the north half of so-and-so's
addition to such-and-such sub-division' the legal notice then always
concludes with the comment, 'commonly known as 412 South Second Street
in the town of Indedpendence, KS' to give one example. Legal land
descriptions can be quite complex, which I guess is the main reason
there are also street numbers, which are in and of themselves except
as 'commonly known as' examples, useless for any legal purposes.

Something of interest for Oklahoma residents: That state used to be
known as 'Indian Territory' prior to being admitted as a state of the
USA around 1900 or so. My great-aunt, born in the late 1800's had a
birth certificate for herself saying she was born in 'Tulsa, Indian
Territory in 1888'.  Tahlequah, Oklahoma (formerly Tahlequah, Indian
Territory) was and still is the home of the Cherokee Nation of
Oklahoma, of which I am a member since I have 1/16th 'Indian blood' in
me which is the smallest fractional blood part allowed for persons to
become members of the tribe.  That little fraction came from my great
grandfather Thomas Townsend who married a woman who was half-blood
Cherokee, and one of his sons, Patrick J. Townson who also married a
1/4 blood Cherokee woman. 

The Cherokee Nation *used to* require that you be full-blooded or at
best half-blood to be eligible for membership in the Nation. As the
Nation got *very dilluted* and scattered fifty or so years ago, they
grudgingly changed their requirements to 1/8 and then 1/16. But to
vote in tribal elections, etc one still has to be at least 1/4 I
think. Very rarely, I recieve correspondence from them, and the main
reason I remain a member of the Nation/tribe is out of sympathy to the
Indians for the manner in which the USA government took over their
land, moved them all onto reservations, etc.

Anyway, thanks to Neal for this fascinating report.    

And I hope the rest of you enjoyed reading it.


PAT

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

TELECOM Digest is an electronic journal devoted mostly but not
exclusively to telecommunications topics. It is circulated anywhere
there is email, in addition to various telecom forums on a variety of
networks such as Compuserve and America On Line, 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: 620-870-9697
                        Fax 1: 775-255-9970
                        Fax 2: 775-306-8390
                        Fax 3: 775-642-0603
                        Fax 4: 530-309-7234
                        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 second 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)

Email <==> FTP:  telecom-archives@telecom-digest.org 

      Send a simple, one line note to that automated address for
      a help file on how to use the automatic retrieval system
      for archives files. You can get desired files in email.

*************************************************************************
*   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.
Access to Premium (P) links requires upgrade to a paid subscription.

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

Only subscribers or registered users of ICB Toll Free News web site
will be able to access all or some of the full text of URLs provided.

LEGAL STUFF: TELECOM Digest (sm) is owned by Patrick Townson.
Copyright 2000 ICB, Inc. and TELECOM Digest. All rights reserved.
Our attorney is Bill Levant, of Blue Bell, PA.

   ---------------------------------------------------------------
    
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 twenty 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 V22 #89
*****************************
    
    
From editor@telecom-digest.org Mon Oct 21 14:34:26 2002
Received: from localhost (localhost [[UNIX: localhost]])
	by massis.lcs.mit.edu (8.11.3nb1/8.11.3) id g9LIYQC11168;
	Mon, 21 Oct 2002 14:34:26 -0400 (EDT)
Date: Mon, 21 Oct 2002 14:34:26 -0400 (EDT)
From: editor@telecom-digest.org
Message-Id: <200210211834.g9LIYQC11168@massis.lcs.mit.edu>
X-Authentication-Warning: massis.lcs.mit.edu: ptownson set sender to editor@telecom-digest.org using -f
To: ptownson
Approved: patsnewlist
Subject: TELECOM Digest V22 #90

TELECOM Digest     Mon, 21 Oct 2002 14:35:00 EDT    Volume 22 : Issue 90

Inside This Issue:                            Editor: Patrick A. Townson

    Telecom Update (Canada) #354, October 21, 2002 (Angus TeleManagement)
    Re: Towns and Townships (Mark Brader)
    Thanks Neal!! (John Mayson)
    Re: 888, not 800 (joe@obilivan.net)
    Re: Filtering (Mark Crispin)
    Re: Filtering (Ed Ellers)
    Airwaves Bulletin Board; Airchecks of L. Ron Hubbard (pamwarren2002)
    Eskape MyTV/EskapeTV Viewer Gadget for Mac Computers (Anthony E. Siegman)

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. WE DO NOT PERMIT NAME/EMAIL ADDRESS
HARVESTING FROM THIS JOURNAL. 'SALTED' EMAIL ADDRESSES APPEAR
HEREIN TO VERIFY THIS. YOU GET SUED IN SMALL CLAIMS COURT IF YOU
GET CAUGHT SPAMMING OR SENDING VIRUSES. DON'T DO IT.

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

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

Date: Mon, 21 Oct 2002 10:13:43 -0400
From: Angus TeleManagement 
Subject: Telecom Update (Canada) #354, October 21, 2002


************************************************************
TELECOM UPDATE
************************************************************
published weekly by Angus TeleManagement Group
http://www.angustel.ca

Number 354: October 21, 2002

Publication of Telecom Update is made possible by generous
financial support from:
** BELL CANADA: http://www.bell.ca
** CISCO SYSTEMS CANADA: http://www.cisco.com/ca/letstalk
** CYGCOM INTEGRATED TECHNOLOGIES: http://www.cygcom.com
** ERICSSON CANADA: http://www.ericsson.ca
** JUNIPER NETWORKS: http://www.juniper.net
** PRIMUS CANADA: http://www.primustel.ca
** Q9 NETWORKS: http://www.Q9.com
** TELUS: http://www.telus.com

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

IN THIS ISSUE:

** Ontario May Ban Cellphone Use by Drivers
** Nortel Reports Decreased Sales
** AT&T Reveals Strategy, Cuts Spending
** GT Loses Large U.S. Customer
** Videotron Asks Bouchard to Help Resolve Strike
** Telus Union Seeks Strike Vote
** Telus Slams AT&T Petition
** Consumer Groups Oppose AT&T Petition
** Look Offers High-Speed Internet in Ottawa
** Bell Hikes Network Charge by 136%
** Federal Court Hears FCM Appeal Next Week
** Rogers Offers BlackBerry Phone
** BlackBerry to Support Novell E-Mail
** World Internet Bandwidth Growth Slows
** CWTA Says Lower Fees Would Spur Innovation
** Shaw Subscriber Growth Halts
** Rogers Wireless Operating Profit Rises
** Celestica Reports Sales Decline
** Special Telemanagement Discount

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

ONTARIO MAY BAN CELLPHONE USE BY DRIVERS: A private member's bill to
"prohibit the use of a cellular phone, car phone, portable computer,
or fax machine while driving a motor vehicle" passed second reading in
the Ontario Legislature on October 17. The proposal excludes hands free
phones and allows handset use in emergencies.

http://www.ontla.on.ca/documents/Bills/37_Parliament/Session3/b049.pdf

NORTEL REPORTS DECREASED SALES: Nortel Networks reports third-quarter
sales of US$2.36B, 15% below the previous quarter and 36% below the
same period a year ago. Nortel's pro forma net loss was $420M,
compared to $323M the previous quarter and $854M a year
ago. Enterprise sales decreased 10% from a year ago; sales in Canada
declined 51%.

AT&T REVEALS STRATEGY, CUTS SPENDING: In filings related to its
application for bankruptcy protection, AT&T Canada last week disclosed
previously confidential details about its business strategy and plans
for drastic cuts to capital spending.

** Under its "New Strategic Direction" the company will focus
    on selling high-margin data, Internet, and long distance
    voice services to medium and large-sized businesses in
    areas where AT&T Canada has already installed network
    capacity.

** Capital spending, said to be $407 million last year, will
    drop to $160 million in 2002 and to $140 million in 2003.

http://www.sedar.com/csfsprod%2Fdata33%2Ffilings%2F00486226%2F00000001%2Fe%3A%5CATTCan%5C2002%5CForm6K2.pdf

GT LOSES LARGE U.S. CUSTOMER: An unnamed U.S. customer now in Chapter
11 bankruptcy proceedings has told Group Telecom it is repudiating a
contract that brought GT US$1.5 million a month in revenue. GT is
"considering all its options."

VIDEOTRON ASKS BOUCHARD TO HELP RESOLVE STRIKE: Videotron ltee says it
has resumed negotiations with the union representing 2,200 technicians
who have been on strike since May 8. Videotron has asked former Quebec
Premier Lucien Bouchard, a veteran labour negotiator, to join its
bargaining team.

TELUS UNION SEEKS STRIKE VOTE: After two years of bargaining, the
Telecommunications Workers Union, which represents 13,100 Telus
workers in Alberta and B.C., has called for a strike vote. Telus has
asked Ottawa to appoint a federal conciliator, an action that would
delay the strike vote by two to three months.

TELUS SLAMS AT&T PETITION: In a document submitted on October 17,
Telus urges the Federal Cabinet to reject AT&T Canada's appeal of the
CRTC price caps decision. Telus says AT&T's proposal would "subvert
the evolution to competitive telecommunications markets" and
"precipitate the collapse of an already weakened industry."

http://www.crtc.gc.ca/PartVII/eng/2002/8675/A4-02.htm

CONSUMER GROUPS OPPOSE AT&T PETITION: In a filing made October 18, a
coalition of consumer groups says Cabinet should not interfere with
CRTC decisions "other than in cases of egregious error." If Cabinet
nevertheless decides to reduce competitor rates, the cost should be
borne by ILEC shareholders and not consumers.

LOOK OFFERS HIGH-SPEED INTERNET IN OTTAWA: Look Communications now
offers wireless high-speed Internet access for businesses in the
Greater Ottawa area. Service at 750 Kbps, bursting to 1.5 Mbps, is
$199/month.

BELL HIKES NETWORK CHARGE BY 136%: On December 14, Bell Canada will
increase its "network charge" for residential customers who subscribe
to Bell's long distance plans from $1.25 to $2.95 a month. Customers
who choose to pay undiscounted base LD rates are exempt.

FEDERAL COURT HEARS FCM APPEAL NEXT WEEK: On October 28 and 29, the
Federal Court will hear the Federation of Canadian Municipalities'
appeal of CRTC Decision 2001-23, which set limits on the fees
municipalities may charge carriers for use of municipal
rights-of-way. The FCM argues that the CRTC does not have the
jurisdiction to make such a ruling. (see Telecom Update #284).

ROGERS OFFERS BLACKBERRY PHONE: Rogers AT&T is the first North
American carrier to offer Research In Motion's BlackBerry 6710, which
includes an integrated microphone and speaker for voice calls. Price:
$749.

BLACKBERRY TO SUPPORT NOVELL E-MAIL: RIM's BlackBerry handhelds now
support access to Novell GroupWise corporate e- mail, using software
from Newfoundland-based Consilient Technologies.

WORLD INTERNET BANDWIDTH GROWTH SLOWS: TeleGeography reports that
international Internet bandwidth in 2002 was 38% higher than in 2001,
compared to 274% growth the previous year. "The aggregate capacity
between some cities even shrank."

http://www.telegeography.com

CWTA SAYS LOWER FEES WOULD SPUR INNOVATION: Responding to Industry
Canada's Innovation Strategy consultation paper, the Canadian Wireless
Telecommunications Association says the wireless industry is already
innovative, and could be more so if spectrum licence fees and other
regulatory costs were reduced, freeing funds for other uses.

http://www.cwta.ca/advocacy/incan/CWTA_inno_resp.pdf

SHAW SUBSCRIBER GROWTH HALTS: Shaw Communications acquired 12,617 new
Internet customers in the three months ended August 31, 87% less
growth than in the same period last year.  Star Choice added a net
5,000 subscribers; Shaw's cable service lost 30,000. Shaw reported
sales of $495 million and EBITDA of $185 million.

ROGERS WIRELESS OPERATING PROFIT RISES: Rogers Wireless reports
third-quarter operating profit of $158 million, 30.5% more than a year
ago. Sales increased 14% to $520 million; capital expenditures
declined 16% to $126 million. Net subscribers added: 71,400 (postpaid)
and 17,300 (prepaid).  Net loss: $14.1 million.

** Rogers Communications lost $118 million on revenues of
    $1.11 billion. Rogers lost a net 2,200 basic cable
    subscribers and added 53,300 Internet subscribers.

CELESTICA REPORTS SALES DECLINE: Electronic components maker Celestica
Inc. had third quarter revenue of $1.96 billion, down 11% from a year
ago. A restructuring charge of $136 million led to a $91 million net
loss. Celestica foresees a further sales decline in the fourth quarter
to $1.7 billion- $1.9 billion.

SPECIAL TELEMANAGEMENT DISCOUNT: You could spend thousands of dollars
on research. You could buy single issues for $75 each. But the best
way to get the best information service in Canadian telecom is to
subscribe. And now is the best time to subscribe because we're
offering $50 off the regular rate -- your one-year subscription will
cost less than half the single-issue price.

** Download full details today. Offer expires October 30.

http://www.angustel.ca/teleman/Telemanagement_Special_Offer.pdf

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

HOW TO SUBMIT ITEMS FOR TELECOM UPDATE

E-MAIL: editors@angustel.ca

FAX:    905-686-2655

MAIL:   TELECOM UPDATE
         Angus TeleManagement Group
         8 Old Kingston Road
         Ajax, Ontario Canada L1T 2Z7

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

HOW TO SUBSCRIBE (OR UNSUBSCRIBE)

TELECOM UPDATE is provided in electronic form only. There
are two formats available:

1. The fully-formatted edition is posted on the World
    Wide Web on the first business day of the week at
    http://www.angustel.ca

2. The e-mail edition is distributed free of charge.
    To subscribe, send an e-mail message to:
       TelecomUpdate@add.postmastergeneral.com
    To stop receiving the e-mail edition, send
    an e-mail message to:
       TelecomUpdate@remove.postmastergeneral.com

    Sending e-mail to these addresses will automatically add
    or remove the sender's e-mail address from the list. Leave
    subject line and message area blank.

    We do not give Telecom Update subscribers' e-mail
    addresses to any third party. For more information,
    see http://www.angustel.ca/update/privacy.html.


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

COPYRIGHT AND CONDITIONS OF USE: All contents copyright 2002 Angus
TeleManagement Group Inc. All rights reserved. For further
information, including permission to reprint or reproduce, please
e-mail rosita@angustel.ca or phone 905-686-5050 ext 500.

The information and data included has been obtained from sources which
we believe to be reliable, but Angus TeleManagement makes no
warranties or representations whatsoever regarding accuracy,
completeness, or adequacy.  Opinions expressed are based on
interpretation of available information, and are subject to change. If
expert advice on the subject matter is required, the services of a
competent professional should be obtained.

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

Subject: Re: Towns and Townships 
Date: Sat, 19 Oct 2002 18:41:14 EDT
From: msb@vex.net (Mark Brader)


That was quite the essay by Neal McLain.  Much appreciated.
I would love to see a similar description of Canada's provinces;
I think there would be some similarities.

Two comments:

> There are "governmental townships" (properly called "civil 
> townships," but often called "towns") in just about every state
> in the northeast, the Midwest, and the Great Plains. ...  The
> combination of civil townships and incorporated municipalities
> forms a continuous web covering the entire state and every
> county within it ...

The above applies to Ontario, except for the terminology.  Here, a
"town" is a type of incorporated municipality (intermediate between a
city and a village); a "township" is a civil township.

> BOROUGH:

>  - In New York, one of five former counties that have been
>    incorporated into the City of New York:
>           Bronx County (Bronx Borough)
>           Kings County (Brooklyn Borough)
>           New York County (Manhattan Borough)
>           Queens County (Queens Borough)
>           Richmond County (Richmond Borough)
>    Richmond County is coextensive with, and commonly
>    known as, Staten Island.

They are still officially counties as well as boroughs (just as San
Francisco is officially a "city and county").  Richmond County is
still the correct name, but the corresponding borough was renamed
Staten Island in  1975.  I won't get into "Bronx"
vs. "the Bronx" here.


Mark Brader            "Finally no number of additional epicycles can
Toronto                 hide the fact that We've Got a Problem Here."
msb@vex.net                     -- from a science book club promotion

My text in this article is in the public domain.

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

Date: Sun, 20 Oct 2002 21:11:59 -0500
From: John Mayson 
Reply-To: John Mayson 
Subject: Thanks Neal!!
Organization: Nyx, the Spirit of the Night (www.nyx.net)


The township info was facinating.  Yes, I'm not much of a nerd and find
stuff like this fascinating.  ;-)


John Mayson 
Austin, Texas, USA

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

From: joe@obilivan.net
Subject: Re: 888, not 800
Date: Sun, 20 Oct 2002 13:31:08 GMT
Organization: Cox Communications


TELECOM Digest Editor noted in response to Carl Moore:

> [TELECOM Digest Editor's Note: That's due to the loose way earlier
> press conferences gave out the number ('you can call us with clues
> on our eight hundred number, 888-etc'). They should have referred to it
> as 'our toll free number, 888 ...' instead. That would probably have
> reduced the volume of wrong number calls by 10-20 percent. People
> still do not understand that 888, 877, 866 are overflow codes.   PAT]

"Overflow codes?"  I thought they were expansion codes. Isn't
"overflow" something that occurs automatically on a dynamic basis
because of heavy traffic?

On a more serious note, I think that even those of us who understand
about 888, 877, and 866, do ourselves look at such numbers and often
misdial 800 instead when we are preocupied.  We have years of "Call
our toll-free 800 number" pounded into our grey matter; not so with
the expansion codes.  I have a personal INWATS number for my
residence, which is NPA code 888, yet I have been known to substitute
"800" for one of the other codes, mostly 877 it seems, for some
inexplicable reason.

The likely best solution to these short-term "hot tip" lines is for
the NPA administrators to pool a group of 800 numbers for assignment
only to such missions, rather than trying a piecemeal attempt to do
11th hour human-factors education on a distressed public.

[TELECOM Digest Editor's Note: I think what you say about the
'distressed public' is one good reason why these errors occur. I think
another reason is that directory assistance for all the expansion
codes of 888,877, and 866 is obtained from 800-555-1212.  PAT]

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

From: Mark Crispin 
Subject: Re: Filtering
Date: Sat, 19 Oct 2002 14:57:36 -0700
Organization: Networks and Distributed Computing


On Fri, 18 Oct 2002, Gail M. Hall wrote:

> Even the universities hate spam!  I'm sure some of their geeks have
> worked out some clever filters to keep the spam down to a manageable
> amount.

I wish that were true!  Unfortunately, universities are so afraid of
being labelled "censors" that most universities are way behind
everybody else in spam blocking and filtering.

In many cases, the standard answer has been "write your own procmail
filter".  A few more enlightened universities have a somewhat more
pleasant way of building filters than procmail.

It has taken forever for the message to sink in that most people don't
want to be in the business of building filters.  Users expect the
central computing facility to do it for them, and that includes users
who work at the central computing facility.


 -- Mark --

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

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

From: Ed Ellers 
Subject: Re: Filtering
Date: Sun, 20 Oct 2002 18:22:16 -0400


Gail M. Hall  wrote:

> I got spam for a bulk mailing service today.  This one didn't have a
> toll-free number, though.  The address in the From line was someone at
> "pacbell.net" but the one they offered in the message was an address on
> Yahoo.com.sg (anyone know what country .sg is?).

Singapore.  But that doesn't prove that the user is in that country,
by any means.

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

Date: Sun, 20 Oct 2002 18:00:02 -0700
From: 
Reply-To: pamwarren2002@earthlink.net
Subject: Airwaves Bulletin Board; re L. Ron Hubbard


Dear Patrick,

We want to put a little ad on your bulletin board and couldn't find
how to do that, so I am emailing you directly.

We are looking for any radio recordings of L. Ron Hubbard from
1950-1951. Also any airchecks from Progressive Broadcasting System
from this same time period would be welcome.

Email or call Pam Warren or Trevor Simington at the L. Ron Hubbard's
Public Relations Office.

pamwarren2002@earthlink.net
(323) 953-3336

We would appreciate it if you would put this on your bulletin board
for us.


Sincerely,

Pam Warren


[TELECOM Digest Editor's Note: Consider it posted, at least on
telecom, where many of the same readers will see it anyway. You can
also send email to rec-radio-broadcasting@moderators.isc.com (or
 @your site) and the person who is now in charge of the RRB Usenet
newsgroup will see it and no doubt post it there for you in
rec.radio.broadcasting. I *was* serving as a kind of make-do part time
moderator there for a few months in late 1999 after Bill P. (the
founder) passed. Then as you may have heard, my own head cracked open
and all my brains leaked out of the cracked pot. When I *finally* got
my act back together late last year, John Levine had reassigned RRB to
someone else to handle. Good luck finding your ancient radio checks of
the founder of Scientology and Dianetics! I have some ancient (1930's)
wire-recordings of Father Coughlin from Columbia Broadcasting System
before that august radio network (CBS) finally got ticked off and kicked
him off their national radio feed. The trouble is, no one makes wire
recording/playback machines any longer :(  I haven't even seen one
myself since around 1955-60, and it was 'ancient' in those days. The
one I saw looked like a crank/wind-up RCA Victrola in a large box. You
put the wire in one side where it looped around through the gears and
came out to a take-up spool on the other side. When the spring wound
down you would crank it up again. Good luck in your search. Don't
forget to send email to rec-radio-broadcasting.    PAT]  

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

From: AES 
Subject: Eskape MyTV/EskapeTV Viewer Gadget for Mac computers
Date: Sat, 19 Oct 2002 17:21:42 -0700


The Preferences for v. 1.3.7 of the software for the Eskape MyTV
USB-to-Mac TV viewer gadget (now called EskapeTV Viewer) offer a
choice of USA, USA (HRC), and USA (IRC) inputs.

The first one doesn't work with US cable TV systems (San Francisco Bay
Area, anyway), the second and third do work but it's hard to tell
which is the correct choice, since they both look so lousy.

The Eskape documentation and web site say nothing about which one is
the correct choice.

Anyone know which is correct?  Or what HRC and IRC mean?


Thanks,  siegman@stanford.edu

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

TELECOM Digest is an electronic journal devoted mostly but not
exclusively to telecommunications topics. It is circulated anywhere
there is email, in addition to various telecom forums on a variety of
networks such as Compuserve and America On Line, 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: 620-870-9697
                        Fax 1: 775-255-9970
                        Fax 2: 775-306-8390
                        Fax 3: 775-642-0603
                        Fax 4: 530-309-7234
                        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 second 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)

Email <==> FTP:  telecom-archives@telecom-digest.org 

      Send a simple, one line note to that automated address for
      a help file on how to use the automatic retrieval system
      for archives files. You can get desired files in email.

*************************************************************************
*   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.
Access to Premium (P) links requires upgrade to a paid subscription.

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

Only subscribers or registered users of ICB Toll Free News web site
will be able to access all or some of the full text of URLs provided.

LEGAL STUFF: TELECOM Digest (sm) is owned by Patrick Townson.
Copyright 2000 ICB, Inc. and TELECOM Digest. All rights reserved.
Our attorney is Bill Levant, of Blue Bell, PA.

   ---------------------------------------------------------------
    
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 twenty 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 V22 #90
*****************************

    
    
From editor@telecom-digest.org Mon Oct 21 17:54:18 2002
Received: from localhost (localhost [[UNIX: localhost]])
	by massis.lcs.mit.edu (8.11.3nb1/8.11.3) id g9LLsIo13457;
	Mon, 21 Oct 2002 17:54:18 -0400 (EDT)
Date: Mon, 21 Oct 2002 17:54:18 -0400 (EDT)
From: editor@telecom-digest.org
Message-Id: <200210212154.g9LLsIo13457@massis.lcs.mit.edu>
X-Authentication-Warning: massis.lcs.mit.edu: ptownson set sender to editor@telecom-digest.org using -f
To: ptownson
Approved: patsnewlist
Subject: TELECOM Digest V22 #91

TELECOM Digest     Mon, 21 Oct 2002 17:54:00 EDT    Volume 22 : Issue 91

Inside This Issue:                            Editor: Patrick A. Townson

    News Headlines of Interest 10/21/02 (Monty Solomon)
    Re: Toll Interceptor (Restrictor) and Redials (Anonymous)
    Re: More on the New Call From Integrated Credit Solutions (Justin Time)
    Re: Adding SMS to Web Site USA (John R. Levine)
    Re: Toll Interceptor (Restrictor) and Redials (Dave Phelps)
    Re: Is This True on Cisco? (Dave Phelps)
    Re: TVS100 Hard Drive (Charles P.)
    Re: No Reverse DNS?  Then Get a New ISP (David Thompson)
    Re: New Scam? (John Higdon)
    Re: Airwaves Bulletin Board; L. Ron Hubbard (Steve Sobol)
    Custom Ringing Answering Machine (Jim Haselmaier)
    Re: Filtering (Joey Lindstrom)

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. WE DO NOT PERMIT NAME/EMAIL ADDRESS
HARVESTING FROM THIS JOURNAL. 'SALTED' EMAIL ADDRESSES APPEAR
HEREIN TO VERIFY THIS. YOU GET SUED IN SMALL CLAIMS COURT IF YOU
GET CAUGHT SPAMMING OR SENDING VIRUSES. DON'T DO IT.

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

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

Date: Mon, 21 Oct 2002 02:00:48 -0400
From: Monty Solomon 
Subject: News Headlines of Interest  10/21/02


Fees Forcing College Radio Stations to Scale Back Webcasts
By JENNIFER MEDINA

Playing alternative rock and urban folk music, the student-run radio 
station at the University of Wisconsin was broadcasting to fans from 
the far corners of the campus to the far corners of the earth.

Although the station, WSUM, did not have a radio signal that went 
much beyond Madison, Wis., Internet broadcasting made it possible for 
the station to have listeners in the South Pacific.

But that is over now.

WSUM is one of about 70 college radio stations to pull the plug on 
Internet broadcasting in the last several months because of new 
copyright fees and reporting regulations required by the Library of 
Congress.


http://www.nytimes.com/2002/10/20/education/20RADI.html


Reverse Stock Split Planned to Revamp Shares of Lucent
By THE ASSOCIATED PRESS

Lucent Technologies said today that it would seek shareholder approval
for a reverse stock split to increase its stock price, which has
averaged below $1 for the last 30 trading days.

The company's board decided to seek approval for the move, which would
combine a number of shares into one share worth more money, at its
next annual meeting in February, a Lucent spokesman, Bill Price, said.

The ratio for Lucent's reverse split will be set by the board at a 
level that would raise the price of a common share to a range of $15 
to $25, the company said. Lucent shares sold as high as $84 in 
December 1999.

The shares closed at 68 cents, down 7 cents today on the New York
Stock Exchange. Lucent shares first closed below $1 on Sept. 17, and
have done so every day since Sept. 26.

Lucent's slump resulted in the company's failing to meet one of the 
standards set by the New York Stock Exchange, putting Lucent at risk 
of being delisted.

http://www.nytimes.com/2002/10/19/technology/19LUCE.html


F.C.C. Chief Says Telecom Isn't Doomed by Cutbacks
By BARNABY J. FEDER

Don't send out an S.O.S. for the telecom equipment industry just yet.

Michael K. Powell, chairman of the Federal Communications Commission, 
urged in a speech early this month that telecommunications companies 
spend more on new equipment to insure the survival of big suppliers 
like Lucent Technologies, Nortel Networks and Cisco Systems. The 
carriers' own recovery, he said, depended on the ability of those and 
smaller equipment makers to remain solvent enough to continue 
developing new technology.

As their industry's brutal recession continues, it does seem
increasingly likely that flagship vendors like Lucent and Nortel may
be forced into bankruptcy or some other revamping that wipes out most
or all of the investment of current shareholders. But the giant
carriers like AT&T, SBC Communications and Verizon see no need to
write relief checks to the equipment industry.

Industry analysts say, and equipment makers privately agree, that the
key suppliers will probably live on - although as smaller enterprises
 - by focusing on products and services pegged to equipment they have
been selling the carriers for decades.

http://www.nytimes.com/2002/10/21/technology/21TELE.html


Agere files patent suit over Wi-Fi

By Ben Charny
Staff Writer, CNET News.com

Wi-Fi chipmaker Agere Systems has filed a patent infringement lawsuit 
against rival Intersil, the company said Friday.

The lawsuit alleges that Intersil has been using Agere's patented
wireless techniques in Intersil chipsets without paying for the right
to do so. Agere has patented six wireless techniques, all involving
the 802.11b standard.

The Agere patents involve the three major pieces of a Wi-Fi chipset 
using the 802.11b standard. Those elements, which are at the core of 
every Wi-Fi access point and modem, consist of a power amplifier, 
which boosts the Wi-Fi signal; a radio to broadcast the signal; and a 
media access controller, which puts data on a computer network.


http://news.com.com/2100-1033-962662.html


Small Webcasters get fee reprieve

By John Borland
Staff Writer, CNET News.com

Small Webcasters won't immediately have to pay new, potentially steep
royalty fees due next week, the group responsible for collecting
payments said Friday.

The new rules for Webcasters, under which Internet radio stations 
will be required to pay about a 14th of a cent for each song they 
stream to each listener, are scheduled to go into effect on Sunday.

Small companies, which had complained the fees would put them out of
business, were close to winning separate rules in a compromise
Congressional bill. The measure was blocked before the Senate
adjourned Thursday night.

However, the record industry-backed SoundExchange -- the group tasked
with overseeing and distributing the new song royalty fees to labels
and artists -- said late Friday it would not collect the full fees
from small companies as long as Congress is still considering the
legislation.

http://news.com.com/2100-1023-962652.html

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

From: usenet@post.com (Anonymous)
Subject: Re: Toll Interceptor (Restrictor) and Redials
Date: 18 Oct 2002 09:48:19 -0700
Organization: http://groups.google.com/


Please submit my response anonymously. I've been receiving quite a bit
of junk mail and solicitations since I joined the Digest and would
prefer my e-mail address not be displayed. Thanks.

> Is there a device on the market where it will intercept a long
> distance call i.e. those with a 1, or 011 and then dials a programmed
> number (such as a 101xxx, dial around service, etc) then dials the
> number that was originally dialed?  ie. I want a device that makes a
> LD call transparent, even though I am using a dial around service and
> not the LD service that is assigned on that line.

> I saw a device at Office Depot that connects between your phone and
> the phone line.  It is fixed for a LD company, so you don't have to
> change your LD service through the local phone company.

There is a company based in Bend, Oregon, called Buehner-Fry, Inc.
Their main business is to block, or re-route, long distance dialing in
resort property rentals.  Their "dialer", installed between the CPE
and LEC, sees the 1+ or 0+ long distance dialing and dials the
toll-free number of the LD carrier, then the LD digits dialed by the
user.  The user is then required to use a credit card or calling card
to complete the call.  BFI's dialer can also be programmed to block
directory assistance, 900 calling, etc., by either routing the call to
the LD carrier or just disconnecting the line completely.  I don't
know if they are in the business of selling the dialers, but it may be
something worth investigating.

I've also seen this type equipment in telecom magazines, but I don't
believe the programming capabilities are as defined as in BFI's dialer.


[TELECOM Digest Editor's Note:  You got the anonymous posting you 
requested. Others have told me there are all kinds of scum out in 
the networld who are harvesting addresses from Digest postings. I do
not really have any solution to the problem.  

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

From: a_user2000@yahoo.com (Justin Time)
Subject: Re: More on the New Call From Integrated Credit Solutions
Date: 21 Oct 2002 06:12:35 -0700
Organization: http://groups.google.com/


Mark Crispin  wrote in message
news::

> This is really strange.  My caller ID boxes all show the number
> 727-532-9155 for that automated call earlier today, which is one of
> the numbers used by well-known automated telesleaze operator
> Integrated Credit Solutions.  However, for the name, one caller ID box
> indicates it as "ANONYMOUS CALL", "PRIVATE" on another, and "PRIVATE
> CALL" on a third.

> So it was sent as a Caller-ID blocked call, but with the number anyway?

> On top of all this, I have Anonymous Call Rejection, so I shouldn't
> receive blocked calls at all.

> My guess is that ICS has programmed their automated dialer to start
> sending "1" to get past caller ID blocks and No Solicitation
> announcements.

> And, of course, ICS's "vice president and general counsel" William
> K. Budd promised in a letter last May that I was added to their on the
> Do Not Call list and they wouldn't call me again.

Not really so strange, it is easily accomplished on most modern PBX
systems.  These systems will allow the setting of an "alternate ID"
for outgoing calls on an ISDN PRI circuit.  This allows the owner of
the PBX to send a different name (but not number) to be sent as the
caller ID data than what is in the phone company records.

It doesn't take much research to find out what caller names are
automatically rejected by most systems, and then set your alternate ID
to something close, but slightly different.  Computers, being the dumb
boxes they are, require an exact match to a text string, we humans
require a similar string as a match.  Using this logic, *Private is a
totally different message from Private.  The computer would pass a
call with the first id and block the second.  Our fuzzy logic would
realize they mean exactly the same thing.

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

Date: 19 Oct 2002 21:33:35 -0400
From: johnl@iecc.com (John R. Levine)
Subject: Re: Adding SMS to Web Site USA
Organization: I.E.C.C., Trumansburg NY USA


>   Who in the USA, UK, and Canada sells SMS messaging in bulk for
> small/medium sized web sites?  We want to interface with their site,
> and allow our users to shoot off SMS messages.

I was under the impression that all of the SMS providers in the U.S.
had e-mail gateways, so with a modest sized map telling you which prefix
belongs to which carrier, you can just send mail to the phone number
at the appropriate domain.

> Also, is the USA SMS integrated enough that a message can be sent to
> any mobile US phone with no problem?

US cell carriers charge for incoming SMS, either a monthly rate like
$3 for 100 messages, or a la carte at 10 cents/msg.  That's why a lot
of us who have SMS capable phones on SMS capable networks don't have
SMS enabled.


John R. Levine, IECC, POB 727, Trumansburg NY 14886 +1 607 387 6869
johnl@iecc.com Village Trustee and Sewer Commissioner http://iecc.com/johnl 
Member, Provisional board, Coalition Against Unsolicited Commercial E-mail

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

From: Dave Phelps 
Subject: Re: Toll Interceptor (Restrictor) and Redials
Date: Sat, 19 Oct 2002 23:13:59 -0500
Organization: Posted via Supernews, http://www.supernews.com


In article , usenet@post.com says:

> Is there a device on the market where it will intercept a long
> distance call i.e. those with a 1, or 011 and then dials a programmed
> number (such as a 101xxx, dial around service, etc) then dials the
> number that was originally dialed?  ie. I want a device that makes a
> LD call transparent, even though I am using a dial around service and
> not the LD service that is assigned on that line.

> I saw a device at Office Depot that connects between your phone and
> the phone line.  It is fixed for a LD company, so you don't have to
> change your LD service through the local phone company.

> I'd like something similar, but that I can re-program to any dial
> around service.

Sounds like you want something like Mitel Smartdialers. They can 
probably be had pretty cheap now that not many people use them anymore. 
Most of the time they are abandoned on the phone room wall.


Dave Phelps
Phone Masters Ltd.
deadspam=tippenring

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

From: Dave Phelps 
Subject: Re: Is This True on Cisco?
Date: Sat, 19 Oct 2002 23:24:10 -0500
Organization: Posted via Supernews, http://www.supernews.com


In article ,
rcampbell@pantelonline.com says:

> Hi everyone, 

> I need to pick some brains here.  Is it true you cannot do intercom
> paging on Cisco phone systems as well as zone paging?  Also, does the
> system have multi-line capabilty as well as ring group capability?

> Rich

You know, paging would be a good question. I don't think the phones
are multicast aware, so I would think a page would saturate the
network. I would bet that it's true. As far as multi-line and ring
group, there aren't a lot of buttons available if you are looking to
assign a line to each button. I don't know about the ring groups.

That would be a good question for comp.dcom.sys.cisco. This reply is 
cross-posted there.


Dave Phelps
Phone Masters Ltd.
deadspam=tippenring

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

From: Charles P. 
Subject: Re: TVS100 Hard Drive
Date: Sun, 20 Oct 2002 19:54:45 GMT


Yes, I know people have done it ... you need to have an exact
replacement (or larger size will work too I believe), then I don't
know what they did to copy it.

I know that's a vague answer, sorry, but I know it can be done. Some
people have done it just to have a backup.

Phil, you might want to join the kxthelp mailing list,  www.kxthelp.com
Lots of answers there, amid some foreign versions of systems and stuff.


Charles


Philip  wrote in message
news:telecom22.87.9@telecom-digest.org:

> Can anyone tell me if you can replace the hard drive on a panasonic
> TVS100 voice mail system.  If so, what restrictions are there?
> Certain brand, speed, size, etc ...

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

From: David Thompson 
Subject: Re: No Reverse DNS?  Then Get a New ISP
Date: Mon, 21 Oct 2002 02:47:48 GMT
Organization: AT&T Worldnet


> [TELECOM Digest Editor's Note: Umm yes! This whole thread would be
> better off transmitted in personal email between interested parties.
> I remember when I said something similar back about 1990 when
> caller-id  was making a big fuss here. (Remember those days, guys?)
> Anyway, when I suggested it then about caller-id  the end result
> was formation of Comp-Priv, a digest which had a five or six year
> lifespan. Maybe the professor up in Milwaukee is still running it.

comp.society.privacy was still active until about a month ago
as a (moderated) newsgroup, although now it seems to have died.
I believe the digest form was(?) also available by mail, but the
FTP site, which I prefer(red), has been "busy" for some time.


David.Thompson 1 now at worldnet.att.net

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

From: John Higdon 
Subject: Re: New Scam?
Organization: Green Hills and Cows
Date: Sat, 19 Oct 2002 14:48:18 -0700


In article , Gail M. Hall
 wrote:

> But it sure looked like a new version of the old vending machine
> business "opportunities" from a few years ago.  If there were any
> vending machines, they didn't work.  The only people to get rich were
> the scammers, not the people buying into the "opportunity."

> Do you all agree that this is probably a scam?  If so, am I just now
> finding out about it? Or is this a new one?

An excellent rule of thumb is: If you see it on television, forget it!

A perfect example is the 976/900 business. The folks who made money
from this business were in it long before the general public even knew
that such a business existed. The ground-floor players learned that
only the first tier could make any money. Those who owned their own
facilities, became CLECs or IXCs, and controlled the infrastructure
from top to bottom made significant cash from the phenomenon.

Those who came along later, learning about the business by word of
mouth or television ads hawking the business to the gullible lost
their collective asses. The most money I ever made from the 900/976
business was in the selling of equipment to the providers themselves.

With regard to things like the spots for "pay Internet terminals",
remember that even if the business is viable, (and between laptops and
wireless services, that is pretty doubtful) YOU won't make any money
at it if you have to rely on others to do the work for you. Think
about that for a minute. If you individually procure equipment,
locations, and design and implement a marketing plan, then you MAY
extract a profit.  But if all you are going to do is send some money
in to an address and then wait for the profits to pour out, forget it.

By the way, the scamsters are experts at explaining and justifying why
you are not seeing any money. Many of them are so good at it, they
will convince you to keep handing more and more money over to
them ... while you never see a dime.


John Higdon     | Email Address Valid | SF:  +1 415 428-COWS
+1 408 264 4115 |     Anytown, USA    | FAX: +1 408 264 4407

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

From: sjsobol@JustThe.net (Steven J. Sobol)
Subject: Re: Airwaves Bulletin Board; re L. Ron Hubbard
Date: Mon, 21 Oct 2002 18:49:38 -0000
Organization: JustThe.net LLC


> [TELECOM Digest Editor's Note: Consider it posted, at least on
> telecom, where many of the same readers will see it anyway. You can
> also send email to rec-radio-broadcasting@moderators.isc.com (or
> @your site) and the person who is now in charge of the RRB Usenet
> newsgroup 

That'll be me. I recently started reading comp.dcom.telecom again and
if the original poster so desires, I'll put it on
rec.radio.broadcasting again.


Steve Sobol, CTO  JustThe.net LLC, Mentor On The Lake, OH
http://JustTheNetLLC.com/ http://JustThe.net/ 888.480.4NET (4638)
Verizon Nokia 3285 for sale; six months old, runs perfectly. Also
should work fine on Alltel. Lots of goodies for $100 obo-e-mail for details.

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

From: Jim Haselmaier 
Subject: Custom Ringing Answering Machine
Date: Mon, 21 Oct 2002 18:51:24 GMT


I'd bet there is an easy answer to this.  But I can't find it.
Hopefully someone can guide me.

I want to get an answering machine that answers based on the ring
pattern - custom/distinctive ringing.  I know FAX machines (many) can
do this.  But I want an answering machine to do this.  I don't care if
it has an integrated telephone with it.

Background:  Our home line has v-mail on in from Quest.  I want to add
custom ringing so I can have a business number and an FAX number.  The FAX
machine will pick up for FAX number ring pattern.  I want an answering
machine to pick up the business number before it rolls over to the
phone-company v-mail for our line.


Thanks,

Jim

[TELECOM Digest Editor's Note: I have this same situation for my
second, distinctive ringing line. My first number goes on busy/no
answer to voicemail from Southwestern Bell. (Actually it forwards to
my cellphone first then after cell rings a few times it moves on to
the third choice, which is voicemail.) Meanwhile, my second,
distinctive (two short rings) number just terminates here at home,
where a Uniden cordless phone/call id/headset/answering machine
combination unit takes the call. I set it for one ring longer than the
first distinctive ringing line. (It rings three times, then begins it
hunt for me, via cellphone then on to voicemail.) The second,
distinctive ring-ring line is set for the answering machine to come on
after four rings, so that the answering machine does not accidentally
pick up the main number before it can be yanked and sent to cell, etc.

Telco know-nothings will tell you that main and distinctive have to
go the same way. What they mean is they do not know how to correctly
fill out the form telling plant how to separate the two at the switch 
so that one gets forwarded one way and the other stays put. These last
paragraphs compliments of the service rep who fixed my distinctive
ringing line to stick around while the first line goes off hunting for
me at cell then voice mail.  

The way the rep explained it to me is "you need to know the order in
which 'decisions' are made by the central office switch to get it to
work right. The 'decision' to forward or not (delayed or immediate or
not at all) are made before the 'decision' to camp the distinctive 
ringing line onto the main line. Do it, get it out of the way, then
it will ring forever and not be taken away after a few rings."

And she concluded saying "I bet you 'just assumed' that the billed
number screening on your first number automatically dipped the
database for your distinctive ringing line also."  She tested it by
dialing zero plus and my number and telling the talking operator unit
that she wanted to make a collect call. By golly, it rang through to
me, no questions asked, no denials, etc. She said she would re-write
the billed number screening work order also, and she must have, since
a few hours later it worked correctly. Ditto the Privacy Manager had
to be re-written for the same reasons. Otherwise, people who dialed
*67 and my distinctive ringing number (or used other shenanigans) were
just waltzing right in unmolested. Mark Crispin, are you reading this?

She explained that when overflow calls 'hunt' from a single main
listed directory number onto the overflows, they all get treated the
same way, because the 'decision' to hunt subsequent lines is the very
last thing the switch 'has to decide' before tossing the call out to
the subscriber. The switch has already made its decisions on things
like 'forward immediatly (to)', 'forward delayed because of no answer/
busy (to)', '(dis)allow reverse/third number billing' (the very first
decision made!), 'block calls with no ID' before it gets around to
tossing the call out to the subscriber. That all assumes the caller is
dialing the same number each time. If the subscriber calls in on a
distinctive ring number, then 'earlier' decisions which would have
been made prior to the final thing about hunting between lines have to
be made again.  She concluded saying "tell your Digest readers they
have to know the order for decision making on phone calls, just like
they have to know the order for filter rules in email to avoid spam."

A smart service rep!

So you guys with alias phone numbers might want to try dialing into
the alias numbers direct and see if they all make decisions to treat
your unwanted callers with the same courtesy you would extend them
personally (smile). Service rep said to me that although many of the
features offered these days are sold to subscribers, telco has to add
some of the 'decisions' on at no charge when a caller has distinctive
ringing. If you have 'distinctive ringing', the charge for that
service is *supposed to* include the required 'decisions' on your main
number at no additional charge. Mark Crispin, please read the above
closely. Are your nasty-calls arriving on a distinctive ringing line?

The external devices to screen distinctive ringing calls out do not
work correctly or all have some disadvantages. The one device that
Mike Sandman (mike@sandman.com) sells which DOES have enough tolerance
in it to be very liberal about the variations in ringing signals has
the problem that *it* answers the phone (supervises the call) then
provides bogus ringing of its own. No good for payphone or LD callers.
The other device that Mike sells has never worked right since the
beginning and Mike admits it. That device does not answer (supervise)
but at the same time, its inventor has never been able to get the chip
in the unit to work as liberally as needed for variations in ringing
and current flucuations between the various telcos. He built the chip
and it works fine in Ameritech territory but then fails in Nynex
territory, etc. Or if it works with Southwestern Bell it fails if used
in Ameritech-land. That's why I do not understand how fax machines are
able to sort out calls based on the ring on a consistent and national
basis. Maybe they don't either. You guys with an alias number used to
ring your fax line try turning the fax off then going to the corner
COCOT and dial that number. See if you can get your dime back if the
line rings several times without an answer.

Know your phone call decisions as well as you know your email filter
rules!   If neccessary, call your business office, read this message
to a supervisor and get this aired out. 

PAT]

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

From: Joey Lindstrom 
Date: Mon, 21 Oct 2002 13:42:53 -0600
Reply-To: joey@lairdsflooring.com
Subject: Re: Filtering


Scott Dorsey wrote:

>> And I have to ask the question (of these people): what has gone so
>> very wrong in your life that even one single spam is enough to ruin
>> your day, make you see red, and contemplate homicide?  I think
>> sometimes we all (me included) need to just take a step back, relax,
>> and calm down.

> It's not a matter of one single spam.  It's a matter of 150 to 200
> spam messages a day, a lot of them in Korean, all sent either to my
> personal mailbox here or to my old netcom address which forwards here.
> Two years ago the volume of spam I received exceeded the volume of
> legitimate mail and that was before the Koreans got into the act.

Since you're not the first to have missed my point here, I guess I
didn't make it very well.

Look again at what I said.  " ... that even one single spam is enough
to ruin your day".  I'm referring to those who do wholesale blocking
of nearly everything that isn't on their whitelist.  These people DO
freak out when, despite all their heroic efforts, one single spam DOES
slip through.  They take it as a personal defeat.  To them, I say:
"Chill out, take a pill, calm down" etc.


Joey Lindstrom - Laird's Flooring
joey@lairdsflooring.com

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

TELECOM Digest is an electronic journal devoted mostly but not
exclusively to telecommunications topics. It is circulated anywhere
there is email, in addition to various telecom forums on a variety of
networks such as Compuserve and America On Line, 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: 620-870-9697
                        Fax 1: 775-255-9970
                        Fax 2: 775-306-8390
                        Fax 3: 775-642-0603
                        Fax 4: 530-309-7234
                        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 second 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)

Email <==> FTP:  telecom-archives@telecom-digest.org 

      Send a simple, one line note to that automated address for
      a help file on how to use the automatic retrieval system
      for archives files. You can get desired files in email.

*************************************************************************
*   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.
Access to Premium (P) links requires upgrade to a paid subscription.

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

Only subscribers or registered users of ICB Toll Free News web site
will be able to access all or some of the full text of URLs provided.

LEGAL STUFF: TELECOM Digest (sm) is owned by Patrick Townson.
Copyright 2000 ICB, Inc. and TELECOM Digest. All rights reserved.
Our attorney is Bill Levant, of Blue Bell, PA.

   ---------------------------------------------------------------
    
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 twenty 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 V22 #91
*****************************

    
    
From editor@telecom-digest.org Tue Oct 22 17:45:08 2002
Received: from localhost (localhost [[UNIX: localhost]])
	by massis.lcs.mit.edu (8.11.3nb1/8.11.3) id g9MLj8p02649;
	Tue, 22 Oct 2002 17:45:08 -0400 (EDT)
Date: Tue, 22 Oct 2002 17:45:08 -0400 (EDT)
From: editor@telecom-digest.org
Message-Id: <200210222145.g9MLj8p02649@massis.lcs.mit.edu>
X-Authentication-Warning: massis.lcs.mit.edu: ptownson set sender to editor@telecom-digest.org using -f
To: ptownson
Approved: patsnewlist
Subject: TELECOM Digest V22 #92

TELECOM Digest     Tue, 22 Oct 2002 17:45:00 EDT    Volume 22 : Issue 92

Inside This Issue:                            Editor: Patrick A. Townson

    Re: 888, not 800 (Paul A Lee)
    Re: Caller ID From Other Area Codes (Russ Fort)
    Re: Eskape MyTV/EskapeTV Viewer Gadget for Mac computers (Dave Anderson)
    Re: Custom Ringing Answering Machine (Mark Roberts)
    Re: Custom Ringing Answering Machine (John R. Levine)
    Re: Is This True on Cisco? (Rich Campbell)
    Re: Is This True on Cisco? (George Kennedy)
    Re: Toll Interceptor (Restrictor) and Redials (John R. Levine)
    Re: Toll Interceptor (Restrictor) and Redials (obsidian)
    Re: Adding SMS to Web Site USA (Christopher Herot)
    Re: No Reverse DNS?  Then Get a New ISP (John Higdon)
    Re: More about Spam Email (Fritz Whittington)

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. WE DO NOT PERMIT NAME/EMAIL ADDRESS
HARVESTING FROM THIS JOURNAL. 'SALTED' EMAIL ADDRESSES APPEAR
HEREIN TO VERIFY THIS. YOU GET SUED IN SMALL CLAIMS COURT IF YOU
GET CAUGHT SPAMMING OR SENDING VIRUSES. DON'T DO IT.

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

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

From: Paul A Lee 
Subject: Re: 888, not 800
Date: Mon, 21 Oct 2002 15:49:42 -0400


 wrote, in part:

> TELECOM Digest Editor noted in response to Carl Moore:

>> [TELECOM Digest Editor's Note: That's due to the loose way earlier
>> press conferences gave out the number ('you can call us with clues
>> on our eight hundred number, 888-etc'). They should have referred
>> to it as 'our toll free number, 888 ...' instead. That would
>> probably have reduced the volume of wrong number calls by 10-20
>> percent. People still do not understand that 888, 877, 866 are
>> overflow codes.   PAT]

> "Overflow codes?"  I thought they were expansion codes.

> On a more serious note, I think that even those of us who understand
> about 888, 877, and 866, do ourselves look at such numbers and often
> misdial 800 instead when we are preocupied.  We have years of "Call
> our toll-free 800 number" pounded into our grey matter; not so with
> the expansion codes.

I have been using the term "8YY number" since I became aware of
NANPA's use of it in reference to expansion codes for toll-free
services. I also try to make sure others who deal with 8YY numbers
here are careful not to refer to them as "800" numbers anymore.

As often as not, the "why why?" sound prompts the question of "Why
eight why why?". I explain that the string refers to any of the
toll-free "area" codes, which consist of '8' followed by two of the
same digit, but not '1'.  Most of the folks seem to enjoy learning a
term that's more precise and current than "800 number".


Paul A Lee                     Voice: +1 717 730-8355
Sr Telecom Engineer   [Voice & Transmission]        Fax: +1 717 975-3789
Rite Aid Corporation, Telecomm, 30 Hunter Lane, Camp Hill, PA 17011-2410

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

From: Russ Fort 
Subject: Re: Caller ID From Other Area Codes
Date: Mon, 21 Oct 2002 15:30:04 -0500
Organization: http://www.TeraNews.com - FREE NNTP Access


My local Verizon Tech once explained it to me as a Network Trunking
Issue.  Locally we only get Caller ID information if the call
originates from an Exchange/Long Distance Carrier with SS7 trunking.
SS7 it was explained uses out of band signaling, thereby allowing for
more detail information about each call, like Caller ID.  Some of the
long distance carries were not connected to our exchange with SS7
trunking, and their calls arrived as Unavailable.

That's how my tech explained it.  Hope that helps.


Russ

M Wentworth  wrote in message
news:telecom22.72.5@telecom-digest.org:

> I just got Caller ID recently, and am surprised by the number of calls
> coming in from legitimate companies where the caller name is listed as
> "UNAVAILABLE", "UNKNOWN NAME" or just the name of the state, such as
> "OHIO."

> I live in the 781 area code in the Boston area and get these results
> with my Verizon and RCN phone lines.

> I called Verizon to ask, but the customer service rep said he was
> surprised, since most calls that would show "UNAVAILABLE" are from
> telemarketers' autodialers. (Well, I know these companies, and I know
> they are not telemarketers!) He then speculated that it might be due
> to incompatibilities between POTS and Centrex lines.

> Reading through posts to this group, I'm very hopeful that I can get a
> more useful answer here!

> Thanks in advance!

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

Date: Mon, 21 Oct 2002 18:54:37 EDT
From: Dave Anderson 
Subject: Re: Eskape MyTV/EskapeTV Viewer Gadget for Mac computers


On Sat, 19 Oct 2002 at 17:21:42 -0700, AES 
wrote:

> The Preferences for v. 1.3.7 of the software for the Eskape MyTV
> USB-to-Mac TV viewer gadget (now called EskapeTV Viewer) offer a
> choice of USA, USA (HRC), and USA (IRC) inputs.

> The first one doesn't work with US cable TV systems (San Francisco Bay
> Area, anyway), the second and third do work but it's hard to tell
> which is the correct choice, since they both look so lousy.

> The Eskape documentation and web site say nothing about which one is
> the correct choice.

> Anyone know which is correct?  Or what HRC and IRC mean?

HRC (Harmonically Related Carrier) and IRC (Integrally(?) Related
Carrier) are schemes to alter the carrier frequencies of TV channels
so as to minimize the interference between different channels in a
cable system.  Your cable company should be able to tell you whether
it's using standard channel assignments, HRC, or IRC.  IIRC, HRC and
IRC assign almost the same carrier frequencies for all except a few
specific channels.  There are charts of the frequency assignments for
all three systems available on the net; IIRC there's at least one in
the TELECOM Digest Archives.


Dave Anderson


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

From: markrobt@hotmail.com (Mark Roberts)
Subject: Re: Custom Ringing Answering Machine
Date: Mon, 21 Oct 2002 22:16:40 -0000
Organization: 1.94 meters


Jim Haselmaier  had written:

>  I'd bet there is an easy answer to this.  But I can't find it.
>  Hopefully someone can guide me.

>  I want to get an answering machine that answers based on the ring
>  pattern - custom/distinctive ringing.  

The PhoneMate 8800, but it may not be available any more. I bought
mine about eight years ago from Damark, of all places. However, it
answers ALL calls and then presents a separate message (one of two)
based on the ring pattern. Based on the description of your
requirements, I suspect that still may not help.


Mark Roberts | "How do you like following the goat story?" --
Oakland, Cal.|  Dennis Richmond to meteorologist Bill Martin on
NO HTML MAIL |  KTVU's "Ten O'Clock News", 9-13-2002

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

Date: 22 Oct 2002 14:26:21 -0400
From: johnl@iecc.com (John R. Levine)
Subject: Re: Custom Ringing Answering Machine
Organization: I.E.C.C., Trumansburg NY USA


> I want to get an answering machine that answers based on the ring
> pattern - custom/distinctive ringing.  I know FAX machines (many)
> can do this.  But I want an answering machine to do this.  I don't
> care if it has an integrated telephone with it.

I haven't seen this feature in an answering machine, but you could
easily fake it with a device called a "ring leader".  It has one
incoming jack and two or three outgoing jacks, one for each number.
When the phone rings, the leader listens to the first ring cycle and
connects to the appropriate outgoing jack.  It doesn't answer the
call, that's up to whatever device is connected to the outgoing jack.

Mike Sandman's ULTRASWITCH 100 FAX / MODEM SWITCH at
http://www.sandman.com/lineshar.html looks like it should do the trick
if you program it to do distinctive ring rather than answering and
sniffing for fax tones.  At $90, the price isn't bad.  I've paid over
$100 for just a ring leader.


John R. Levine, IECC, POB 727, Trumansburg NY 14886 +1 607 387 6869
johnl@iecc.com Village Trustee and Sewer Commissioner http://iecc.com/johnl 
Member, Provisional board, Coalition Against Unsolicited Commercial E-mail


[TELECOM Digest Editor's Note: Mike's product, ULTRASWITCH 100 *will*
do the job with one caveat:  If all you are going to do is have it 
*always* ring to a fax that *always* answers, then what do you care
about call supervision (and charges to the calling party)?  But when I
got mine from Mike, I intended to use my distinctive ringing only for 
the purpose of tipping me off about the answer-phrase to use on the 
line, and in any event after three rings the regular line and the
second ring-ring line were shipped off to my cell phone with no way 
for me to tell who was calling what. I did not intend it for any fax.
If I was not at home, I wanted that ring-ring to be treated differently
than the main line. If the caller had come in through my funnel of
800 number or main line or ring-ring (all terminating on the same
phone) I wanted the caller to 'get his coins back'  or for me to not
have to pay the 800 toll. Mike's ULTRASWITCH 100 will not do that.
It picks up on the first ring, *supervises* and sends out bogus
ringing tones to the caller while it decides what to do with the inbound.
It will indeed, on the second and subsequent rings route the call with
a 'regular' ring it creates to the proper device. Order it from mike@
sandman.com if you like the idea. $90 is about right. 

THEN the brilliant service rep lady explained to me how switch
decision making is done, and how they can be used like emails
filter-rules to do the job you want. Trouble is, you have to get the
plant to implement the decisions with a form the service reps fill out
when you order service, and (according to her), 'most of my co-workers
do not understand how to fill out the order form to do it correctly.'
That's why whatever the master line does, ring-ring will follow along
and do the same thing. If you want ring-ring to go one way while the
master line goes another the order has to be written that way. That,
to me, turned out to be the ideal solution. Now if I am not at home
the master will 'forward on busy or no answer' to cell phone and for
lack of an answer there will go to voicemail. If I am talking on the
phone then ring-ring will return a busy, if I choose not to answer
then ring-ring will ring-ring forever. Now it turns out that someone
turned me on to a Uniden cordless phone with built in four line
caller-ID, a headset unit and an answering machine, all in one package
from Costco in Oregon for fifty dollars!  Quite a good deal!  I set
the answering machine to answer on the FOURTH ring, which means (a) I
am not at home and (b) since it went for four rings it was a call on
ring-ring, since if had been on the master line, after THREE rings it
would have been withdrawn and sent to my cell phone and voicemail.

Now I am thinking about getting my 800 number to point to ring-ring so
that when a call comes in, I know who is paying for the call before
I talk very long. To our original correspondent, before you go spending
money on a fancy switch you don't need, see if your telco won't puh-leeze
fill in the paperwork to make ring-ring do its own thing in termination
instead of following along after the master number.    PAT]

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

From: Rich Campbell 
Subject: Re: Is This True on Cisco?
Organization: AT&T Broadband
Date: Tue, 22 Oct 2002 12:06:14 GMT


Thanks Dave.

Rich

Dave Phelps  wrote in message
news:telecom22.91.6@telecom-digest.org:


> In article ,
> rcampbell@pantelonline.com says:

>> Hi everyone,

>> I need to pick some brains here.  Is it true you cannot do intercom
>> paging on Cisco phone systems as well as zone paging?  Also, does the
>> system have multi-line capabilty as well as ring group capability?

> You know, paging would be a good question. I don't think the phones
> are multicast aware, so I would think a page would saturate the
> network. I would bet that it's true. As far as multi-line and ring
> group, there aren't a lot of buttons available if you are looking to
> assign a line to each button. I don't know about the ring groups.

> That would be a good question for comp.dcom.sys.cisco. This reply is
> cross-posted there.

> Dave Phelps
> Phone Masters Ltd.
> deadspam=tippenring

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

From: kennedyg@rferl.org (George Kennedy)
Subject: Re: Is This True on Cisco?
Date: 22 Oct 2002 08:30:35 -0700
Organization: http://groups.google.com/


Rich Campbell  wrote in message
news::

> I need to pick some brains here.  Is it true you cannot do intercom
> paging on Cisco phone systems as well as zone paging?  Also, does the
> system have multi-line capabilty as well as ring group capability?

My management people acutally asked about this when we put Call
Manager in a couple of months ago and according to the guy that did my
implementation there is no traditional paging available.  I have seen
people working on XML apps for the phones to give a sort of paging.
More like pushing an XML page to the phone along with an alert tone
though.

Not sure what you are getting at with multi-line.  If you mean can one
phone have more than one number the answer is yes.  Just have to get a
phone model with enough buttons.  As far as ring groups there are
several ways to do that.  Depends on what you want but you can work
most of them with the Call Manager.


Chip

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

From: johnl@iecc.com (John R. Levine)
Subject: Re: Toll Interceptor (Restrictor) and Redials
Date: 22 Oct 2002 14:12:50 -0400
Organization: I.E.C.C., Trumansburg NY USA


> Is there a device on the market where it will intercept a long
> distance call i.e. those with a 1, or 011 and then dials a programmed
> number (such as a 101xxx, dial around service, etc) then dials the
> number that was originally dialed? 

Mike Sandman has one.  See http://www.sandman.com/autodial.html and
scroll down to the Automatic LONG DISTANCE DIALER.

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

From: obsidian 
Subject: Re: Toll Interceptor (Restrictor) and Redials
Date: Tue, 22 Oct 2002 21:55:35 +0200
Organization: Chello Belgium Usenet Service


Mitel Smart One
There is a picture here:
      http://www.dialerbuddy.com/mitel.htm

Anonymous  wrote in message
news:telecom22.87.4@telecom-digest.org:

> Is there a device on the market where it will intercept a long 
> distance call i.e. those with a 1, or 011 and then dials a programmed
> number (such as a 101xxx, dial around service, etc) then dials the
> number that was originally dialed?  ie. I want a device that makes a 
> LD call transparent, even though I am using a dial around service and
> not the LD service that is assigned on that line.  

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

From: Christopher Herot 
Subject: Re: Adding SMS to Web Site USA
Date: Mon, 21 Oct 2002 23:16:25 -0400


While the US carriers do provide SMTP gateways they will cut you off
if your volume exceeds certain (undisclosed) thresholds.  If you want
to send large quantities you are better off connecting at the
SMPP/SNPP level which gives you more control but may cost a penny or
so a message.  You can try to strike a deal with the individual
carriers or deal with someone who already has such as deal such as
www.yellowpepper.com or www.unimobile.com.

>>   Who in the USA, UK, and Canada sells SMS messaging in bulk for
>> small/medium sized web sites?  We want to interface with their site,
>> and allow our users to shoot off SMS messages.

> I was under the impression that all of the SMS providers in the U.S.
> had e-mail gateways, so with a modest sized map telling you which
> prefix belongs to which carrier, you can just send mail to the
> phone number at the appropriate domain.

>> Also, is the USA SMS integrated enough that a message can be sent to
>> any mobile US phone with no problem?

> US cell carriers charge for incoming SMS, either a monthly rate like
> $3 for 100 messages, or a la carte at 10 cents/msg.  That's why a lot
> of us who have SMS capable phones on SMS capable networks don't have
> SMS enabled.

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

From: John Higdon 
Subject: Re: No Reverse DNS?  Then Get a New ISP
Organization: Green Hills and Cows
Date: Mon, 21 Oct 2002 20:27:27 -0700


In article , David Thompson
 wrote:

> comp.society.privacy was still active until about a month ago
> as a (moderated) newsgroup, although now it seems to have died.
> I believe the digest form was(?) also available by mail, but the
> FTP site, which I prefer(red), has been "busy" for some time.

I'm still receiving the Computer Privacy Digests via email. Got an issue 
just today.


John Higdon     | Email Address Valid | SF:  +1 415 428-COWS
+1 408 264 4115 |     Anytown, USA    | FAX: +1 408 264 4407

[TELECOM Digest Editor's Note: Be careful not to confuse Lauren
Weinstein's journal with the same name (almost) with the older
product which began here (via Dennis Rears) and was later handed
off to the professor in Milwaukee who continued it.  PAT]

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

From: Fritz Whittington 
Organization: Only on odd Tuesdays
Subject: Re:  More about Spam Email
Date: Tue, 22 Oct 2002 05:50:53 GMT


temp7@thewolfden.org wrote:

> On Mon, 07 Oct 2002 22:51:40 -0500, Gordon S. Hlavenka wrote:

>>> What I WOULD like to see is some way to trivially and accurately locate
>>> the PERSON (not just the account) who sends an email. Senders could
>>> (for "privacy" reasons) choose not to include this information and I
>>> could choose to trash any anonymous mail.

> That would be the From: field.  Oh, they fake that?  Well let's add
> another field; surely they won't fake the new field, would they?

With a 2048-bit RSA key, if you can fake the digital signature on this
message, then your fortune is assured!  If it were commonly accepted
that all email was normally signed with a certificate with verifiable
trust chain, then it would be easy to automatically throw unsigned
mail into the junk bin.


Fritz Whittington
TI Alum - http://www.tialumni.org

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

TELECOM Digest is an electronic journal devoted mostly but not
exclusively to telecommunications topics. It is circulated anywhere
there is email, in addition to various telecom forums on a variety of
networks such as Compuserve and America On Line, 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: 620-870-9697
                        Fax 1: 775-255-9970
                        Fax 2: 775-306-8390
                        Fax 3: 775-642-0603
                        Fax 4: 530-309-7234
                        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 second 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)

Email <==> FTP:  telecom-archives@telecom-digest.org 

      Send a simple, one line note to that automated address for
      a help file on how to use the automatic retrieval system
      for archives files. You can get desired files in email.

*************************************************************************
*   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.
Access to Premium (P) links requires upgrade to a paid subscription.

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

Only subscribers or registered users of ICB Toll Free News web site
will be able to access all or some of the full text of URLs provided.

LEGAL STUFF: TELECOM Digest (sm) is owned by Patrick Townson.
Copyright 2000 ICB, Inc. and TELECOM Digest. All rights reserved.
Our attorney is Bill Levant, of Blue Bell, PA.

   ---------------------------------------------------------------
    
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 twenty 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 V22 #92
*****************************
    
    
From editor@telecom-digest.org Tue Oct 22 20:55:55 2002
Received: from localhost (localhost [[UNIX: localhost]])
	by massis.lcs.mit.edu (8.11.3nb1/8.11.3) id g9N0ttD05373;
	Tue, 22 Oct 2002 20:55:55 -0400 (EDT)
Date: Tue, 22 Oct 2002 20:55:55 -0400 (EDT)
From: editor@telecom-digest.org
Message-Id: <200210230055.g9N0ttD05373@massis.lcs.mit.edu>
X-Authentication-Warning: massis.lcs.mit.edu: ptownson set sender to editor@telecom-digest.org using -f
To: ptownson
Approved: patsnewlist
Subject: TELECOM Digest V22 #93

TELECOM Digest     Tue, 22 Oct 2002 20:54:00 EDT    Volume 22 : Issue 93

Inside This Issue:                            Editor: Patrick A. Townson

    Home Alert Type Boxes - Question (Derk)
    Old NID Parts Question (Frank Tarczynski)
    Re: Towns and Townships (Al Gillis)
    New Tapit Software (Chris)
    New Telecom Classifieds Website (Steve Christie)
    Judge: Disabilities Act Doesn't Cover Web (Monty Solomon)
    Digital TV Will Soon be Mandatory; For Chip Makers It's Prime (M Solomon)
    Error Found in a Telecom FAQ (Sam)
    Notification (Anti-Spam) I DID NOTHING to You!!!! (Annie280zx@aol.com)

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. WE DO NOT PERMIT NAME/EMAIL ADDRESS
HARVESTING FROM THIS JOURNAL. 'SALTED' EMAIL ADDRESSES APPEAR
HEREIN TO VERIFY THIS. YOU GET SUED IN SMALL CLAIMS COURT IF YOU
GET CAUGHT SPAMMING OR SENDING VIRUSES. DON'T DO IT.

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

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

From: Derk 
Subject: Home Alert Type Boxes - Question
Organization: Prodigy Internet http://www.prodigy.com
Date: Tue, 22 Oct 2002 20:56:55 GMT


Hi,

I have a very senior friend that I want to get one of those home
monitors made famous by the commercials that show a senior who has
fallen down saying "Help, I've fallen and can't get up".  Basically it
connects to the phone line and the user wears a pendant that he/she
can press to call for help in case of an emergency. Then the box calls
a response center on the house phone line, and the operator can check
out the situation via a speaker and microphone on the box in the home.

I am concerned that my friend sometimes forgets to put the telephone
handset back on the base.  If this happened is there any way the home
monitor box could clear the phone line to call the response center,
especially if the phone off the hook was not the phone connected
directly into the box? She has three phones in the house.

Any information/suggestions appreciated.

[TELECOM Digest Editor's Note: Those alert boxes are a very good idea.
I have one for my mother now that she is living at Penn Manor, the
senior residence up the street from me a few blocks. Like your friend,
she has two phones, one in her bedroom and one in the main sitting 
area/kitchen. 

The way you get around the 'phone left off hook elsewhere' problem is
to order from Mike Sandman. After all, Mike has all sorts of stuff for
ancillary phone use. Look at website www.sandman.com . What you want
are TWO or THREE of the devices which cause phones to 'take over
control' of a line or take it away from elsewhere. Normally they are
used in cases of computers/fax machines sharing a voice line, so that
the anticipated voice call will not disrupt the in-progress fax or
computer transmission. You can set these to disconnect a phone if 
another line comes off hook, or you can set them so that they are
forced to stay silent in reverse. Ask Mike's phone person to explain
them entirely. They are just little plugs that attach to the phone
jack, then the modular cord from the phone plugs into them. When you
get the device you are thinking of, you decide which phone line it is
going to be on. Plug one of these little gizmos in the line, using the
one that takes control. Then plug the security unit into it. Then 
plug the actual phone into the back of the security unit. Or, if the
security unit does not allow a phone to be plugged in, then get one of 
the 'T' connectors with two outlets; plug the security unit into
one side of it, the regular telephone into the other side. 

Now take your other two 'little plugs' that are setup to yield the
line and insert one in the modular jack where each of the other two
phones go, one in each. Plug each phone in after those 'little plugs'.
Now whenever the security unit goes off hook to make a call, it will
quite rudely disconect the other two extensions if that is needed. It
just breaks the connection, hangs up the line. 

Does your friend have 'three-way calling' on her line?  The only time
this will matter is if she is on a phone call -- actually on and
talking -- when an emergency arises. Tell whoever from the company 
programs the security unit for you to *build a short pause* in first.
In other words, take the unit off hook, listen for dial tone before it
begins dialing, then do a quick flash hook, pause a second then dial
the security service number. This will assure that (in the event your
friend has three-way calling) the security device does not get tripped
up trying to get a dial tone. You see, if your friend left another
phone off hook somewhere you want to give telco a couple seconds to
clear the line before the device starts dialing. With three-way, it
is not sufficient to merely yank the other two phones from the line
and immediatly start dialing. You have to let telco know the line has
been cleared, THEN go off hook and start dialing again. If your friend
does not have three-way, and many old folks just have basic service,
this last step may not be needed for 'fool-proof calling'. In that
case, then skip this last paragraph and just go with the little gizmos
that take control of the line away from other phone instruments. 

Even so, a phone left off hook for awhile and not in use does take
a few seconds to clear the line (three way or not) so it might be a
good idea to have the security device 'rattle the switchhook' a few
times before it commences dialing. Tell Mike about this when you call
his office for details, and be sure to mention it when you get the 
security box to whoever programs it. You do not want to just seize
the line and dial off into dead air. Be sure to be there yourself when
it is time to install and program the unit. Make sure the other phones
go DEAD when the box wants to make a call. Make sure you notify the
security office of the ten-digit phone number for the local emergency
services agency  (911 won't work after all, they don't want to call
their own police), also your friend's doctor's name/number, your name
and number, and any other responsible person who would take charge.
And thank you very much for doing a wonderful deed to assure the well-
being of an elderly person.  PAT]

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

From: Frank Tarczynski 
Subject: Old NID Parts Question
Date: Tue, 22 Oct 2002 07:32:01 -0400
Organization: Mindspring Enterprises


My house was built in 1983 and recently BellSouth replaced the NID on
the home's exterior.  Just inside of the NID is a single jack (also
marked Network Interface) to which the rest of my wiring is connected.

Due to corrosion I need to replace the jack. There is a small PC board
inside the jack wired across the red and green lines with a 0.464uF cap,
a 15k ohm resistor and what appears to be a diode or MOV all wired in
series.  Either corrosion or excess current seems to have taken a toll
on one of the resistor legs.

Does anyone know the specifications for these components?  Anyone know
where I can get a replacement?  Since this is now inside the NID is this
device still needed?  Since I have 2 lines do I need one across both
sets?

Given the cost ($90/hr), awful response and just plain nastiness of
working with BellSouth I'd rather take care of this myself.


Frank

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

From: Al Gillis 
Subject: Re: Towns and Townships
Date: Mon, 21 Oct 2002 19:51:06 -0700
Organization: http://extra.newsguy.com


I, too, enjoyed "Towns and Townships".

Thanks to Neal for the excellent effort and to Pat for pushing it to
the top!


Al

Mark Brader  wrote in message
news:telecom22.90.2@telecom-digest.org:

> That was quite the essay by Neal McLain.  Much appreciated.

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

From: cshields@staff.itol.com (Chris)
Subject: New Tapit Software
Date: 22 Oct 2002 13:17:14 -0700
Organization: http://groups.google.com/


Has anybody sold or worked with the new trisys aoftware "call echo"
for call centers. I have a client that could be interested but I need
to find out the realiability of it.

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

From: steven.christie1@ntlworld.com (Steve Christie)
Subject: New Telecom Classifieds Website
Date: 22 Oct 2002 13:27:55 -0700
Organization: http://groups.google.com/


This is a new website which I hope will become a useful resource to
the global telecom industry.  I would appreciate it if you would take
the time to visit the website and place free ads.  Thanks for your
precious time. www.telecomclassifieds.net

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

Date: Mon, 21 Oct 2002 21:19:56 -0400
From: Monty Solomon 
Subject: Judge: Disabilities Act Doesn't Cover Web


By Declan McCullagh
Staff Writer, CNET News.com
October 21, 2002, 2:05 PM PT

A federal judge ruled Friday that Southwest Airlines does not have to 
revamp its Web site to make it more accessible to the blind.

In the first case of its kind, U.S. District Judge Patricia Seitz 
said the Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA) applies only to 
physical spaces such as restaurants and movie theaters and not to the 
Internet.


http://news.com.com/2100-1023-962761.html

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

Date: Mon, 21 Oct 2002 22:43:52 -0400
From: Monty Solomon 
Subject: Digital TV Will Soon be Mandatory. For Chip Makers It's Prime


Regulation Forced Market: Digital TV Will Soon be Mandatory.
For Chip Makers it's Prime Time.
By Patrick Ross
October 17, 2002

Federal regulators watch television just like the rest of us. So it
was no surprise that the U.S. Federal Communications Commission this
summer voted to mandate digital tuners in new TVs. We'll be able to
watch that high-definition broadcast of The Tonight Show from any room
in the house without a cable or satellite connection -- although a
high-definition image of Jay Leno's chin might be a bit alarming in
the confines of, say, a bathroom. In addition to this consumer
"benefit," the action will likely benefit chip makers that are
expanding into the digital TV market and may eventually help calm
Hollywood's fears of digital piracy.

The FCC's order threatens to reduce sharply the need for digital
set-top boxes and the chips that make them work. For the most part,
however, chip makers are confident that the digital TV market has more
than enough growth potential to offset those losses.

Consumers buying a digital TV often get a box that just makes DVDs 
look crisper or only displays digital channels if used with a set-top 
box -- not necessarily what we think of as a TV, a device that can 
receive over-the-air broadcasts, in this case digital ones. When FCC 
chairman Michael Powell unveiled the new rules, he said, "The tuner 
is what makes that box a television set." By July 1, 2005, all sets 
36 inches and larger must have a digital tuner; by July 1, 2007, even 
13-inch sets must include one.

http://www.herring.com/insider/2002/10/forcedmarket-hdtv-101702.html

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

Date: Tue, 22 Oct 2002 01:58:23 -0700
From: Sam 
Subject: Error Found in a Telecom FAQ


Send mail to ptownson@massis.lcs.mit.edu: subject: you have an error
in telephone FAQ area, if you are still involved with this field.

The last question and answer, the technical section, this last one is
not listed in the index either.

"Q: How does one maintain a phone call when hanging up on one
extension, to pick up another extension?"

A: The old PBX/key system feature called Hold is the way to maintain
the call on the line while switching from one extension to
another. The first extension is put on hold, then the other extension
is picked up to continue the conversation.

Assuming one doesn't want to spend much cash on an entire PBX system,
a few residential phones on the market may have a "hold" feature. Old
key telephone sets certainly will (if one finds the means to connect
these types of phones into ordinary phone wiring).

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

The CO has a "feature" for residential customers in most areas that is
named "calling party hold", it is a time-out delay type function that
will hold a called line a determined length of time(depending on
local) when the called party hangs up, and the called party can go to
another extension, typicaly 10-12 seconds, after hanging up the
extension that was used and find the calling party on the extension
when they arrive at it. Have you ever attempted to call a different
phone after talking to someone that just called you, and seem to never
get rid of them and hear that beautiful dial tone? It was "calling
party hold" that was keeping you connected.

Also, the Key system phone you refer to requires special racks and 401
series key cards for each and every line from the CO to opperate the
hold feature on those Key phones.

Personal credentials: Telecommunications technical College graduate,
with ten years experience on University telecom environments.

More trivial data: we used to blame typos in BBS chat rooms on the
craddle modems. And this; did you know the first fax machine was
built and used in the mid 1800's? I can look up the exact date and
names, it was in France or England. I HAVE made many telephone calls
by shorting the wires of an active phone line in a quick even
succesion to reach my desired party, only works on analog ported
equipment. tap tap tap and pause a second between numbers, tap tap,
3-2, continue for the complete number desired. Electronic switches
have pulse dialing for backwards compatable issues.

Add this to your glossary of terms? 

CALLING PARTY HOLD (CPH) 

A time delay feature of varying length, due to equipment or policy,
that will hold a called party for a given period, usualy 10 to 12
seconds in length, to allow the called party to go to another
extension to continue the call. The caller must remain on line.

[TELECOM Digest Editor's Note: Yeah, I am still somewhat involved in
maintaining the Telecom Archives. The two editions of the FAQ files
are like everything else around here. Old, worn out and obsolete. We
desparately need a 2002-2003 edition of the FAQ. Will *anyone* please
offer to take the existing files and bring them up to date?  

Regards your CPH entry, we used to do that *all the time* back in
the days of crossbar and SxS switches, where if the the calling party
somehow 'forgot' to hang up the receiver, the called party's phone 
became useless for however long. Many's the time, in those old days
I would become engaged for hours in some phone call, then decide I
wanted to switch to the other phone, or get a drink, or go pee, or
whatever and have to hang up the phone, rapidly go do my business, go
to the other phone, pick it up and continue the conversation. But 
you had to move quickly, that was for sure, and step lively, before
the local stepping switch got tired of waiting on you to get back,
and collapsed the tandems ... I personally prefer CPC, or Called
Party Control, where the person who was imposed upon by having to take
the phone call gets to say when and how it ends. I think CPC is now
the standard, everywhere. The complaint about your CPH was that a
malevolent person could ask for your number then keep you from being
able to call police, etc if they, or a confederate wanted to hurt 
you or rob you, etc.  Indeed, even in the old manual cord switchboard
days, of the two lights associated with supervision on each call, 
only the cord the operator answered with (and its supervision lamp)
would sound the audible for disconnection. The bottom of the two
cords (the one used to establish the connection and ring the called
party) would only 'wink' at the operator. The call was to be taken
down when the CALLING party chose to hang up, thus the audible on
that one. ("I am finished talking now, operator, please remove the
cord.")

In those days, a cretin like Mike Sandman would have never been
allowed to exist. But in these enlightened (some would say!) days of
no Bell System Control, you can purchase a 'single line hold control'
from Mike. It plugs into your phone jack and sits next to your
phone. You tap the button, hang up the phone, go get your drink of
water, or pee, or whatever and relocate yourself to a different phone
and continue the conversation. The way it works, I am told is that
tapping the button brings a capacitor into the line which then
*v-e-r-y* slowly bleeds until it loses all its battery and disconnects
automatically after two or three minutes. If you pick up some phone
during that time period, you are still connected. A fancy version
plays some prerecorded tune over and over to your caller as he waits.
An even fancier, top of the line version plays the radio to your
caller as he waits, if you plug the radio or a cassette player into
this thing. http://www.sandman.com is where to find the cretin if you
want to do business with him. (wink!)    PAT] 

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

From: Annie280zx@aol.com
Date: Mon, 21 Oct 2002 22:27:47 EDT
Subject: Notification (Anti-Spam)  I DID NOTHING to you!!!!!!!!!


[TELECOM Digest Editor's Note: A very sad conclusion to this issue
of the Digest. Now it seems we have a spammer who not only borrows
everyone's address to send out his spam, but it signs you up to 
various newsletters in the process. I seriously feel awful for newbies
getting into email these days who are just beginning to see the
dreadful things spammers have done to the net. I wrote Annie and
explained it was not me; I don't know if she believes me or not.  PAT]
        
                   ---------------------

I don't know who you are or how you got my email address, but I have
NEVER spammed you.  If you look at the return address on this
notification is says newsletter@mixxmail.com.
    
That OBVIOUSLY is NOT my email address.  Thanks for the warning about
sueing me, but I haven't done anything wrong, so you have no grounds to
do ANYTHING to me.  Now don't email me again.

And to whoever  newsletter@mixxmail.com is, you best fix whatever your 
systems problem is!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!


 Return-Path: 
 Received: from  rly-xc03.mx.aol.com (rly-xc03.mail.aol.com [172.20.105.136]) by air-xc04.mail.aol.com (v89.10) with ESMTP id MAILINXC44-1021221005; Mon, 21 Oct 2002 22:10:05 -0400
 Received: from  mixxmail.com (adsl-63-207-173-180.dsl.lsan03.pacbell.net [63.207.173.180]) by rly-xc03.mx.aol.com (v89.10) with ESMTP id MAILRELAYINXC31-1021220944; Mon, 21 Oct 2002 22:09:44 -0400
 Received: (qmail 36155 invoked by uid 1003); 21 Oct 2002 18:19:22 -0000
 Mailing-List: contact newsletter-help@hititems.com; run by ezmlm
 Precedence: bulk
 X-No-Archive: yes
 List-Post: 
 List-Help: 
 List-Unsubscribe: 
 List-Subscribe: 
 Delivered-To: mailing list newsletter@hititems.com
 Received: (qmail 36125 invoked by uid 0); 21 Oct 2002 18:19:19 -0000
 From: texrus@att.net
 To: newsletter@mixxmail.com
 Cc: abuse@mixxmail.com
 Subject: Notification (Anti-Spam) (fwd)
 Date: Mon, 21 Oct 2002 18:18:31 +0000
 X-Mailer: AT&T Message Center Version 1 (Sep 18 2002)
 X-Authenticated-Sender: MjdIMjFTP2UuT05BMDVbLk5XM1NkP1NfNj00Yj4=
 Message-Id: <20021021181833.SZV12639.mtiwmhc13.worldnet.att.net@mtiwebc09>
 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="US-ASCII"
 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit

I will sue you if you continue to spam me.

 ----------------------  Forwarded Message:  ---------------------
 From:    InterScanVW_ContentFilter@vba.va.gov
 To:      "newsletter@mixxmail.com" 
 Subject: Notification (Anti-Spam)
 Date:    Mon, 21 Oct 2002 04:30:09 -0400

************* eManager Notification **************

 Recipient, Content filter has detected an attempt to send spam e-mail.  The 
 message was not allowed to pass.

 Source mailbox: "pr@hititems.com"
 Destination mailbox(es): "newsletter@mixxmail.com"
 Policy: Anti-Spam
 Rule: ADV-01
 Action: Delete

 ******************* End of message *******************
 Received: from adsl-63-207-173-180.dsl.lsan03.pacbell.net ([63.207.173.180]) by 
 gw1.vba.va.gov; Mon, 21 Oct 2002 04:28:29 -0400 (EDT)
 Received: (qmail 5743 invoked by uid 1003); 21 Oct 2002 05:28:46 -0000
 Mailing-List: contact newsletter-help@hititems.com; run by ezmlm
 Precedence: bulk
 X-No-Archive: yes
 List-Post: 
 List-Help: 
 List-Unsubscribe: 
 List-Subscribe: 
 Delivered-To: mailing list newsletter@hititems.com
 Received: (qmail 5734 invoked by uid 65534); 21 Oct 2002 05:28:46 -0000
 Date: 21 Oct 2002 05:28:45 -0000
 Message-ID: <20021021052845.5733.qmail@mixxmail.com>
 To: newsletter@mixxmail.com
 Subject: [ADV] Collectable Discontinued Neo Beast Series Transformers
 From: Deals & Steals 
 X-Secret-Code: www.hititems.com
 MIME-Version: 1.0
 Content-Type: text/html; charset="euc-kr"

[TELECOM Digest Editor's Note: The rest of this delightful and inform-
ative message was deleted. Please do not contact Miss Annie or Mr. Texrus
since its not their fault. The above was sent out by someone who thinks
nothing of using someone else's name (in this case, mine) to do their
dirty work.  Very sad ... PAT]

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

TELECOM Digest is an electronic journal devoted mostly but not
exclusively to telecommunications topics. It is circulated anywhere
there is email, in addition to various telecom forums on a variety of
networks such as Compuserve and America On Line, 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: 620-870-9697
                        Fax 1: 775-255-9970
                        Fax 2: 775-306-8390
                        Fax 3: 775-642-0603
                        Fax 4: 530-309-7234
                        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 second 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)

Email <==> FTP:  telecom-archives@telecom-digest.org 

      Send a simple, one line note to that automated address for
      a help file on how to use the automatic retrieval system
      for archives files. You can get desired files in email.

*************************************************************************
*   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.
Access to Premium (P) links requires upgrade to a paid subscription.

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

Only subscribers or registered users of ICB Toll Free News web site
will be able to access all or some of the full text of URLs provided.

LEGAL STUFF: TELECOM Digest (sm) is owned by Patrick Townson.
Copyright 2000 ICB, Inc. and TELECOM Digest. All rights reserved.
Our attorney is Bill Levant, of Blue Bell, PA.

   ---------------------------------------------------------------
    
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 twenty 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 V22 #93
*****************************
    
    
From editor@telecom-digest.org Wed Oct 23 14:00:19 2002
Received: from localhost (localhost [[UNIX: localhost]])
	by massis.lcs.mit.edu (8.11.3nb1/8.11.3) id g9NI0JV20950;
	Wed, 23 Oct 2002 14:00:19 -0400 (EDT)
Date: Wed, 23 Oct 2002 14:00:19 -0400 (EDT)
From: editor@telecom-digest.org
Message-Id: <200210231800.g9NI0JV20950@massis.lcs.mit.edu>
X-Authentication-Warning: massis.lcs.mit.edu: ptownson set sender to editor@telecom-digest.org using -f
To: ptownson
Approved: patsnewlist
Subject: TELECOM Digest V22 #94

TELECOM Digest     Wed, 23 Oct 2002 14:00:00 EDT    Volume 22 : Issue 94

Inside This Issue:                            Editor: Patrick A. Townson

    Attack On Internet Called Largest Ever (Monty Solomon)
    Re: Dotworlds.net Scam Artists (dfdf dfdf)
    Re: Notification (Anti-Spam)  I DID NOTHING to you!!!!!!!!! (John Mayson)
    Re: Notification (Anti-Spam)  I DID NOTHING to you!!!!!!!!! (That Larry)
    Buttons on VTECH VT 1981 to Hard to Press (EastCoastGuyz)
    Re: Home Alert Type Boxes - Question (Mathew McKernan)
    Re: Home Alert Type Boxes - Question (Paul A Lee)
    Re: Custom Ringing Answering Machine (Carl Navarro)

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. WE DO NOT PERMIT NAME/EMAIL ADDRESS
HARVESTING FROM THIS JOURNAL. 'SALTED' EMAIL ADDRESSES APPEAR
HEREIN TO VERIFY THIS. YOU GET SUED IN SMALL CLAIMS COURT IF YOU
GET CAUGHT SPAMMING OR SENDING VIRUSES. DON'T DO IT.

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

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

Date: Tue, 22 Oct 2002 20:45:27 -0400
From: Monty Solomon 
Subject: Attack On Internet Called Largest Ever



By David McGuire and Brian Krebs
washingtonpost.com Staff Writers
Tuesday, October 22, 2002; 5:40 PM

The heart of the Internet sustained its largest and most sophisticated
attack ever, starting late Monday, according to officials at key
online backbone organizations.

Around 5:00 p.m. EDT on Monday, a "distributed denial of service"
(DDOS) attack struck the 13 "root servers" that provide the primary
roadmap for almost all Internet communications. Despite the scale of
the attack, which lasted about an hour, Internet users worldwide were
largely unaffected, experts said.

FBI officials would not speculate on who might have planned or carried
out the attack.

David Wray, a spokesman for the FBI's National Infrastructure
Protection Center (NIPC), said the bureau is "aware of the reports and
looking into it."

DDOS attacks overwhelm networks with an onslaught of data until they
cannot be used. According to security experts, the incident probably
was the result of multiple attacks, in which attackers concentrate the
power of many computers against a single network to prevent it from
operating.


http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/articles/A828-2002Oct22.html

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

From: dfdf dfdf 
Date: Wed, 23 Oct 2002 09:13:27 -0500
Subject: Re: Dotworlds.net Scam Artists


Dotworlds.net Scam Artists

Hi,

These guys are selling scam domains.

This is a scam.  The only people who can use these domains are
the 0.000000001% of the net who use their name servers.

Take a look at new.net who tried to do the same thing, and even made
deals with some large ISPs including Earthlink, Netzero, and Prodigy
to add their names to the ISPs servers.  How many people do you know
with new.net domains like .tech or .kids?  Well, these guys are a
large step down from new.net.  Caveat Suckor.

There are NO ICANN sanctioned .USA domains.  Period. Nor are there any
 .. domains.

The only legitimate .USA is the one operated by ADNS (www.adns.net). I
use the term "legitimate" because ADNS was the first to claim that TLD
from IANA and although ICANN doesnt have it listed, it is visible in
the Inclusive Namespace which is used by between 5% and 30% of the
internet users worldwide. (These are from various guestimates, some
scientific and some not so scientific).

Only ADNS operates the original and authentic .USA. No one else. The
US Federal Trade Commission closed down one operation (dotusa.com) for
failing to notify its potential customers that its .USA was not ICANN
sanctioned and therefore not universally visible.

ADNS takes great pains to inform its users that we are NOT ICANN
sanctioned and that we are NOT visible to the entire internet due to
an accident of history (that most OS's with BIND, the DNS server
software comes with a root-server file pointing to the USG/ICANN root
servers)

It does not appear that DOTWORLDS has operational GTLD servers for
their domains. ADNS has been fully operational since 1995 with GTLD
servers which are fully backed up by UltraDNS. ADNS is listed in both
the Open Root Server Consortium network (www.open-rsc.org) and PACROOT
(www.pacroot.net) as well as several other root server
networks. DOTWORLDS does not appear to be listed in any RSNs, nor
would their .USA be able to be listed since it is a collider and the
existing root server networks recoginze ADNS as the legitimate
claimant for .USA.

ADNS is working hard to promote the Inclusive Namespace and is
involved in developing the industry.  ADNS is involved with the Top
Level Domain Association, a trade organization of TLD holders
(www.tlda.net).

ADNS has also created a shared registry system called The Inclusive
Namespace Registry System (INRS) and will deploy it in production at
the end of this month with several registries and registrars.

Do not be fooled by people making claims that do not include
disclaimers as to visibility. Also realize that DOTWORLDS is guilty of
creating a collision in the namespace by creating their own version of
 .USA.  They were informed that .USA was taken already and have ignored
requests to cease and desist from operating a colliding TLD that has
been in service since September 1995.

Thank you for your attention to this matter.

(later ...)

Just received also an email advertising these bogus domains.  These
guys are ripp off artists.

Other consumers must be aware of this scam.

found this post on net:

DOTWORLDS FRAUD!!!!!

Warning Internet Users Not To Fall for Internet Scam Involving the
Top-Level Domain .USA

On March, 2002 we were advised that someone in the United Kingdom was
bulk emailing addresses harvested from newsgroups and web sites as
part of a marketing effort to sell second level domains in the .USA
top level domain infrastructure.

We are issuing an urgent warning today about a website that has popped
up in recent weeks purporting to be an exclusive registrar for the
".USA" top-level domain.

This company, operated out of England is called dotworlds.net and has
in false claims that they were authorized to take registrations for
domains under several other TLDs, including ".USA".

"This company is operated by a man named Retkin, who has a habit of
"lifting" top-level domains from companies that are already operating
them. This is just his latest adventure". In early March, Dotworlds
launched a website purporting to be the "only place to register a .USA
domain". This is untrue. Additionally, a large volume of unsolicited
email, known as SPAM has dumped into the email boxes of thousands of
internet users inviting them to register a .USA domain for "only
$35". Dotworlds.net appears to be attempting to capitalizing on the
September 11 tragedy to enhance the success of the scam.  We have
started preparing legal action against Retkin and dotworlds.net and
have notified authorities about the website.

Billing records show that Dotworlds operate a merchant account through
clearing agents Worldpay (www.worldpay.com). Request a refund from
sales@worldpay.com and contact your credit card company and refer the
security and fraud investigator to The Internet Corporation for
Assigned Names and Numbers (ICANN).

ICANN is a contractor to the United States Department of Commerce and
is mandated with the administration of the U.S. domain name
system. ICANN will assist your credit cards fraud and investigation
department in establishing that dotworlds is not the exclusive
registrar for any of the top level domains claimed by them.


[TELECOM Digest Editor's Note:  How do you all like what *your* net
has come to in recent years?  Simple-minded spams and scams galore; 
even guys with less than average intelligence can see through them, as
thinly-veiled as most of them are. Then the spams and scams get more
disguised than before. How many times have you seen those pop-up ads
on Yahoo, AOL and elsehwere saying 'you can have name@yourname as your
personal domain. Send us money to register it...' and it always points
to some bizzaro-bogus registry somewhere in some other country. So the
guys get all excited by this new development and reach for their Visa/MC
card to do business. Since very few people *really understand* how the
root servers or domain name system works, certainly not the guys who
are the topic of this message -- they do not understand how badly they
have been ripped off. Even somewhat more sophisticated users (let's
say the class called 'Usenet moderators' for example) sometimes fall
into traps. Who was that outfit several years ago that solicted the
moderators and offered to pay them good money for selling their lists
and groups to them. "We will take over the group, using you as the
moderator as before, but we own the list."  Oh, and for a while, they
did a good job, then gradually began closing down some of the groups
and polluting the ones that were left with so much spam as to make
them useless. Then some of the mailing lists disappeared totally. They
operated on the web, and almost got me as well.  Those boogers offered
me *one dollar* for each name on my list ... 'all you have to do is
supply us the names, change the mechanicals so that you publish out of
our web site, and we really would prefer that you not say anything to
anyone about this deal ... just take the several thousand dollars (in 
my case) that we give you and stay quiet.'  If you did not go with the
deal, that's okay; we will get in anyway. 

And because majordomo -- like the other dumb daemons that manage so
many of the mailing lists these days does not know its ass from its
elbow, still more mailing lists get polluted and ruined. I use
majordomo for the mailing list admin functions here *only*, but it has
taken in a few names I have suspicions about. I would not use it at
all if I had any REAL choice in the matter, but my health does not
give me much choice these days. Would you believe there are
'moderators' who administer their entire group, editorial and all,
using majordomo?  Nothing beats human subjective judgment in managing
newsgroups these days. Nothing!  No SpamAssassin, no mailwasher, none
of that does any good. Put all the obstacle courses you want in the
way, the spammers and scammers just keep fighting you. Then, as Monty
Solomon points out in our lead article in this issue, on Monday this
week there was a debacle such as never been seen before on the
net. Every root server was fighting to keep up with things against the
attack.  It was absolutely wild for a while. 

How much longer for *your* net? The anarchists wanted it the way it
was developed years ago; they got their way. Libertarians and anarchists
are damn fools; but that's the category I fit in also.  How much longer
for *your* net, people?  PAT]

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

Date: Tue, 22 Oct 2002 21:24:32 -0500
From: John Mayson 
Reply-To: John Mayson 
Subject: Re: Notification (Anti-Spam)  I DID NOTHING to you!!!!!!!!!
Organization: Nyx, the Spirit of the Night (www.nyx.net)


> [TELECOM Digest Editor's Note: A very sad conclusion to this issue
> of the Digest. Now it seems we have a spammer who not only borrows
> everyone's address to send out his spam, but it signs you up to 

I run a Linux system at home.  I utilize my /etc/mail/access.db file,
plus a good procmail recipe I found on the web.  I no longer live in
fear of spam.  This is one reason I have decided to become active on
USENET again.

I have yet to find any Windows software anywhere near as good as the
built-in Linux tools for combating spam.

The point is we don't have to live in fear on the net!!


John Mayson 
Austin, Texas, USA


[TELECOM Digest Editor's Note: I have been told by  a friend here that
I *may be* getting a Linux box at home sometime soon. I'll believe it
when I see it; when the Fedex driver shows up at the door with it.
If/when that happens, this Windows XP I use now will be out in the
junk pile in the alley ASAP. You hackers who like to break into
things, don't get any smart ideas:  what I do now is ssh/telnet into
lcs.mit.edu from home and use their Unix for the Digest, not this
Windows XP thing. All very well protected, thank you.   PAT]

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

From: spamthem@spammer.com (That Larry)
Subject: Re: Notification (Anti-Spam)  I DID NOTHING to you!!!!!!!!!
Organization: WebUseNet Corp.  http://corp.webusenet.com - Reinventing Usenet
Date: Wed, 23 Oct 2002 04:09:26 GMT


On Mon, 21 Oct 2002 22:27:47 EDT, Annie280zx@aol.com wrote:

> [TELECOM Digest Editor's Note: A very sad conclusion to this issue

The cure for email spammers who got your email address is to post it
to usenet for the spambots to pickup from the bottom end of your
post ... like mine ...(c;

Every email spam spends about a week on usenet to make sure the usenet
spambots hand them a piece of their own dung ....

Look down beyond my sig for the latest list.  I keep it on Notebook
and simply sig it to every post.  No, I don't care about bandwidth.
We have plenty of unused bandwidth, unlike what "they" would have you
believe ...


Larry


Ok, time to feed the spammers to the spambots...(c;

Current email spammers here are:
abuse@aol.com  (Might as well feed directly)
abuse@yahoo.com (another spam source feed?)
CS@IPCB.net
support@elitebuy.com
errors@elitebuy.com
serviceinfo@elitebuy.com
busdev@elitebuy.com
marketing@elitebuy.com
investorinfo@elitebuy.com
webmaster@elitebuy.com
generalpull@msn.com
abuse@hotmail.com
free_hgh304@eudoramail.com
digho3@hknetmail.com
Rene.Barbier@IRISLINK.COM
abuse@irislink.com
webmaster@irislink.com
sales@irislink.com
support@irislink.com

561-395-7831

561-395-6267

IRIS, Inc.
1600 NW Boca Raton Blvd, Suite 20
Boca Raton, FL 33432 USA

cj.anderson6589@lycosmail.com
webmaster@a1penispills.com
injunhawk@aol.com
grampasgoodies@hotmail.com


[TELECOM Digest Editor's Note:  I had to delete fifty or sixty blank 
lines from where your message ended to where your signature and the
hog slop started.  Sorry about that, but *I* don't have that much 
spare space here. And I strongly disagree with your assessment that
this Digest amounts to dung, even though several years ago I did coin
the expression 'Usenet is a cesspool' or 'Usenet is a dung heap, present
company excepted' I forget which. I did not think it was such a 
terrific statement until one day some time later, I saw myself quoted
with that line in someone's .sig file.    PAT]

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

Date: Wed, 23 Oct 2002 02:55:49 -0400
From: EastCoastGuyz 
Reply-To: EastCoastGuyz@hotmail.com
Organization: Hotmail.com
Subject: Buttons on VTECH VT 1981 to hard to press.


(Don't flame me, I'm new here.)

I got a VTECH VT 1981 900mhz DSS in 1998. It worked fine until around
2000. I've never experienced this problem with a cordless phone
before, on my VT 1981 the buttons on it become harder and harder to
press.  I noticed I started using my thumbs to dial on it. It got so
bad I started

Using the head of an eraser to dial on it, then it become about
impossible to even do that. I talked with VTECH customer support at
the time about getting it repaired and since it was out of warranty
the cost was expensive. I decided to unplug the phone and not use it
and just use a corded phone at that extension.

I tried some contact deoxidizer/cleaner hoping that would cure the
problem, but it didn't. When I talked with customer support they gave
me some answer about how I was using the phone that caused this
problem. I used the phone inside my home and never spilled anything on
it or anything like that. My other cordless phones (none are VTECH)
never had this problem.

While I have been shopping to get another DSS phone, I continue to see
the brand VTECH and people talk about them like they are a good brand.
This has been my only VTECH purchase and I am afraid to get another
VTECH product. I consider this expensive to have only been able to use
the phone for two years. I think it was $150.00 in 1998.

Does anyone have any suggestions of what to try to fix this phone? Is
it even worth fixing it? Has anyone else had this sort of problem with
VTECH cordless phones?


[TELECOM Digest Editor's Note: I have a Uniden 900 meg cordless phone
with built in caller-ID, answering machine, and headset combination. It
cost around fifty dollars at Costco at a small town in Oregon. Postage
and shipping to get it here to Independence added eight dollars to the
bill.  A very good deal.  PAT]

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

From: Mathew McKernan 
Subject: Re: Home Alert Type Boxes - Question
Date: Wed, 23 Oct 2002 21:50:42 +1000


Hi,

Here is Australia the system is operated by the "Never Alone" company
who provides the device along with the Telco. The telco generally
installs a second mode 3 connector or a second line, dedicated just
for the unit. Mode 3 plugs allow for the device to take the phone line
over, even if someone is on the line (on call). Very handy way of
doing it.


Thanks,

Mathew


Derk  wrote in message
news:telecom22.93.1@telecom-digest.org...

> Hi,

> I have a very senior friend that I want to get one of those home
> monitors made famous by the commercials that show a senior who has
> fallen down saying "Help, I've fallen and can't get up".  Basically it
> connects to the phone line and the user wears a pendant that he/she
> can press to call for help in case of an emergency. Then the box calls
> a response center on the house phone line, and the operator can check
> out the situation via a speaker and microphone on the box in the home.

> I am concerned that my friend sometimes forgets to put the telephone
> handset back on the base.  If this happened is there any way the home
> monitor box could clear the phone line to call the response center,
> especially if the phone off the hook was not the phone connected
> directly into the box? She has three phones in the house.

> Any information/suggestions appreciated.

> [TELECOM Digest Editor's Note: Those alert boxes are a very good idea.
> I have one for my mother now that she is living at Penn Manor, the
> senior residence up the street from me a few blocks. Like your friend,
> she has two phones, one in her bedroom and one in the main sitting
> area/kitchen.

> The way you get around the 'phone left off hook elsewhere' problem is
> to order from Mike Sandman. After all, Mike has all sorts of stuff for
> ancillary phone use. Look at website www.sandman.com . What you want
> are TWO or THREE of the devices which cause phones to 'take over
> control' of a line or take it away from elsewhere. Normally they are
> used in cases of computers/fax machines sharing a voice line, so that
> the anticipated voice call will not disrupt the in-progress fax or
> computer transmission. You can set these to disconnect a phone if
> another line comes off hook, or you can set them so that they are
> forced to stay silent in reverse. Ask Mike's phone person to explain
> them entirely. They are just little plugs that attach to the phone
> jack, then the modular cord from the phone plugs into them. When you
> get the device you are thinking of, you decide which phone line it is
> going to be on. Plug one of these little gizmos in the line, using the
> one that takes control. Then plug the security unit into it. Then
> plug the actual phone into the back of the security unit. Or, if the
> security unit does not allow a phone to be plugged in, then get one of
> the 'T' connectors with two outlets; plug the security unit into
> one side of it, the regular telephone into the other side.

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

From: Paul A Lee 
Subject: Re: Home Alert Type Boxes - Question
Date: Wed, 23 Oct 2002 10:37:32 -0400


Derk  wrote (in part):

> I have a very senior friend that I want to get one of those home
> monitors made famous by the commercials that show a senior who has
> fallen down saying "Help, I've fallen and can't get up".

> I am concerned that my friend sometimes forgets to put the telephone
> handset back on the base.  If this happened is there any way the home
> monitor box could clear the phone line to call the response center,
> especially if the phone off the hook was not the phone connected
> directly into the box?

I did a quick Yahoo! search of what's available in this type of system
and which controllers are designed to plug into an RJ31X jack. I found
several.

With a controller designed for use with an RJ31X, the phone line is
looped through through relay contacts in the controller, ahead of all
other stations on the phone line. As long as the controller's phone
line connection is plugged into a correctly wired RJ31X, the
controller has control over the phone line when it needs it.

When the controller needs to make a notification call, it breaks the
phone line connection to the downstream stations, effectively going
on-hook. Then the controller seizes the line and dials. If the
controller fails or loses power, the phone line stays connected
through normally closed contacts.

When nothing is plugged into the RJ31X, the phone line connection is
looped through shorting bars built into the jack, to maintain the
phone line connection to downstream stations.

Use any of the following jack part numbers or equivalent from Suttle,
Leviton, Allen Tel, ICC, or other manufacturer, for an RJ31X:

   625A28SB     625A38SB     625DS8     635A     635A8 (flush)

There may be a color number suffix on any of these part numbers. You
can get these jacks from Mike Sandman (http://www.sandman.com), and at
Graybar or most security alarm supply and building automation
distributors.

Find a wiring diagram here:

     http://www.levitonvoicedata.com/learning/rj31x.asp


Paul A Lee                     Voice: +1 717 730-8355
Sr Telecom Engineer   [Voice & Transmission]        Fax: +1 717 975-3789
Rite Aid Corporation, Telecomm, 30 Hunter Lane, Camp Hill, PA 17011-2410

This message is incidental to the writer's position at Rite Aid Corp. It
should not be interpreted as representing the position of Rite Aid Corp,
except as explicitly stated in the text.  Opinions are the writer's own.

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

From: Carl Navarro 
Subject: Re: Custom Ringing Answering Machine
Reply-To: cnavarro@wcnet.org
Date: Tue, 22 Oct 2002 23:15:06 GMT
Organization: Road Runner High Speed Online -- Northeast Ohio


On Mon, 21 Oct 2002 22:16:40 -0000, markrobt@hotmail.com (Mark
Roberts) wrote:

> Jim Haselmaier  had written:

>>  I'd bet there is an easy answer to this.  But I can't find it.
>>  Hopefully someone can guide me.

>>  I want to get an answering machine that answers based on the ring
>>  pattern - custom/distinctive ringing.  

> The PhoneMate 8800, but it may not be available any more. I bought
> mine about eight years ago from Damark, of all places. However, it
> answers ALL calls and then presents a separate message (one of two)
> based on the ring pattern. Based on the description of your
> requirements, I suspect that still may not help.

My Nortel 9516 does that.  You can have something like 12 mailboxes.
They sold that product to someone else, but sometimes it shows up on
eBay.


Carl Navarro

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

TELECOM Digest is an electronic journal devoted mostly but not
exclusively to telecommunications topics. It is circulated anywhere
there is email, in addition to various telecom forums on a variety of
networks such as Compuserve and America On Line, 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: 620-870-9697
                        Fax 1: 775-255-9970
                        Fax 2: 775-306-8390
                        Fax 3: 775-642-0603
                        Fax 4: 530-309-7234
                        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 second 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)

Email <==> FTP:  telecom-archives@telecom-digest.org 

      Send a simple, one line note to that automated address for
      a help file on how to use the automatic retrieval system
      for archives files. You can get desired files in email.

*************************************************************************
*   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.
Access to Premium (P) links requires upgrade to a paid subscription.

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

Only subscribers or registered users of ICB Toll Free News web site
will be able to access all or some of the full text of URLs provided.

LEGAL STUFF: TELECOM Digest (sm) is owned by Patrick Townson.
Copyright 2000 ICB, Inc. and TELECOM Digest. All rights reserved.
Our attorney is Bill Levant, of Blue Bell, PA.

   ---------------------------------------------------------------
    
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 twenty 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 V22 #94
*****************************
    
    
From editor@telecom-digest.org Wed Oct 23 16:27:03 2002
Received: from localhost (localhost [[UNIX: localhost]])
	by massis.lcs.mit.edu (8.11.3nb1/8.11.3) id g9NKR3Q23965;
	Wed, 23 Oct 2002 16:27:03 -0400 (EDT)
Date: Wed, 23 Oct 2002 16:27:03 -0400 (EDT)
From: editor@telecom-digest.org
Message-Id: <200210232027.g9NKR3Q23965@massis.lcs.mit.edu>
X-Authentication-Warning: massis.lcs.mit.edu: ptownson set sender to editor@telecom-digest.org using -f
To: ptownson
Approved: patsnewlist
Subject: TELECOM Digest V22 #95

TELECOM Digest     Wed, 23 Oct 2002 16:27:00 EDT    Volume 22 : Issue 95

Inside This Issue:                            Editor: Patrick A. Townson

    Tradegy of the Commons (San Jose Mercury News, 1999 Reprint)
    Re: Old NID Parts Question (Tom Schmidt)
    Re: Old NID Parts Question (Scott Dorsey)
    News Headlines of Interest 10/23/02 (Monty Solomon)
    Re: Is This True on Cisco? (Rich Campbell)
    Re: Digital TV Will Soon be Mandatory (That Larry)
    Re: Caller ID From Other Area Codes (Chris)
    Re: Error Found in a Telecom FAQ (joe@obilivan.net)
    Telnet Into Compuserve x.25 Network (Name)

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. WE DO NOT PERMIT NAME/EMAIL ADDRESS
HARVESTING FROM THIS JOURNAL. 'SALTED' EMAIL ADDRESSES APPEAR
HEREIN TO VERIFY THIS. YOU GET SUED IN SMALL CLAIMS COURT IF YOU
GET CAUGHT SPAMMING OR SENDING VIRUSES. DON'T DO IT.

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

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

From: TELECOM Digest Editor 
Date: Wed, 23 Oct 2002  15:00:00 EDT
Subject: Tradegy of the Commons (San Jose Mercury 1999 Reprint)


Common Tragedy
Will Privatization of the Net Spell the End of its Gritty Common
Ground?

By Thor Iverson

'ENOUGH," I said to myself. "This is a huge waste of time." I had
just spent 15 fruitless minutes on the Usenet newsgroup
alt.food.wine and had found absolutely nothing of value. The
newsgroup's 150 new messages were a collection of off-topic spam,
posts from a psychologically imbalanced individual pretending to
represent a winery, and flame wars over that individual. It had been
that way for several weeks, and there was no end in sight. Worse,
the newsgroup's most informative posters had apparently gone into
hiding. I wondered where they had gone and queried one by email.

"We're all on the WLDG -- the Wine Lovers' Discussion Group," he said.
"Spam-free, 100-percent intelligent wine discussion. Why not join
us? The URL is ..."

I checked it out and was instantly hooked. Sure, it was a web-based
bulletin board, but I soon found out that among the wine lovers
populating the group were several programmers who kept the board
running smoothly, avoiding such forums' usual speed problems. And
the discussion was superior to anything I'd found on Usenet. The
obvious cause seemed to be the board's semi-moderated quality
(obnoxious behavior was punishable by banishment at the site owner's
discretion), but that proved to be a misread on my part. Faced with
the prospect of going back to the free-for-all on alt.food.wine,
members policed themselves; potential flame wars were quashed by
public and private messages asking the participants to cool it. A
self-imposed atmosphere of civility prevailed, and there was
constant, high-quality discussion. I had found my Net oasis.

There's a concept in the physical world known as the "tragedy of the
commons." Build a useful public space, and people will come. But the
more people use it, the more the value of the space is degraded,
until it ultimately fails to fulfill the purpose for which it was
created. Thus, success leads inevitably to failure.

The Net is proof that this concept is fully translatable to the
digital sphere. A victim of its own incredible success, the Net has
seen its once manageable common space glutted with information both
relevant and nonsensical. Content fights a losing battle with spam.
Flame wars rage unabated on every mailing list, newsgroup, bulletin
board and chat room. And each new user unwittingly adds to the
problem.

In response, longtime netizens have battled to preserve their
"public spaces." Guidelines and rules of conduct -- "netiquette" -- are
a standard part of every access provider's and online service's
terms of use. Anti-spam measures, both open and covert, are
constantly in use on Usenet newsgroups. And the owners of
proprietary chat rooms and websites featuring discussion areas have
grown increasingly intolerant of off-topic content and abusive
users.

But the Net's decentralized nature, an essential part of its design
and one of its most positive features, has--ironically--made this
sort of control nearly impossible. The Net is designed to work
around information filters, but the design is "dumb"; it doesn't
distinguish between useful and useless information. Faced with the
degradation of the Net's commons, users have retreated to private
spaces--moderated newsgroups, private (sometimes invitation-only)
mailing lists and highly moderated web discussion groups. The future
of discourse on the Net seems destined to be anything but the
freewheeling, open exchange of public ideas it was envisioned to be.

'ENOUGH," J. Michael Straczynski said. "I can't participate in this
anymore." The newsgroup rec.arts.sf.tv.babylon5 had long served a
dual purpose as a discussion area for fans and a forum for those
fans to talk with Babylon 5 creator/producer/writer Straczynski
about the show, television production and anything else that engaged
their common interest.

But something had gone wrong. A few malcontents had, justifiably or
not, chosen to voice their disagreements with Straczynski frequently
and publicly. The newsgroup became a battleground, pitting
Straczynski and his supporters against the anti-Straczynski crowd
and their supporters. So Straczynski bowed out, saying that he
didn't have time to respond to all the flame wars and still produce
his show.

The newsgroup held a virtual huddle and came up with a plan. The
newsgroup as it existed would continue, but two new newsgroups would
be created. The first, rec.arts.sf.tv.babylon5.info, would serve
only one purpose: the dissemination of essential, official
information about the show -- air times, production news, merchandise
announcements and posts from Straczynski. It would be closed to all
posts except those from the few people who had volunteered to repost
such information.

The second, rec.arts.sf.tv.babylon5.moderated, was slightly
different. It looked a lot like the old newsgroup in terms of
content and traffic. But there was an important change: all posts
were subject to moderation by a committee. The committee didn't
manually approve all posts prior to their appearance on the
newsgroup, but since all traffic went through a central point that
only the moderators could access, problem posts could be removed and
problem users could be identified and filtered. This solved
Straczynski's problem, and he returned to the newsgroup.

It didn't solve all the problems, however. The moderation committee
was subject to a fairly hazy set of guidelines, which had been set
out in the proposal for the creation of the newsgroup (a long and
public procedure that most newsgroups must undergo before their
appearance on Usenet). And it soon became fairly apparent that they
were not filtering by a set of ironclad rules. Worse, posts
questioning the moderation policy were themselves rejected as
"off-topic." There seemed to be little recourse for the new set of
malcontents. But, as the newsgroup functioned smoothly, there was
also little protest.

"ENOUGH," said several people at once. "This is ridiculous." The
rec.arts.startrek.* hierarchy was the outgrowth of one of the
longest-running discussions on the Net, one that had started
virtually simultaneously with the birth of the Internet itself. It
had reached five newsgroups and was still growing, with as many as
100 posts per group per hour; there was no way any human being could
keep up with it all and still hold a job or attend classes. Nor was
the level of discussion particularly illuminating. "Voyager sucks"
vs. "Voyager rules" was a not uncommon exchange.

A few newsgroup veterans bemoaned the problem and took action. From
that action was born an invitation-only mailing list for a few
select Trek fans, those with a proven ability to post intelligent
and on-topic material. The number of participants was small at
first, growing slowly until it reached about 20. The tenor of the
discussion was polite and the level of insight high, and the needs
of the participants to discuss Trek were met for a long while.

But the discussion slowly and inexorably waned. One culprit was the
declining quality of the product under discussion; few of the
participants were able to tolerate the inanity of Voyager, so they
focused their interest on other, non-Trek pursuits. But there was
also another, more insidious problem. For a time, the members of the
private mailing list kept up a low-key participation in the various
Trek newsgroups, which led to new contacts and new members. But that
ventually ended as well, and the mailing list stagnated. Everyone
on the list knew everyone else's opinion on everything, and since
there were no new members, there was nothing to fire new discussion.
Meanwhile, low-quality discussion continued unabated on the
newsgroups; those few who might have qualified for and enjoyed
membership in the private list didn't hear about it because the
members of that list weren't paying any attention.

   [line]

RemarQ exec Bill Lee brings order to the chaos of the Usenet. And
someday, he'd even like to build a nice community there.

   [line]

"ENOUGH," the post thundered. "Who gave you the right to stifle
dissent? By what moral authority do you claim absolute power over
the content of this mailing list?" It was the latest in a long
series of public attacks against the list "owner" (the person
charged with administering a mailing list) of Digital Graffiti, the
longest-running and largest Led Zeppelin mailing list on the Net.
The list had gone through times both good and bad, but its latest
administrator had developed a distressing Napoleonic complex. A mild
disagreement -- hardly the first, or the most virulent, in the list's
history --had escalated into a full-fledged flame war, and the list
owner had taken sides, threatening to silence those who disagreed
with him.

In response to this final attack, the discussion came to an abrupt
end with an announcement from the administrator: "By the power
vested in me as list owner. Come back when you've learned your
lesson." The offending party was booted off the list. Anyone who
protested the move was also expelled from the list. Soon, there was
no discussion of Zeppelin at all; most of the vocal posters had been
banished, and those who remained were too stunned to say anything.
Arrogantly asserting that he had to "shepherd the flock," the list
administrator unilaterally made the list a moderated one, rejecting
and editing posts at his whim.

Of course, the abrupt change from an open list to a moderated one
couldn't last long. The expelled members began plotting among
themselves, including discontented but not-yet-expelled members of
Digital Graffiti in their discussions. Choices were considered, and
finally a new mailing list was created as an alternative to the old
one. This mailing list, however, had a mission: There was a written
and voted-upon charter, a rotating committee entrusted with
enforcing that charter and many safeguards against a possible power
play by one of those committee members. The list was not moderated,
nor was much prohibited by the charter, but membership required a
voluntary agreement to abide by the fairly simple rules of the list.

Drawn by the promise of an unmoderated forum that nevertheless had
the teeth to deal with severe problems, people migrated in droves to
the new list. Eventually, Digital Graffiti ceased to exist, with the
administrator still claiming that his "recalcitrant children" were
merely misguided.

THE RETREAT of the digerati to mailing lists is ironic, since email
is one of the Internet's oldest and most primitive technologies. The
promise of Usenet (and ever-more-sophisticated news-filtering
technologies to make it manageable) -- and, later, of the web and
proprietary services' chat technology -- made it seem as though simple
mail reflectors and text-based communication were headed the way of
HF and the telegraph.

Yet the situation also makes sense. The Net's "tragedy of the
commons" is certainly a result of exploding growth, but it is also
partially the fault of a technology that enabled before it could
control, that allowed before it could limit. Control and limitations
are not always required (or desired), but their technologically
enforced absence is not always desirable either. People will
eventually make their way back to the World Wide Web and Usenet (and
whatever is yet to come), but it will not be until technology allows
more control over those media.

Of course, control is a two-edged sword. Personal control over
content -- Usenet's kill files, email filters -- is the Holy Grail of
moderation technology. Computers are not yet smart enough to allow
complete self-moderation, which is where so-called censorware comes
in. Programs like NetNanny and systems like AdultCheck are useful
for those attempting to exercise some control over the wide-open
content of the Net, but they rely on others' decisions about what
content is and is not appropriate. And there's still no reliable way
to filter information that is simply stupid or uninteresting without
resorting to moderation (which carries its own risks, as the
previous examples demonstrate).

The most chilling danger is that the flight to private mailing
lists, moderated newsgroups and closed websites will exclude those
not lucky enough to get in on the ground floor. The Net's public
spaces are powerful because they are public, allowing anyone a
chance to step up on a soapbox and contribute. But when a forum's
best and brightest take their act elsewhere, the original forum's
usefulness is greatly diminished. Worse yet, private or moderated
forums have a way of becoming closed systems, invisible to anyone
not present at their creation and impossible to get into once the
creators have left the public forum behind. A new user searching for
intelligent discussion of Star Trek on the Net might never find it,
simply because he or she doesn't know where to look or whom to ask.

So what's the solution? Taking it as a given that the influx of
people to the Net will not level off anytime soon, the answer must
be found somewhere other than the subdivision of the Net into
partitioned, private, proprietary fortresses of users and content.
Somehow, a way must be found to reverse the tragedy of the commons,
to make the Net's public spaces more useful despite the number of
people who use them. The answer, then, lies in technology and its
applications.

There have been tentative steps in this direction already. Some
privately owned forums have given up control to democratically
chosen administrators following written guidelines, proving that
mailing lists and web discussion groups don't have to succumb to
their subscribers. Moderated and limited-content newsgroups (usually
those with .moderated or .info at the end of their names) are
successful under the same conditions, especially when paired with
unmoderated forums that allow completely free discourse to continue.
And ever-more-sophisticated filtering technologies, especially those
based on software agents, can help separate the digital wheat from
the virtual chaff in everything from email to the web.
Community-based content selection, in which people rely on one
another to sort out the vagaries of the Net (also known as
collaborative filtering), is also a promising technology being tried
on Usenet and the web.

In the end, the Net's survival as a public medium -- rather than a
privately held, privately controlled one -- depends on the success of
these technologies. Net users were able to rise up and help defeat
the Communications Decency Act in the same way they collectively
were able to create and organize Usenet many years earlier: they
worked together for a common cause. With all those people off in
their own private domains, the misbegotten offspring of the CDA (or
something worse) might arrive and cripple the Net without anyone's
even noticing. And that would be a tragedy.


 From the January 14-20, 1999 issue of Metro.

Copyright © Metro  Publishing  Inc.  Maintained  by Boulevards New
Media.

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

Reply-To: Tom Schmidt 
From: Tom Schmidt 
Subject: Re: Old NID Parts Question
Date: Wed, 23 Oct 2002 01:58:59 GMT


Frank Tarczynski  wrote in message
news:telecom22.93.2@telecom-digest.org:

> My house was built in 1983 and recently BellSouth replaced the NID on
> the home's exterior.  Just inside of the NID is a single jack (also
> marked Network Interface) to which the rest of my wiring is connected.

> Due to corrosion I need to replace the jack. There is a small PC board
> inside the jack wired across the red and green lines with a 0.464uF cap,
> a 15k ohm resistor and what appears to be a diode or MOV all wired in
> series.  Either corrosion or excess current seems to have taken a toll
> on one of the resistor legs.

> Does anyone know the specifications for these components?  Anyone know
> where I can get a replacement?  Since this is now inside the NID is this
> device still needed?  Since I have 2 lines do I need one across both
> sets?

> Given the cost ($90/hr), awful response and just plain nastiness of
> working with BellSouth I'd rather take care of this myself.

The circuit you are talking about is called a half-ringer. This is
used to create a known signature for automated line testing.

The NID is owned by and is the Telco's responsibility. You need to get
them to fix it. There should be no charge it repair it.

Your responsibility begins with the inside wire terminals.


/Tom

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

From: kludge@panix.com (Scott Dorsey)
Subject: Re: Old NID Parts Question
Date: 23 Oct 2002 10:35:36 -0400
Organization: Former users of Netcom shell (1989-2000)


In article , Frank Tarczynski
 wrote:

> My house was built in 1983 and recently BellSouth replaced the NID on
> the home's exterior.  Just inside of the NID is a single jack (also
> marked Network Interface) to which the rest of my wiring is connected.

> Due to corrosion I need to replace the jack. There is a small PC board
> inside the jack wired across the red and green lines with a 0.464uF cap,
> a 15k ohm resistor and what appears to be a diode or MOV all wired in
> series.  Either corrosion or excess current seems to have taken a toll
> on one of the resistor legs.

> Does anyone know the specifications for these components?  Anyone know
> where I can get a replacement?  Since this is now inside the NID is this
> device still needed?  Since I have 2 lines do I need one across both
> sets?

> Given the cost ($90/hr), awful response and just plain nastiness of
> working with BellSouth I'd rather take care of this myself.

This is on THEIR side of the system, and they are obligated to fix it for
free if it is actually broken.  But just because it's corroded doesn't mean
it's broken.

scott
"C'est un Nagra.  C'est suisse, et tres, tres precis."

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

Date: Tue, 22 Oct 2002 18:47:14 -0400
From: Monty Solomon 
Subject: News Headlines of Interest 10/23/02


Internet by Satellite
By JOHN R. QUAIN

BROADBAND" and "high-speed Internet access" are not words you hear
much in the countryside. Moving to a bucolic setting generally means
not only escaping the urban din but also leaving behind zippy cable
and digital subscriber line Internet services. Living without a
constant online connection can be onerous for anyone trying to work
out of a country office or trying to telecommute on extended
weekends. But there is a wireless option: two-way satellite service.

In rural environs like Vermont, where I spend part of my time and the 
locals refer to the ubiquitous gray satellite television dishes as 
"the state flower," a satellite hookup seems like a natural. The same 
geostationary satellites that maintain a consistent position over the 
Earth to deliver television pictures can be used as relay stations 
for Internet access. Of course, to send e-mail and requests for Web 
pages, there has to be not only satellite reception but also a way to 
transmit your requests. Two so-called two-way satellite systems are 
available for residential customers; either represents a significant 
investment.

StarBand's two-way system, sold primarily through EchoStar's Dish 
Network dealers, costs $500, plus $70 a month for the first year of 
your contract and $60 a month thereafter. Installation is extra. You 
can defray the initial equipment cost by choosing to pay $200 up 
front, but you must commit to a $100 monthly fee for the first year 
and then $70 a month for the second year. Either way, the first-year 
cost is more than $1,300.

The other major two-way satellite system is the DirecWay package from 
Hughes Network Systems, which is sold mainly by DirecTV and the 
Internet service provider EarthLink. DirecTV charges $580 for the 
hardware and installation plus $60 a month for one year. EarthLink, 
which markets it as EarthLink Satellite, charges $399 for the 
equipment, $199 for the installation and $70 a month for one year. 
Again, it still works out to be $1,300 or more.

http://www.nytimes.com/2002/10/17/technology/circuits/17basi.html


     AT&T Earns 6 Cents Per Diluted Share from Continuing Operations,
     Excluding Other Income; Reported Earnings are 5 Cents Per Diluted
     Share from Continuing Operations on Revenue of $12 Billion
     - Oct 22, 2002 11:47 AM (BusinessWire)

BEDMINSTER, N.J.--(BUSINESS WIRE)--Oct. 22, 2002--AT&T (NYSE:T)
today announced third-quarter earnings of $0.06 per diluted share from
continuing operations, excluding other income. In the same quarter
last year, AT&T reported a loss of $0.02 on the same basis. As
previously reported, on January 1, 2002, AT&T adopted Statement of
Financial Accounting Standards No. 142, which eliminated amortization
of goodwill and franchise costs. The amortization of these items in
the third quarter of 2001 reduced reported earnings from continuing
operations by $0.11 per diluted share.

    On a reported basis, the company earned $0.05 per diluted share
from continuing operations, compared with a loss of $0.69 in the
year-ago quarter.

    Revenue for the quarter was $12.0 billion, a decline of 8.3
percent from the year-ago quarter on a reported basis and a decline of
7.4 percent on a pro forma basis. Pro forma revenue adjusts for
significant cable dispositions and the deconsolidation of Excite@Home.
The quarter's lower revenue was primarily due to continued declines in
long distance voice services, partially offset by growth at AT&T
Broadband in telephony, high-speed data and digital video, and growth
areas of AT&T Business, primarily data/Internet protocol (IP)/managed
services.

     - http://finance.lycos.com/home/news/story.asp?story=29200121


                   BellSouth Reports Third Quarter Earnings

    ATLANTA, Oct. 22 /PRNewswire-FirstCall/ -- BellSouth Corporation
(NYSE:BLS) reported earnings per share (EPS) of 39 cents in the third
quarter of 2002, compared to breakeven EPS (0 cents) in the same
quarter of 2001.  Normalized for special items, EPS in the third
quarter of 2002 was 52 cents, compared to normalized EPS of 59 cents
in the same quarter a year ago.

    Capital expenditures for the first nine months totaled $2.9
billion, a reduction of 39.4 percent compared to $4.7 billion during
the same period a year earlier.  Operating free cash flow (defined as
cash flow from operations less capital expenditures) was $1.5 billion
in the third quarter of 2002, and totaled $3.7 billion year-to-date.
Total debt has been reduced $2.5 billion, or 12.2 percent, since the
beginning of 2002.  Consolidated revenues, which do not include
BellSouth's 40 percent share of Cingular Wireless, were $5.54 billion,
compared to $6.01 billion in the third quarter of 2001.  Normalized
total operating revenues, which include Cingular, were $7.02 billion,
a decline of 5.7 percent versus the third quarter of 2001.  Reported
net income was $733 million, compared to reported net income of $7
million in the third quarter a year ago.  Normalized net income was
$970 million, compared to $1.12 billion in the third quarter of 2001.
BellSouth's operating results continued to reflect weak demand for
communications services, both in the United States and Latin America.
The impact of retail access line market share loss in the U.S., as
well as currency devaluations in Argentina and Venezuela, also
affected results.  Business failures, including those in the
telecommunications industry, also continued to negatively affect
demand and financial results.  The company said it is eliminating
certain service offerings, resulting in a charge in the third quarter.
See Special Items below.

http://finance.lycos.com/home/news/story.asp?story=29193238

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

From: Rich Campbell 
Subject: Re: Is This True on Cisco?
Organization: AT&T Broadband
Date: Wed, 23 Oct 2002 00:50:20 GMT


I mean just simple ring groups. Having the capabilty of taking more
than one call at a time at a phone..ie multi line capabilty.  Also,
Intercom?


Rich

George Kennedy  wrote in message
news:telecom22.92.7@telecom-digest.org:

> Rich Campbell  wrote in message
> news::

>> I need to pick some brains here.  Is it true you cannot do intercom
>> paging on Cisco phone systems as well as zone paging?  Also, does the
>> system have multi-line capabilty as well as ring group capability?

> My management people acutally asked about this when we put Call
> Manager in a couple of months ago and according to the guy that did my
> implementation there is no traditional paging available.  I have seen
> people working on XML apps for the phones to give a sort of paging.
> More like pushing an XML page to the phone along with an alert tone
> though.

> Not sure what you are getting at with multi-line.  If you mean can one
> phone have more than one number the answer is yes.  Just have to get a
> phone model with enough buttons.  As far as ring groups there are
> several ways to do that.  Depends on what you want but you can work
> most of them with the Call Manager.

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

From: spamthem@spammer.com (That Larry)
Subject: Re: Digital TV Will Soon be Mandatory. For Chip Makers It's Prime
Organization: WebUseNet Corp.  http://corp.webusenet.com ReInventing UseNet
Date: Wed, 23 Oct 2002 04:13:49 GMT


On Mon, 21 Oct 2002 22:43:52 -0400, Monty Solomon 
wrote:

> Regulation Forced Market: Digital TV Will Soon be Mandatory.
> For Chip Makers it's Prime Time.
> By Patrick Ross
> October 17, 2002

The Motion Picture Association of America (MPAA) is hell bent on
forcing Americans to have a TV set with the digital decoder built
INSIDE the TV to prevent recording of any of their copyrighted
content.  They will simply refuse to energize any "set top boxes" that
convert the signal into something that can be recorded in the home
(and posted to usenet ...(c:) to be pirated.

All current digital TVs, of course, won't be playing these movies so
your $8000 investment will only play the spam channels.

When the boys in the factory figure out what's being done to their TV
sets they sit all night and watch, there may be riots in the street
until the bribed politicians are replaced ...


Larry

Ok, time to feed the spammers to the spambots...(c;

Current email spammers here are:
abuse@aol.com  (Might as well feed directly)
abuse@yahoo.com (another spam source feed?)
CS@IPCB.net
support@elitebuy.com
errors@elitebuy.com
serviceinfo@elitebuy.com
busdev@elitebuy.com
marketing@elitebuy.com
investorinfo@elitebuy.com
webmaster@elitebuy.com
generalpull@msn.com
abuse@hotmail.com
free_hgh304@eudoramail.com
digho3@hknetmail.com
Rene.Barbier@IRISLINK.COM
abuse@irislink.com
webmaster@irislink.com
sales@irislink.com
support@irislink.com

561-395-7831

561-395-6267

IRIS, Inc.
1600 NW Boca Raton Blvd, Suite 20
Boca Raton, FL 33432 USA

cj.anderson6589@lycosmail.com
webmaster@a1penispills.com
injunhawk@aol.com
grampasgoodies@hotmail.com

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

From: cshields@staff.itol.com (Chris)
Subject: Re: Caller ID From Other Area Codes
Date: 23 Oct 2002 06:24:25 -0700
Organization: http://groups.google.com/


I have actually ran across this a lot. What I have found is that when
calls go through multiple carriers, the id information actually can
get lost. A lot of times when a call has to go through a smaller
carrier that does not support id info it drops the id info and sends
the call on. Also some companies that have certain switches can
actually have their switch set to not send id info. If you do any area
code routing it is a good idea to have a default route for these type
of calls.

Russ Fort  wrote in message
news::

> My local Verizon Tech once explained it to me as a Network Trunking
> Issue.  Locally we only get Caller ID information if the call
> originates from an Exchange/Long Distance Carrier with SS7 trunking.
> SS7 it was explained uses out of band signaling, thereby allowing for
> more detail information about each call, like Caller ID.  Some of the
> long distance carries were not connected to our exchange with SS7
> trunking, and their calls arrived as Unavailable.
 
> That's how my tech explained it.  Hope that helps.

> Russ

> M Wentworth  wrote in message
> news:telecom22.72.5@telecom-digest.org:

>> I just got Caller ID recently, and am surprised by the number of calls
>> coming in from legitimate companies where the caller name is listed as
>> "UNAVAILABLE", "UNKNOWN NAME" or just the name of the state, such as
>> "OHIO."

>> I live in the 781 area code in the Boston area and get these results
>> with my Verizon and RCN phone lines.

>> I called Verizon to ask, but the customer service rep said he was
>> surprised, since most calls that would show "UNAVAILABLE" are from
>> telemarketers' autodialers. (Well, I know these companies, and I know
>> they are not telemarketers!) He then speculated that it might be due
>> to incompatibilities between POTS and Centrex lines.

>> Reading through posts to this group, I'm very hopeful that I can get a
>> more useful answer here!

>> Thanks in advance!

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

From: joe@obilivan.net
Subject: Re: Error Found in a Telecom FAQ
Date: Wed, 23 Oct 2002 15:23:05 GMT
Organization: Cox Communications



Sam wrote:

> The CO has a "feature" for residential customers in most areas that is
> named "calling party hold", it is a time-out delay type function that
> will hold a called line a determined length of time(depending on
> local) when the called party hangs up, and the called party can go to
> another extension, typicaly 10-12 seconds, after hanging up the
> extension that was used and find the calling party on the extension
> when they arrive at it. Have you ever attempted to call a different
> phone after talking to someone that just called you, and seem to never
> get rid of them and hear that beautiful dial tone? It was "calling
> party hold" that was keeping you connected.

I think you mean called party hold.  If the calling party goes
on-hook, flash timing begins and the connection is scrubbed after 2
seconds.  10-12 seconds is correct for the person receiving the call,
though.

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

From: Name 
Subject: Telnet Into Compuserve x.25 Network
Date: Wed, 23 Oct 2002 19:08:49 GMT
Organization: Road Runner - NYC


Hello,

I am trying to telnet into Compuserve's x.25 network. (I believe it is
now uunet or worldcom). I am aware that you can telnet to
gateway.compuserve.com, but I want to get to the "Which Host" prompt
as opposed to the CIS service.


TIA.

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

TELECOM Digest is an electronic journal devoted mostly but not
exclusively to telecommunications topics. It is circulated anywhere
there is email, in addition to various telecom forums on a variety of
networks such as Compuserve and America On Line, 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: 620-870-9697
                        Fax 1: 775-255-9970
                        Fax 2: 775-306-8390
                        Fax 3: 775-642-0603
                        Fax 4: 530-309-7234
                        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 second 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)

Email <==> FTP:  telecom-archives@telecom-digest.org 

      Send a simple, one line note to that automated address for
      a help file on how to use the automatic retrieval system
      for archives files. You can get desired files in email.

*************************************************************************
*   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.
Access to Premium (P) links requires upgrade to a paid subscription.

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

Only subscribers or registered users of ICB Toll Free News web site
will be able to access all or some of the full text of URLs provided.

LEGAL STUFF: TELECOM Digest (sm) is owned by Patrick Townson.
Copyright 2000 ICB, Inc. and TELECOM Digest. All rights reserved.
Our attorney is Bill Levant, of Blue Bell, PA.

   ---------------------------------------------------------------
    
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 twenty 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 V22 #95
*****************************
    
    
From editor@telecom-digest.org Thu Oct 24 22:37:30 2002
Received: from localhost (localhost [[UNIX: localhost]])
	by massis.lcs.mit.edu (8.11.3nb1/8.11.3) id g9P2bUL04590;
	Thu, 24 Oct 2002 22:37:30 -0400 (EDT)
Date: Thu, 24 Oct 2002 22:37:30 -0400 (EDT)
From: editor@telecom-digest.org
Message-Id: <200210250237.g9P2bUL04590@massis.lcs.mit.edu>
X-Authentication-Warning: massis.lcs.mit.edu: ptownson set sender to editor@telecom-digest.org using -f
To: ptownson
Approved: patsnewlist
Subject: TELECOM Digest V22 #96

TELECOM Digest     Thu, 24 Oct 2002 22:38:00 EDT    Volume 22 : Issue 96

Inside This Issue:                            Editor: Patrick A. Townson

    News Headlines of Interest  10/24/02 (Monty Solomon)
    Earth to Congress: We Watch TV (J Kelly)
    Looking For a Used Copy of Lucent TMS5 RCOS Software (jdeyo@bellsouth)
    Re: Attack On Internet Called Largest Ever (That Larry)
    Re: Digital TV Will Soon be Mandatory (H.E. Taylor)
    Re: Custom Ringing Answering Machine (Tim Keating)
    Re: Custom Ringing Answering Machine (Stanley Cline)
    Re: Error Found in a Telecom FAQ (John Higdon)
    Re: Telnet Into Compuserve x.25 Network (73115.1041@compuserve.com)
    Digital RJ45 Switch (Edward Benyukhis)
    Re: Buttons on VTECH VT 1981 to Hard to Press (Gordon S. Hlavenka)
    Re: Notification (Anti-Spam)  I DID NOTHING to you!!!!!! (Stanley Cline)

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. WE DO NOT PERMIT NAME/EMAIL ADDRESS
HARVESTING FROM THIS JOURNAL. 'SALTED' EMAIL ADDRESSES APPEAR
HEREIN TO VERIFY THIS. YOU GET SUED IN SMALL CLAIMS COURT IF YOU
GET CAUGHT SPAMMING OR SENDING VIRUSES. DON'T DO IT.

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

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

Date: Thu, 24 Oct 2002 02:06:07 -0400
From: Monty Solomon 
Subject: News Headlines of Interest  10/24/02


    Lucent Technologies Reports Results for Fourth Fiscal Quarter of 2002

    > Posts pro forma revenues of $2.28 billion and pro forma loss
      per share of 64 cents
    > Sets plan for new breakeven cost structure at $2.5 billion in late
      fiscal 2003, working to reduce breakeven further
    > Targets return to profitability for end of fiscal 2003
    > Expects revenues to be flat to down approximately 10% in current
      quarter and to improve to about $2.5 billion in 2nd fiscal quarter
    > Reaffirms sufficient liquidity to fund operations and restructuring

    MURRAY HILL, N.J., Oct. 23 /PRNewswire-FirstCall/ -- Lucent
Technologies (NYSE:LU) today reported results for the fourth fiscal
quarter of 2002 and for fiscal year 2002, which ended Sept. 30, 2002.
    
For the fourth fiscal quarter of 2002, the company recorded pro
forma(1) revenues of $2.28 billion, which represented a 23 percent
sequential decline from the $2.95 billion in revenues achieved in the
third fiscal quarter of 2002 and was consistent with its previous
guidance.  The company recorded $4.75 billion in pro forma revenues in
the year-ago quarter.  The company's pro forma loss per share(2) from
continuing operations was 64 cents.  The loss includes charges of
about 38 cents per share associated primarily with a significant
customer financing default as well as inventory and certain other
asset impairment charges that were taken in light of revised market
forecasts.  

In the third fiscal quarter, the company had posted a pro forma loss
of $1.88 per share from continuing operations, which included the
impact of a non-cash charge of $1.72 per share to increase the
valuation allowance on deferred tax assets.  The company recorded a
pro forma loss of 28 cents in the year-ago quarter.

http://finance.lycos.com/home/news/story.asp?story=29218159


     AT&T Wireless Reports Strong Third Quarter Services Revenue
     Growth of More than 16 Percent; Nationwide Advanced Network
     Rolled Out Ahead of Schedule
     - Oct 23, 2002 04:04 PM (BusinessWire)

REDMOND, Wash.--(BUSINESS WIRE)--Oct. 23, 2002--AT&T Wireless
(NYSE:AWE) today reported a strong third quarter with services
revenue for the mobility business increasing 16 percent to $3.765
billion compared to $3.239 billion for the year-ago quarter.

    Earnings/(loss) per share (EPS), excluding non-cash impairment
charges, was $0.04 for the third quarter. These non-cash charges
include wireless licensing costs impairments, charges related to the
company's investments in unconsolidated subsidiaries and a valuation
reserve on deferred taxes. The company's reported loss per share was
($0.76) in the third quarter, including a net impact of ($0.80) from
these non-cash charges. In the year-ago quarter, the company had EPS
of $0.03 per share.

     - http://finance.lycos.com/home/news/story.asp?story=29235357

       Avaya Reports Fourth Fiscal Quarter and Fiscal Year 2002 Results

    -- Cash Flow From Ongoing Operations Is $244 Million in Fourth Fiscal
       Quarter; Cash Balance Increases to $597 Million

    -- Fiscal 2002 Selling General and Administrative (SG&A) Expenses From
       Ongoing Operations Decreased $462 Million Compared to Fiscal 2001

    BASKING RIDGE, N.J., Oct. 23 /PRNewswire-FirstCall/ -- Avaya Inc.,
a leading global provider of communications networks to businesses,
today said revenues in the fourth fiscal quarter of 2002 were $1.152
billion compared to revenues in the third fiscal quarter of $1.219
billion, a decline of 5.5 percent.

    Compared to revenues of $1.442 billion in the fourth fiscal
quarter of last year, the decline was 20.1 percent.

    SG&A expenses were 29.8 percent of revenues in the fourth fiscal
quarter, the lowest level since the third fiscal quarter of 2001.  The
decline in SG&A expenses narrowed Avaya's operating loss from ongoing
operations from $11 million in the third fiscal quarter of 2002 to $6
million in the fourth fiscal quarter of 2002, even with lower
revenues.

http://finance.lycos.com/home/news/story.asp?story=29235616

     AOL Time Warner Reports Results for Third Quarter 2002 and
     Announces It Will Restate Certain Financial  Information Related
     To America Online Division
     - Oct 23, 2002 04:10 PM (BusinessWire)
     - http://finance.lycos.com/home/news/story.asp?story=29235754


Hackers target wireless networks  Worldwide 'war drive' set for Saturday

By William M. Bulkeley
THE WALL STREET JOURNAL

Oct. 23 - Technology sophisticates who specialize in exposing 
corporate-security lapses will orchestrate a world-wide "war drive" 
to strut their stuff Saturday.

        IN 25 LOCALES in seven countries from Alberta, Canada, to New 
Zealand, they plan office-building drive-bys armed with laptops, 
radio scanners and antennas, aiming to intercept signals from the 
ever-spreading wireless networks used to connect corporate computers 
with each other and the Internet.

       For many of the hacker types who will participate, war driving 
is a benign electronic scavenger hunt meant to alert companies and 
others to unprotected wireless access points that can leave owners 
vulnerable to spying or sabotage.
       
http://www.msnbc.com/news/824622.asp


T cellphone plan halts
Contractor cites changed economy

By Mac Daniel, Globe Staff, 10/23/2002

The MBTA's effort to bring cellphone service below ground officially
ended yesterday after the company hired to install the network said
wireless providers have refused to sign on.

Wireless providers were reluctant to invest in the venture because of 
the faltering economy and because they are more interested in wiring 
the underground tunnels of the Big Dig.

The MBTA had hoped to use the annual revenues that the project would 
yield to help offset future fare increases.

Last year, the Massachusetts Bay Transportation Authority and
Illinois-based Andrew Corporation signed a contract under which Andrew
was to install the intricate cellphone system and earn profits through
service agreements with wireless providers.


http://www.boston.com/dailyglobe2/296/metro/T_cellphone_plan_halts+.shtml


Fliers may soon get to use cell phones
By Paul Davidson, USA TODAY

The spread of cell phones may soon reach forbidden turf: airline
flights. At least two companies, AirCell and Verizon Airfone, are
developing technology to let passengers use their cell phones without
disrupting airplane electronics or ground cellular service.

The services would have to pass muster with the Federal Aviation 
Administration and Federal Communications Commission, which ban 
in-flight phone use.

AirCell is closest to ready and says service could be on planes in
early 2004. Airline officials say a rollout might be three years
away. Yet there is a new push by the airlines and regulators to make
in-flight cell phone use a reality.

http://www.usatoday.com/tech/news/techinnovations/2002-10-22-air-cell_x.htm


     SBC Reports Third-Quarter Earnings Per Diluted Share of $0.53,
     $0.51 Excluding Special Items; Reaffirms Full-Year Guidance of
     $2.26; Company Passes 2-Million DSL Subscriber Mark in October
     - Oct 24, 2002 07:50 AM (BusinessWire)

SAN ANTONIO--(BUSINESS WIRE)--Oct. 24, 2002--SBC Communications
Inc. (NYSE:SBC)

    Note: SBC's third-quarter earnings conference call will be
broadcast live via the Internet beginning at 10 a.m. Eastern time,
Oct. 24, 2002. Instructions on how to access the webcast can be found
at www.sbc.com/investor_relations.

    SBC Communications Inc. (NYSE:SBC) today reported earnings for the
three months ended Sept. 30 of $1.8 billion, or $0.53 per diluted
share, compared with $2.1 billion, or $0.61 per diluted share, in the
third quarter of 2001. Excluding special items, SBC's third-quarter
earnings were $1.7 billion, or $0.51 per diluted share, compared with
$2.0 billion, or $0.59 per diluted share, in the prior-year period.
Special items affecting this quarter's results were charges related to
work-force reductions and the company's proportionate shares of gains
and charges from international investments. Special items in both
quarters are described in detail below.

     - http://finance.lycos.com/home/news/story.asp?story=29250045


Internet Attacked! Film at 11

The Internet was attacked at about 5 p.m. Eastern time on Monday.
Network operators noticed immediately and took steps to mitigate any
damage. The press noticed about 24 hours later. The Washington Post's
David McGuire and Brian Krebs seem to have been the first mainstream
reporters to write about the incident, a "distributed denial of
service" (DDoS) attack aimed at the 13 machines at the heart of the
Net's naming system.

No other outlet that we reviewed tried to give the Post much 
competition for the thoroughness of its probing; many simply called 
the same sources the Post had cited. The Post stayed ahead of the 
story, this morning reporting that the first attack had been followed 
five or six hours later by a second sortie aimed at a different part 
of the Net's infrastructure.


http://newsletter.mediaunspun.com/index000022195.cfm#a103153


Increasing Wireless Security with TKIP
What wireless security measures are on the horizon? 
 
The current wireless networking standards use security technology
that's far less secure than it could be.  For example, most wireless
network administrators are familiar with the Wired Equivalent Privacy
(WEP) protocol, which uses RC4 encryption to help protect data as it
travels over the airwaves.

However, researchers have proven that intruders can easily crack WEP.
Last year, a team of researchers published "Weakness in the Key
Scheduling Algorithm of RC4," a paper that describes a series of
vulnerabilities that make WEP vulnerable.  In roughly the same time
frame that the paper was published, someone posted Perl scripts on the
Internet that helped demonstrate how vulnerabilities in WEP could be
verified.  You can read about the paper and the scripts in an
editorial I wrote in August 2001.

One up-and-coming 802.11x specification, 802.11i, is still involved in
development and approval processes.  The specification might be
officially released by early 2003.  After it's available, 802.11i will
provide replacement technology for WEP security.  Initially, 802.11i
will provide Temporal Key Integrity Protocol (TKIP) security that you
can add to existing hardware with a firmware upgrade.  Upgraded units
should be backward-compatible with hardware that still uses WEP.
Sometime later, new chip-based security that uses the stronger Advanced
Encryption Standard (AES) protocol will replace TKIP, and the new chips
will probably be backward-compatible with TKIP. In effect, TKIP is a
temporary protocol for use until manufacturers implement AES at the
hardware level.

http://www.secadministrator.com/Articles/Index.cfm?ArticleID=27064

                 VeriSign Reports Third Quarter 2002 Results

    MOUNTAIN VIEW, Calif., Oct. 24 /PRNewswire-FirstCall/ -- VeriSign,
Inc. (NASDAQ:VRSN), the leading provider of digital trust services,
today reported its results for the third quarter ended September 30,
2002.

    VeriSign reported revenue of $301 million for the third quarter.
On a pro forma basis, operating income for the third quarter was $47
million and pro forma net income was $44 million or $0.19 per
fully-diluted share. Pro forma results exclude non-recurring items
(which are included under GAAP) such as the amortization and
write-down of goodwill and intangible assets, the write- down of
certain investments, restructuring and other charges, and non-cash
stock-based compensation charges related to acquisitions.  VeriSign's
third quarter results were not fully-taxed. On a fully-taxed basis
however, applying a 30% tax rate (consistent with financial analyst
projections) to pro forma pre-tax income of $48 million, pro forma
earnings per share for the third quarter were $0.14 per fully-diluted
share.

http://finance.lycos.com/home/news/story.asp?story=29264099


These Giants Hope to Dump Angels and More 
Media Conglomerates Say Non-Core Assets Must Go 

By Frank Ahrens
Washington Post Staff Writer
Thursday, October 24, 2002; Page E01 

For sale: One big-league baseball team. Can be seen playing in World
Series; asking $200 million OBO. One NHL hockey team: $200 million
(duck mascot included). One publishing house, $1.22 billion; will sell
piece by piece. Also: Will consider dumping half-stakes in two cable
channels if price is right.

Let the big media fire sale begin.

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/articles/A7603-2002Oct23.html


     Net2Phone Reports Q4 and Fiscal Year 2002 Results; Company to
     Recognize $58.4 Million Gain in Q1 03 from Settlement with Cisco;
     First Phase with Liberty Cablevision Completed
     - Oct 24, 2002 05:11 PM (BusinessWire)
     - http://finance.lycos.com/home/news/story.asp?story=29266149

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

From: J Kelly 
Subject: Earth to Congress: We Watch TV
Date: Thu, 24 Oct 2002 18:02:10 -0500
Organization: Monkey Crap


http://www.tvtechnology.com/features/Masked-Engineer/f-MO-Earth_to_congress.shtml

The Masked Engineer: Mario Orazio 
Earth to Congress: We Watch TV 

SOMEWHERE OUT THERE you might not have noticed that the denizens of
the U.S. Capitol have unusual senses of humor. It must have something
to do with the marsh gasses. Once a swamp, always a swamp.

Anyhow, just when people were all upset about Iraq, the economy and
other matters of some importance, the bipartisan staffs of the House
Commerce Committee came up with something to make us all smile. It's
called "A bill to require the Federal Communications Commission to
take actions necessary to advance the transition to digital television
service, and for other purposes."

Section 1 is the short title of the bill, which they ain't come up
with yet. I offer, free of charge, these ideas: the Inclusive DTV
Issues Of Tomorrow act, the DTV Optimization Procedure Enhancement
act, or maybe the Supreme Television Upgrading Process Incorporating
DTV act. Yeah, any of those would do. I'll call it the STUPID act
here.

So much for section 1. Section 2 is "Findings," of which there are
none yet. After all, why waste time with findings, when you can just
jump right in and legislate (tee-hee).

Section 3 is about as simple as can be. It just deletes subparagraph B
of section 309(j)(14) of the Communications Act of 1934.

"But, Mario, what was that subparagraph?"

Oh, nothing much. It was inserted by the Balanced Budget Act of 1997.
Subparagraph A says "A television broadcast license that authorizes
analog television service may not be renewed to authorize such service
for a period that extends beyond December 31, 2006." Subparagraph B
contained every possible exemption from subparagraph A, like the idea
that DTV receivers need to be available, and people need to have
access to DTV via receivers, cable or satellite.

Deleting subparagraph B means only that no one's allowed to broadcast
NTSC in the U.S. after 2006. That's all. 85 percent? What 85 percent?
Are you laughing yet?

Section 4 says DTV stations have to broadcast network signals "without
degradation." My, my! So, if the network delivers 45 Mbps (or even 300
Mbps), that needs to be squeezed into 19 Mbps (or less) flawlessly.
Ho, ho! Those staffers are a riot, ain't they? You can understand why
"The Capitol Steps" comedy group is so good. And the jokes never stop!

Section 5 is one of the biggest. I'll try to cut it down a bit or so
without losing too much of the flag-waving humor. Let me see. Oh,
yeah. The first part is that anything that delivers DTV after 2005
(via antenna, cable or satellite) has to deal with the "broadcast flag
in order to prevent the unauthorized redistribution of marked digital
terrestrial broadcast television content to the public over the
Internet."

That's pretty funny right there. I'd love to know how they'll prevent
someone from aiming a camera at a screen and sticking a mic in front
of a speaker, but what do I know? Anyhow, it gets better.

Not only must this equipment absolutely prevent retransmission, but it
must "not impose unnecessary or unreasonable burdens on product design
or manufacture or stifle innovation," and it must "protect the full
functionality to consumers of equipment manufactured before January 1,
2006," which would include, methinks, the ability to stream to the
Internet. Hee-haw! And I ain't done!

No analog outputs are allowed on any TV-related device manufactured
after July 1, 2005. Ha, ha, ha, ha, ha! Prepare to throw out all your
existing TVs and VCRs!

Section 6 is to give a moment to catch your breath. There ain't going
to be dual must-carry on cable of both the analog and digital signals
of a TV station. Well, DUH! But there's nothing in the STUPID act
about satellite carriage of DTV at all, and, as for how much of a DTV
signal cable ops need to carry, that's covered in section 7, the
entirety of which reads as follows: "TO BE SUPPLIED." Tee-hee!


BE READY 

The very appropriately named section 8 (chuckle) covers DTV/cable
compatibility. It says that, as of July 1, 2005, all cable ops have to
use the same technical standards (heh, heh, heh), and those have to
allow delivery of basic and premium programming without a set-top box.
Plus (hee-hee), as of the same date they have to make
point-of-deployment security modules available, despite the fact that
Our Beloved Commish (aka the FCC) had already required those same PODs
as of July 1, 2000! Ah, ha, ha, ha, ha, ha!

I'm already gasping here, but section 8 has more funny stuff! It says,
"all digital television display equipment" (which happens to include
every TV set ever made) has to "include secure digital interface
connections and ensure that such equipment is upgradeable to successor
digital interface technologies." HAW, HAW! Just like an old VGA
connector can be "upgraded" to HDMI, eh? Be ready for anything that
ever gets invented. Oh, my side is splitting!

All the above must "not result in the altered or diminished
functionality of a consumer's digital television reception, recording
and display equipment as intended for legal, noncommercial use." Let
me see: Your analog TV set and VCR can't pick up any signals after
2006, and you can't buy an adapter/converter for them, because analog
outputs are illegal after July 1, 2005, but none of your functionality
is to be diminished. Guffaw!

Section 9 is those DTV "tuner" requirements that Mikey Powell, Lord
Chief High Hoo-Hah of Our Beloved Commish, pushed through in August.
Now they'd be not merely the law by Federal regulation but also by the
STUPID act of Congress (titter). Section 10 says that cable ops are
still allowed to have set-top boxes. For what? They can't have analog
outputs, and all TVs that are allowed to work (if any, after all the
contradictory stuff) don't need them. Chortle!


LOOK FOR THE DTV LABEL 

And then comes the resistor, or, as they say in French, the piece de
resistance, section 11: labels. Between the time the new regs go into
effect and July 1, 2005, every TV set, VCR, DVD recorder, cable box,
satellite receiver, PVR, plasma panel, computer monitor, tuner card
and anything else that might be involved in the business of
"receiving, recording or displaying, or navigating among, television
signals" ["Hard-a-port, matey; ABC lies dead ahead!"] gets a label.

The label "shall disclose to any prospective purchaser that the
apparatus will not function for the purpose of receiving, recording or
displaying digital television content." This shall "be conspicuously
displayed in simple language on the body of the apparatus, its
packaging and any other location the Commission deems appropriate."
Ha, ha, ha, ho, ho, ho, hee, hee, hee, hoo, hoo, hoo! And that's just
the first label!

So, the first label says, in simple language, "Buy me! I will stop
working in 18 months!" The second label is for recording devices. It
"shall disclose to any prospective purchaser the classes of apparatus
that will display the recording" and - I don't know if I can get
through this without falling on the floor - "the protection
technologies or techniques that prevent such replay." HA, HA, HA, HA!

I can just see the label now: "The 8 cm dual-sided blue-laser disks
recorded here can be played on any two-inch superhigh-band quadruplex
machine with MPEG-4/10 decoding and an HDMI output, except that the
7-C's high-bandwidth content protection system will ensure that no one
can ever see any of the recordings. On sale: $15,999.95."

My hat's off to you House Commerce staffers. I can't recall when I've
laughed so hard. What's that you say? It's not a joke? Ah, ha, ha, ha,
ha, ha, ha! You're too much!

Mario Orazio is the pseudonym of a well-known television engineer who
wishes to remain anonymous. You can e-mail him at
Mario_Orazio@imaspub.com.

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

From: jdeyo@bellsouth.net
Subject: Looking For a Used Copy of Lucent TMS5 RCOS Software
Date: Thu, 24 Oct 2002 15:01:51 -0500
Organization: Posted via Supernews, http://www.supernews.com
Reply-To: Big.Daddy@supernews.net


Thanks, 

Jeff

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

From: spamthem@spammer.com (That Larry)
Subject: Re: Attack On Internet Called Largest Ever
Organization: WebUseNet Corp.  http://corp.webusenet.com ReInventing UseNet
Date: Wed, 23 Oct 2002 19:43:00 GMT


FBI/CIA FUD to increase FUNDING?

Motive - Access - Ability - Equipment

FUD sells well in Washington, especially in Capitol Hill ...


Larry

Ok, time to feed the spammers to the spambots...(c;

Current email spammers here are:
abuse@aol.com  (Might as well feed directly)
abuse@yahoo.com (another spam source feed?)
CS@IPCB.net
support@elitebuy.com
errors@elitebuy.com
serviceinfo@elitebuy.com
busdev@elitebuy.com
marketing@elitebuy.com
investorinfo@elitebuy.com
webmaster@elitebuy.com
generalpull@msn.com
abuse@hotmail.com
free_hgh304@eudoramail.com
digho3@hknetmail.com
Rene.Barbier@IRISLINK.COM
abuse@irislink.com
webmaster@irislink.com
sales@irislink.com
support@irislink.com

561-395-7831

561-395-6267

IRIS, Inc.
1600 NW Boca Raton Blvd, Suite 20
Boca Raton, FL 33432 USA

cj.anderson6589@lycosmail.com
webmaster@a1penispills.com
injunhawk@aol.com
grampasgoodies@hotmail.com

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

From: H.E.Taylor 
Subject: Re: Digital TV Will Soon be Mandatory. For Chip Makers It's Prime
Date: Wed, 23 Oct 2002 21:47:25 GMT
Organization: MTS Internet


In article ,
 That Larry wrote:

> On Mon, 21 Oct 2002 22:43:52 -0400, Monty Solomon 
> wrote:

>> Regulation Forced Market: Digital TV Will Soon be Mandatory.
>> For Chip Makers it's Prime Time.
>> By Patrick Ross
>> October 17, 2002

> The Motion Picture Association of America (MPAA) is hell bent on
> forcing Americans to have a TV set with the digital decoder built
> INSIDE the TV to prevent recording of any of their copyrighted
> content.  They will simply refuse to energize any "set top boxes" that
> convert the signal into something that can be recorded in the home
> (and posted to usenet ...(c:) to be pirated.

	One has to wonder how long it will be before whatever copy 
	protection they devise is subverted/sidestepped, rather as
	it was when the PC industry went through this with floppies
	in the 80's.  If there is a buck to be made or a challenge
	to be overcome, someone will break it.
 
> Ok, time to feed the spammers to the spambots...(c;


	Nice touch.			;-))>
 
> Current email spammers here are:
> abuse@aol.com  (Might as well feed directly)
> abuse@yahoo.com (another spam source feed?)
> CS@IPCB.net
> support@elitebuy.com
> errors@elitebuy.com
> serviceinfo@elitebuy.com
> busdev@elitebuy.com
> marketing@elitebuy.com
> investorinfo@elitebuy.com
> webmaster@elitebuy.com
> generalpull@msn.com
> abuse@hotmail.com
> free_hgh304@eudoramail.com
> digho3@hknetmail.com
> Rene.Barbier@IRISLINK.COM
> abuse@irislink.com
> webmaster@irislink.com
> sales@irislink.com
> support@irislink.com

> 561-395-7831

> 561-395-6267

> IRIS, Inc.
> 1600 NW Boca Raton Blvd, Suite 20
> Boca Raton, FL 33432 USA

> cj.anderson6589@lycosmail.com
> webmaster@a1penispills.com
> injunhawk@aol.com
> grampasgoodies@hotmail.com


-het


"Challenge your preconceptions, or they will challenge you." 
-olde Vulcan saying

Energy Alternatives: http://www.autobahn.mb.ca/~het/energy.html
H.E. Taylor  http://www.autobahn.mb.ca/~het/

[TELECOM Digest Editor's Note: As these new television sets become
common, I wonder what would prevent hackers from opening the back of
the unit and jumping (or hotwiring) the pins on the chip to put things
back as they had been?  Things are a bit more complex than in the old
CB radio days, but back then 40 channels were authorized for use in
Citizens Band (from 26.965 mhz to 27.405 at 10 mhz increments. [I know
that creates 44 instead of 40, but there were a few that were skipped
and used for things like model airplanes and garage door openers]). In
no time at all we learned how to open the radio, cut the trace and put
a couple new toggle switches in that changed our 40 channel radios
into 80 or even 120 channel radios, with 40 new channels 'below
channel 1' and 40 or even 80 new channels above channel 40. Heck, some
guys even had their rigs fixed to go all the way up to ten meters. The
trouble with going 80 channels above the 40 that were authorized was
the radio would not oscillate in ten meters very well. 

In fact, in most Radio Shack stores in the 1970-80's you could ask the
more competent clerks if they would 'do the mods' for you for a couple
dollars extra (in their own pockets). Those clerks who did not wish to
'do the mods' still had free xerox copies around the store telling
customers how to do it themselves.

Then came the day the feds (the FCC) raided Tandy headquarters (the
same day the feds hit up Motorola) and told them essentially to can
the crap or face big fines. The very next day every Radio Shack store
in the country had a notice on the wall in the back room saying that
any clerks who make modifications on *any* radio (either Tandy or some
piece of junk the customer brought in from outside) would be summarily
discharged. Furthermore, there will no discussion between clerks and
customers on the topic. So now, hapless guys stuck without modified
equipment had to ask hackers and others how to do it. I listened on
the radio for thirty minutes one night as a hacker explained to the
new guys how to open their unit, and use an exacto blade to cut the 
trace. By doing that, one pin which was always held high was sent low
and the radio moved exactly 40 channels. Cut the next trace and with
a little toggle switch added, the pin could be sent to ground (shift
another forty.) Talking about it right on the radio itself yet!

Motorola was making/using a chip called '02-A' which was highly
programmable. The FCC told them to stop making/using that chip, and
the FCC later got after Tandy again and made them start using a certain
kind of sticky wax to seal up the radio's insides, to keep guys from
getting in there and screwing around. I wonder how soon after these
new television sets start coming out guys will develop a furtive 
switch to hide on the back of the set somewhere. The set will work
as a new set, flip the secret switch and do recording, etc.    PAT]

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

From: Tim Keating 
Subject: Re: Custom Ringing Answering Machine
Date: Wed, 23 Oct 2002 17:41:48 -0400
Organization: Posted via Supernews, http://www.supernews.com


On Mon, 21 Oct 2002 18:51:24 GMT, Jim Haselmaier 
wrote:

> I'd bet there is an easy answer to this.  But I can't find it.
> Hopefully someone can guide me.

> I want to get an answering machine that answers based on the ring
> pattern - custom/distinctive ringing.  I know FAX machines (many) can
> do this.  But I want an answering machine to do this.  I don't care if
> it has an integrated telephone with it.

I've been using a voice mail/fax system(faxtalk messenger) that came
with  my Supra voice/fax modem for about several years now.  Ability
to support four(4) ring tones, 99 voice/fax boxes and has paging(dial
out) capability.  

Each ring tone can have a separate answering message, or just a fax
tone. 

> Background:  Our home line has v-mail on in from Quest.  I want to add
> custom ringing so I can have a business number and an FAX number.  The FAX
> machine will pick up for FAX number ring pattern.  I want an answering
> machine to pick up the business number before it rolls over to the
> phone-company v-mail for our line.

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

From: Stanley Cline 
Subject: Re: Custom Ringing Answering Machine
Date: 23 Oct 2002 22:06:53 GMT
Organization: Roamer1 Communications - Dunwoody, GA, USA
Reply-To: sc1-news@roamer1.org


In article , Carl Navarro wrote:

> My Nortel 9516 does that.  You can have something like 12 mailboxes.
> They sold that product to someone else, but sometimes it shows up on

They did -- and Aastra discontinued the 9516.  :(


Stanley Cline -- sc1 at roamer1 dot org -- http://www.roamer1.org/

"Never put off until tomorrow what you can do today.  There might
be a law against it by that time."  -/usr/games/fortune

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

From: John Higdon 
Subject: Re: Error Found in a Telecom FAQ
Organization: Green Hills and Cows
Date: Wed, 23 Oct 2002 15:54:35 -0700


In article , joe@obilivan.net wrote:

> Sam wrote:

>> The CO has a "feature" for residential customers in most areas that is
>> named "calling party hold", it is a time-out delay type function that
>> will hold a called line a determined length of time(depending on
>> local) when the called party hangs up, and the called party can go to
>> another extension, typicaly 10-12 seconds, after hanging up the
>> extension that was used and find the calling party on the extension
>> when they arrive at it. Have you ever attempted to call a different
>> phone after talking to someone that just called you, and seem to never
>> get rid of them and hear that beautiful dial tone? It was "calling
>> party hold" that was keeping you connected.

> I think you mean called party hold.  If the calling party goes
> on-hook, flash timing begins and the connection is scrubbed after 2
> seconds.  10-12 seconds is correct for the person receiving the call,
> though.

Telephone connections are always controlled by the calling office. What 
you keep referring to as "hold" is nothing more than the delay set in 
the originating office's switch that determines time before dropping a 
connection that unsupervises after completion. Most switches these days 
are set for a twelve-second delay, but it could vary from a second or 
two, all the way up to "never" if the originating office happened to be 
SXS ... if they even exist anymore.

In any event, unsupervising a call, even if you are the recipient, 
always carries the risk of disconnection, since you have no idea how the 
originating office is configured. As a matter of fact, FCC tariffs 
specify a five-second release time for for mass-marketing dialers.

If you want "hold", use a phone with a "hold" function.


John Higdon     | Email Address Valid | SF:  +1 415 428-COWS
+1 408 264 4115 |     Anytown, USA    | FAX: +1 408 264 4407

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

From: 73115.1041@compuserve.com
Subject: Re: Telnet Into Compuserve x.25 Network
Date: Wed, 23 Oct 2002 18:55:57 -0600


Name  wrote:

> I am trying to telnet into Compuserve's x.25 network. (I believe it is
> now uunet or worldcom). I am aware that you can telnet to
> gateway.compuserve.com, but I want to get to the "Which Host" prompt
> as opposed to the CIS service.

You used to be able to back up from the User ID prompt by entering a ^C, but
that no longer appears to work ...

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

From: benyukhis@mindspring.com (Edward Benyukhis)
Subject: Digital RJ45 Switch
Date: 24 Oct 2002 08:27:55 -0700
Organization: http://groups.google.com/


I am looking for a semi-intelligent digital RJ45 switch box which can
be controlled over an IP interface and allow for high density
T1/E1/EtherNet straight through switching.  Densities of >64 ports are
desired and must have the ability to place some ports in a high
impedence state.  This is for a redundant I/O solution for a high
availability system which will allow to switch, dynamically, in the
case of CPU failover all I/O card(s) input/outputs.

If you know of anything which can serve this purpose, please e-mail to
me directly at:

benyukhis@mindpsring.com

or

ed.benyukhis@motorola.com

Thank you,

Ed-

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

Date: Wed, 23 Oct 2002 16:49:59 -0500
From: Gordon S. Hlavenka 
Organization: Crash Electronics, Inc.
Subject: Re: Buttons on VTECH VT 1981 to hard to press.


EastCoastGuyz wrote:

> I got a VTECH VT 1981 900mhz DSS in 1998. It worked fine until around
> 2000. I've never experienced this problem with a cordless phone
> before, on my VT 1981 the buttons on it become harder and harder to
> press.

I have a Vtech 900MHz phone as well; it's my second Vtech phone.  Both
of my Vtechs have had this identical problem.

Here's what I do:  I disassemble the handset (quite a chore) and pull
the rubber pad off of the keyboard.  Underneath the rubber I find slime,
as though someone had spilled soda on the phone.  Somehow, the rubber
material Vtech uses to make their keypads is reacting with the printed
circuit board (only scenario I can think of*) and the resulting slime
gums up the works.  I use a Q-tip and some plain rubbing alcohol, and
clean the slime from both the PCB and the keypad.  Then I reassemble
everything and the handset works great again.  I have to do this about
every two years.

*And (before you ask) no, nobody is pouring soda pop on the phone.
There is no slime on the OUTSIDE of the pad, only on the INSIDE -- if
the scum were seeping in somehow (particularly given the quantity of
it in there) there would necessarily be residue showing how it got in.
There is no such residue.  The slime is being PRODUCED inside the
keypad.  If the rubber just naturally exuded this stuff I'd find it on
the outside.  But I don't find it on the outside, hence the
presumption that the rubber is reacting chemically with the PCB
somehow.

I find it very difficult to believe this is happening.  And yet I can
find no other explanation for what I see when I open up the handset.


Gordon S. Hlavenka               O-             nospam@crashelex.com

                               Burma!
------------------------------

From: Stanley Cline 
Subject: Re: Notification (Anti-Spam)  I DID NOTHING to you!!!!!!!!!
Date: 23 Oct 2002 22:05:09 GMT
Organization: Roamer1 Communications - Dunwoody, GA, USA
Reply-To: sc1-news@roamer1.org


In article , John Mayson wrote:

> I run a Linux system at home.  I utilize my /etc/mail/access.db file,
> plus a good procmail recipe I found on the web.  I no longer live in
> fear of spam.  This is one reason I have decided to become active on

I'm using SpamAssassin (which Pat is using as well) on my Linux-based
mail/web/ftp/DNS/etc. server and have been *VERY* pleased with the
results.  With only minimal tweaking it captures close to 95% of spam
and *VERY* few false positives.  :)

For me, filtering as close to the source (my MTA, qmail) as possible
is essential, as I read email using a variety of mail clients,
including Eudora, pine, a webmail client, and the "WirelessInbox"
service Nextel and T-Mobile offer as part of their wireless Internet
services.

Incidentally, I use qmail's email suffixes feature (sc1-whatever@ goes
to sc1@; sendmail, postfix, etc. use sc1+whatever@) to give Usenet
posts and opt-in commercial mailing lists, web sites, etc. unique
email addresses (I use just sc1@ for discussion lists and personal
email), and I've found that most of the spam I get comes to sc1-news@
 -- the address I use for Usenet.  Most of the rest of the spam I get
comes to old email addresses I still have that forward into sc1@.

> I have yet to find any Windows software anywhere near as good as the
> built-in Linux tools for combating spam.

According to spamassassin.org, there's a Windows anti-spam product based
on SpamAssassin available, but I've never tried it.

Stanley Cline -- sc1 at roamer1 dot org -- http://www.roamer1.org/

"Never put off until tomorrow what you can do today.  There might
be a law against it by that time."  -/usr/games/fortune

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

TELECOM Digest is an electronic journal devoted mostly but not
exclusively to telecommunications topics. It is circulated anywhere
there is email, in addition to various telecom forums on a variety of
networks such as Compuserve and America On Line, 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: 620-870-9697
                        Fax 1: 775-255-9970
                        Fax 2: 775-306-8390
                        Fax 3: 775-642-0603
                        Fax 4: 530-309-7234
                        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 second 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)

Email <==> FTP:  telecom-archives@telecom-digest.org 

      Send a simple, one line note to that automated address for
      a help file on how to use the automatic retrieval system
      for archives files. You can get desired files in email.

*************************************************************************
*   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.
Access to Premium (P) links requires upgrade to a paid subscription.

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

Only subscribers or registered users of ICB Toll Free News web site
will be able to access all or some of the full text of URLs provided.

LEGAL STUFF: TELECOM Digest (sm) is owned by Patrick Townson.
Copyright 2000 ICB, Inc. and TELECOM Digest. All rights reserved.
Our attorney is Bill Levant, of Blue Bell, PA.

   ---------------------------------------------------------------
    
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 twenty 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 V22 #96
*****************************
    
    
    
From editor@telecom-digest.org Sat Oct 26 15:28:52 2002
Received: from localhost (localhost [[UNIX: localhost]])
	by massis.lcs.mit.edu (8.11.3nb1/8.11.3) id g9QJSqf07504;
	Sat, 26 Oct 2002 15:28:52 -0400 (EDT)
Date: Sat, 26 Oct 2002 15:28:52 -0400 (EDT)
From: editor@telecom-digest.org
Message-Id: <200210261928.g9QJSqf07504@massis.lcs.mit.edu>
X-Authentication-Warning: massis.lcs.mit.edu: ptownson set sender to editor@telecom-digest.org using -f
To: ptownson
Approved: patsnewlist
Subject: TELECOM Digest V22 #97

TELECOM Digest     Sat, 26 Oct 2002 15:29:00 EDT    Volume 22 : Issue 97

Inside This Issue:                            Editor: Patrick A. Townson

    Re: Digital TV Will Soon be Mandatory (John Higdon)
    Airlines Set to Install Inflight E-Mail (Monty Solomon)
    Spanish Net Law Sparks Protest (Monty Solomon)
    Re: Is This True on Cisco? (Dave Phelps)
    Re: News Headlines of Interest  10/24/02 (Michael D. Sullivan)
    Re: Telnet Into Compuserve x.25 Network (Name)
    Re: Earth to Congress: We Watch TV (Tom Schmidt)
    Looking For Inexpensive Small Business PBX Solution (Frank Harris)
    Dacon MK-25 Telephone Call Diverter (ajax1d@yahoo.com)
    Legion of Doom Technical Journal Wanted (jay)
    Feedback on Asterisk (pae)

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. WE DO NOT PERMIT NAME/EMAIL ADDRESS
HARVESTING FROM THIS JOURNAL. 'SALTED' EMAIL ADDRESSES APPEAR
HEREIN TO VERIFY THIS. YOU GET SUED IN SMALL CLAIMS COURT IF YOU
GET CAUGHT SPAMMING OR SENDING VIRUSES. DON'T DO IT.

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

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

From: John Higdon 
Subject: Re: Digital TV Will Soon be Mandatory. For Chip Makers It's Prime
Organization: Green Hills and Cows
Date: Thu, 24 Oct 2002 20:05:35 -0700


In article , H.E.Taylor
 wrote:

> 	One has to wonder how long it will be before whatever copy 
> 	protection they devise is subverted/sidestepped, rather as
> 	it was when the PC industry went through this with floppies
> 	in the 80's.  If there is a buck to be made or a challenge
> 	to be overcome, someone will break it.

There is a big difference between then and now. It is called the DMCA,
and has already been responsible for sending people to jail for
creating products that do nothing more than enable "fair use" of
copyrighted material.

If the DMCA stands, anyone who engineers and/or provides any sort of
copy protection or encryption bypass will have Federal agents at his
door. Same for anyone ever caught using such, regarless of whether he
is using it to violate any other laws or not.

> Motorola was making/using a chip called '02-A' which was highly
> programmable. The FCC told them to stop making/using that chip, and
> the FCC later got after Tandy again and made them start using a certain
> kind of sticky wax to seal up the radio's insides, to keep guys from
> getting in there and screwing around. I wonder how soon after these
> new television sets start coming out guys will develop a furtive 
> switch to hide on the back of the set somewhere. The set will work
> as a new set, flip the secret switch and do recording, etc.    PAT]

Anyone who advertises any such device or is EVER caught using it will, 
thanks to the DMCA, be sent to the pokey for a very long time.


John Higdon     | Email Address Valid | SF:  +1 415 428-COWS
+1 408 264 4115 |     Anytown, USA    | FAX: +1 408 264 4407

[TELECOM Digest Editor's Note: What John says is *theoretically true*
about long jail terms, etc. But the same thing was *in theory* correct
during the CB Radio craze also. But, if you will recall, within a few
years after forty channel (as opposed to early twenty-three and still 
earlier eleven channel CB radios) came into existence, things got to
be *so wild*, the federal government lost complete control of their
ability to regulate/govern people's behavior regards radios. Oh, they 
did huff and puff and keep threatening for awhile, and initially had
a series of raids 'to teach people a lesson' about illegal mods being
made on radios. The raids by the FCC would leave people's houses in
shambles, and as word got around it was happening, there would be 
total radio silence for a few days. Then things would get back to
'normal'. As applications for licenses kept pouring into FCC headquarters
eventually FCC decided to not require 'license approval' any longer
and said people could make up their own call signs, consisting of 
their name initials and zip codes. Well, you know how fraught with
fraud that plan soon became. Soon people quit bothering at all to
send in that postcard which was packed in every new CB radio telling
the FCC about their rig. Then it got to the point that unless you were
totally outrageous in running a radio (i.e. using a two thousand watt
Browning Golden Eagle linear amp on a regular basis so your neighbors
could not watch television at all, or you were up in forty meters
trying to tune-up or playing music so the legitimate ham operators had
to get after you) the FCC finally gave up entirely on any enforcement 
of regulations, **although they never admitted that they were giving 
up on it.** They just keep on rumbling and making public service 
announcements on TV as warnings. I still keep hearing every few days
or whenever I turn the CB on (rarely any more) the truck drivers in
California screaming at their bretheren in New York through linear
amps. 

I think most people do not realize how compliance with ANY laws or
government regulations are *purely voluntary* because large numbers 
of citizens have *agreed voluntarily to obey*. Consider the income tax
laws:  How many people obey them totally and completely?  Watch how
in April each year newspapers run stories about guys caught for income
tax evasion; stories the government plants in the press for good
reasons. The government gave up on liquor prohibition when no one
would go along with it. Yes, there were some frightful raids in the
process, but eventually the government wised up and backed off. 

I think you will see with these new television regulations -- if they
even get off the ground -- will be so widely disobeyed it will be as
though they had never been passed. Like the 1920's liquor prohibition 
which eventually fell flat, the 1970's 'laws' against radio mods, the 
1980-90's 'laws' against drug use, a huge number of people will go to
jail (unless people begin to realize prisons are also quite voluntary
places [think how much bloodshed there would be if people began to
realize that] or the government realizes the expense involved in 
keeping millions of people locked up), and they eventually begin
ignoring the new laws. I mean, they have to pass those laws; Hollywood
has been on them for so long, and they are entitled to protection 
under the law like anyone else; 'protection and laws' the government 
will pass with much hoopla then eventually forget about, and make
excuses for not enforcing. It happens everytime there is a new social
fad or technological advance that some group in society wants the 
government to regulate. Internet for example. Think about it.

People start out doing their thing; enough other people complain
bitterly; the government always comes to their rescue; in a worse case
scenario there are always guns available; the government hopes that
will not be neccessary, that you will remember and honor your
agreements to obey, etc; but the guns are there to be used as
needed. So John is theoretically correct, but I do not think in actual
practice its going to be any big deal, for reasons mentioned above.
PAT]

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

Date: Thu, 24 Oct 2002 23:09:48 -0400
From: Monty Solomon 
Subject: Airlines Set to Install Inflight E-Mail


Mile-high Web access could help airlines boost revenues

By Ron Lieber and J. Lynn Lunsford
THE WALL STREET JOURNAL

Oct. 24 - Airplane flights, perhaps the final refuge for travelers 
who want a break from their e-mails, are about to get connected.

        AFTER YEARS OF ordering passengers to go offline upon 
takeoff, a number of airlines are set to make it possible to e-mail 
or even surf the Internet while mile-high. Early next year, Lufthansa 
will become the first airline to offer high-speed Internet access to 
passengers. British Airways will follow suit soon after. Both 
carriers will be using Connexion, a major new Boeing initiative. It 
should also help the beleaguered airlines boost revenues, since they 
typically get a cut from such services.

       Meanwhile, the old GTE Airfones that now often sit ignored in 
the seat backs on airlines such as United and Delta are getting 
substantial upgrades. Last month, Verizon, which now owns GTE, 
started rolling out JetConnect on carriers including Continental 
Airlines. The service allows passengers to plug their laptops into 
the Airfones and play games or send instant messages. Airfone plans 
to eventually add high-speed e-mail to the mix.

        JetConnect currently is priced at a flat fee of $5.99 for the 
entire flight, which is notable given that Airfones have long gone 
unused because of their stratospheric prices. A typical Airfone call 
costs nearly $4 a minute.

http://www.msnbc.com/news/825345.asp

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

Date: Sat, 26 Oct 2002 01:57:23 -0400
From: Monty Solomon 
Subject: Spanish Net Law Sparks Protest


By Associated Press
11:12 AM Oct. 25, 2002 PDT

MADRID, Spain -- Times have been hard for Georgeos Diaz-Montexano's
online course in Egyptian hieroglyphics. One student in two years and
$12 in tuition.

But Diaz-Montexano pulled the plug on what he calls the world's only 
Spanish-language Egyptology site for a different reason: fears of 
hassle or a hefty fine under Spain's new law regulating cyberspace.

Any website located in Spain that engages in commerce -- even a 
struggling Egyptology site -- must now register with the government 
under a stringent new law that took effect on Oct. 12.

The tough rules have prompted at least 300 website owners to take 
their pages offline in protest, according to Kriptopolis, a digital 
rights and Internet security site coordinating the campaign. It has 
drawn support from online civil libertarians across Europe.

http://www.wired.com/news/culture/0,1284,56021,00.html

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

From: Dave Phelps 
Subject: Re: Is This True on Cisco?
Date: Thu, 24 Oct 2002 23:26:46 -0500
Organization: Posted via Supernews, http://www.supernews.com


In article , tippenring@deadspam.com 
says:

> That would be a good question for comp.dcom.sys.cisco. This reply is 
> cross-posted there.

Hmm. It seems my crosspost didn't cross. You'll have to repost to 
comp.dcom.sys.cisco.


Dave Phelps
Phone Masters Ltd.
deadspam=tippenring


[TELECOM Digest Editor's Note: A good rule of thumb to remember is
that whenever you cross-post articles to various newsgroups, if 
*any one or more* of the groups to which you post is moderated (as
comp.dcom.telecom is), the cross-posting will fail. Let's say you
write to a,b,c,d and e groups, and e is  moderated. Your article will
make it to the e group moderator's mailbox and if e is aware of your
request to cross post, the moderator can them release it out to the
other groups. But if e uses software like myself that zaps all the
headers, he won't even know of your intentions. What you need to do
is post to a,b,c and d, then post to e separately.  PAT]

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

From: Michael D. Sullivan 
Subject: Re: News Headlines of Interest  10/24/02
Date: Fri, 25 Oct 2002 05:30:32 GMT


On Thu, 24 Oct 2002 02:06:07 -0400, Monty Solomon posted the following 
to comp.dcom.telecom:

> Fliers may soon get to use cell phones
> By Paul Davidson, USA TODAY

> The spread of cell phones may soon reach forbidden turf: airline
> flights. At least two companies, AirCell and Verizon Airfone, are
> developing technology to let passengers use their cell phones without
> disrupting airplane electronics or ground cellular service.

> The services would have to pass muster with the Federal Aviation 
> Administration and Federal Communications Commission, which ban 
> in-flight phone use.

> AirCell is closest to ready and says service could be on planes in
> early 2004. Airline officials say a rollout might be three years
> away. Yet there is a new push by the airlines and regulators to make
> in-flight cell phone use a reality.

> http://www.usatoday.com/tech/news/techinnovations/2002-10-22-air-cell_x.htm

The article neglects to point out that the FCC has specifically ruled
that AirCell's plan for using ordinary cellphones on planes would
violate its rules against cellphone use while aloft and against
cellphone jammers.  It also neglects to add that AirCell told the FCC
that the scheme was only in the very preliminary stages of
consideration (in order to avoid getting nailed).  FCC order is at:
.
The reporter had a copy of the order, but apparently chose to ignore
it.

(Full disclosure:  I represented terrestrial cellular companies 
seeking the FCC ruling due to concerns about interference.)


Michael D. Sullivan
Bethesda, MD, USA
(delete NOSPAM from address to mail me)

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

From: Name 
Subject: Re: Telnet Into Compuserve x.25 Network
Date: Fri, 25 Oct 2002 11:38:35 GMT
Organization: Road Runner - NYC


So, there is no telnet address to go directly to the which host prompt?

telnet compuserve.com used to work ....

???

<73115.1041@compuserve.com> wrote in message
news:telecom22.96.9@telecom-digest.org:

> Name  wrote:

>> I am trying to telnet into Compuserve's x.25 network. (I believe it is
>> now uunet or worldcom). I am aware that you can telnet to
>> gateway.compuserve.com, but I want to get to the "Which Host" prompt
>> as opposed to the CIS service.

> You used to be able to back up from the User ID prompt by entering a
> ^C, but that no longer appears to work ...

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

Reply-To: Tom Schmidt 
From: Tom Schmidt 
Subject: Re: Earth to Congress: We Watch TV
Date: Fri, 25 Oct 2002 12:27:17 GMT


J Kelly  wrote in message
news:telecom22.96.2@telecom-digest.org:

http://www.tvtechnology.com/features/Masked-Engineer/f-MO-Earth_to_congress.
shtml

> The Masked Engineer: Mario Orazio
> Earth to Congress: We Watch TV

> Mario Orazio is the pseudonym of a well-known television engineer who
> wishes to remain anonymous. You can e-mail him at
> Mario_Orazio@imaspub.com.

Thanks for the posting -- If it were closer to April I'd think this
was an April fools posting. I've been involved with the copyright
debate and have not paid too much attention to the broadcast
issues. It is truly amazing to watch Congress do the bidding of
Hollywood. The DTV issue is a little different. Spectrum license
revenue was used to help mask the huge budget deficit, so the FCC is
under a lot of pressure to make sure it will really happen even though
nether consumers or producers seem all that interested in the new
technology.

I agree HDTV looks better, even the analog stuff they have in Japan is
pretty impressive. But I'm not all that interested in paying large
sums of money to see prettier commercials. On can see a lot of movies
or read tons of books for the cost of this new technology.

I wonder if the FCC and Congress realize that in doing the bidding of
Hollywood they will for all intents and purposes kill both the
Internet and TV? Just goes to show you that if you want to be a
successful business in the US you need to have at least a few
Congresscritters in your employ.


/Tom

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

From: phrankster@hotmail.com (Frank Harris)
Subject: Looking for Inexpensive Small Business PBX Solution
Date: 25 Oct 2002 10:30:36 -0700
Organization: http://groups.google.com/


I'm looking for a very inexpensive PBX or other type of solution that
can accomodate a small home business. I know next to nothing about
PBX's, so I will need some well explained details. I would be willing
to sacrifice some features to keep the cost down. I need something
that can perform the following:

We have one business line with an 800 number. We want to maintain only
one phone line for incoming and outgoing calls. Minimally we need 2
phones, with the ability to expand. Would like to be able to just use
any analog phone, or at least a fairly inexpensive digital phone.

When the phone rings, I'd like the caller to be presented with a
custom greeting. Tbey can have the option to either dial an extension
or wait for the next available representative. If the extension is
busy, give them the option to hold or leave a voice message. I'd like
to be able to leave an alternative greeting for calls coming in before
or afterhours (or whenever I deem the business closed for the day).

While on hold or waiting for a rep, I'd like to have hold music
playing with input from any external audio source (like a CD).

I'd like to have a distinctive ring for calls coming in on the 800
line and the ability to do caller ID.

I would appreciate any information that can be provided.


Thanks!

Frank

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

From: ajax1d@yahoo.com
Subject: Dacon MK-25 Telephone Call Diverter 
Date: Fri, 25 Oct 2002 17:39:00 GMT
Organization: EarthLink Inc. -- http://www.EarthLink.net


Does anybody have a manual or any information on this device?

I do not have any manual or programming information.

Looking for programming information or manual or possible contacts
with this information.


Thanks.

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

From: jvilla36@aol.com (jay)
Subject: Legion of Doom Technical Journal Wanted
Date: 24 Oct 2002 22:52:52 -0700
Organization: http://groups.google.com/


Hey, I am looking for some journals by the Legion of Doom. Can you
help.  If you do I promise to return the favor.

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

From: pae 
Subject: Feedback on Asterisk
Organization: Prodigy Internet http://www.prodigy.com
Date: Fri, 25 Oct 2002 22:50:09 GMT


I'm looking for feedback on the Linux application Asterisk by Digium.
We are considering using it for development purposes to provide PBX
like services for software products that use dialogic T1 boards.  Can
any users of Asterisk give me some guidance on whether this is
appropriate?

Thanks.

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

TELECOM Digest is an electronic journal devoted mostly but not
exclusively to telecommunications topics. It is circulated anywhere
there is email, in addition to various telecom forums on a variety of
networks such as Compuserve and America On Line, 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: 620-870-9697
                        Fax 1: 775-255-9970
                        Fax 2: 775-306-8390
                        Fax 3: 775-642-0603
                        Fax 4: 530-309-7234
                        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 second 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)

Email <==> FTP:  telecom-archives@telecom-digest.org 

      Send a simple, one line note to that automated address for
      a help file on how to use the automatic retrieval system
      for archives files. You can get desired files in email.

*************************************************************************
*   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.
Access to Premium (P) links requires upgrade to a paid subscription.

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

Only subscribers or registered users of ICB Toll Free News web site
will be able to access all or some of the full text of URLs provided.

LEGAL STUFF: TELECOM Digest (sm) is owned by Patrick Townson.
Copyright 2000 ICB, Inc. and TELECOM Digest. All rights reserved.
Our attorney is Bill Levant, of Blue Bell, PA.

   ---------------------------------------------------------------
    
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 twenty 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 V22 #97
*****************************
    
    
From editor@telecom-digest.org Mon Oct 28 02:39:50 2002
Received: from localhost (localhost [[UNIX: localhost]])
	by massis.lcs.mit.edu (8.11.3nb1/8.11.3) id g9S7do614076;
	Mon, 28 Oct 2002 02:39:50 -0500 (EST)
Date: Mon, 28 Oct 2002 02:39:50 -0500 (EST)
From: editor@telecom-digest.org
Message-Id: <200210280739.g9S7do614076@massis.lcs.mit.edu>
X-Authentication-Warning: massis.lcs.mit.edu: ptownson set sender to editor@telecom-digest.org using -f
To: ptownson
Approved: patsnewlist
Subject: TELECOM Digest V22 #98

TELECOM Digest     Mon, 28 Oct 2002 02:40:00 EST    Volume 22 : Issue 98

Inside This Issue:                            Editor: Patrick A. Townson

    The Death Of The Internet / How Industry Wants To Kill The Net (Solomon)
    FTP Synchronization Software for Windows? (Joey Lindstrom)
    Re: Looking for Inexpensive Small Business PBX Solution (Thomas Horsley)
    Re: Digital TV Will Soon be Mandatory (That Larry)
    Re: Looking for Inexpensive Small Business PBX Solution (Dave Phelps)
    Re: Earth to Congress: We Watch TV (J Kelly)
    Re: Earth to Congress: We Watch TV (John Higdon)
    Re: One ISP Who Refuses to Deal with Spam (cboone@NOSPAMearthlink.net)
    Re: Aircell on Your Phone (John R. Levine)
    Re: Is There a Telephone Industry Magazine? (richardmarshall76021)
    News Headlines of Interest 10/28/02 (Monty Solomon)
    Business Directory: Odd SPAM Phone Number Response (David B. Horvath)

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. WE DO NOT PERMIT NAME/EMAIL ADDRESS
HARVESTING FROM THIS JOURNAL. 'SALTED' EMAIL ADDRESSES APPEAR
HEREIN TO VERIFY THIS. YOU GET SUED IN SMALL CLAIMS COURT IF YOU
GET CAUGHT SPAMMING OR SENDING VIRUSES. DON'T DO IT.

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

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

Date: Sun, 27 Oct 2002 21:18:38 -0500
From: Monty Solomon 
Subject: The Death Of The Internet / How Industry Intends To Kill The 'Net


Jeff Chester is executive director of the Center for Digital Democracy.

The Internet's promise as a new medium -- where text, audio, video and
data can be freely exchanged -- is under attack by the corporations
that control the public's access to the 'Net, as they see
opportunities to monitor and charge for the content people seek and
send. The industry's vision is the online equivalent of seizing the
taxpayer-owned airways, as radio and television conglomerates did over
the course of the 20th century.

To achieve this, the cable industry, which sells Internet access to
most Americans, is pursuing multiple strategies to closely monitor and
tightly control subscribers and their use of the net. One element can
be seen in industry lobbying for new use-based pricing schemes, which
has been widely reported in trade press. Related to this is the
industry's new public relations campaign, which seeks to introduce a
new "menace" into the pricing debate and boost their case, the
so-called "bandwidth hog."

But beyond political and press circles are another equally important
development: new technologies being developed and embraced that can,
in practice, transform today's open Internet into a new industry-
regulated system that will prevent or discourage people from using the
net for file-sharing, internet radio and video, and peer-to-peer
communications. These are not merely the most popular cutting-edge
applications used by young people; they also are the tools for
fundamental new ways of conducting business and politics.

These goals and objectives are visible to anyone who cares to look at 
the arcane world of telecommunications policy and planning, either in 
the industry trade press or government documents. The bottom line is 
the industry want to kill the Internet as we know it.

 ...

http://www.tompaine.com/feature.cfm/ID/6600

[TELECOM Digest Editor's Note:  I do not know why the above is
considered news. Really, it is old news. We have known for a long time
that the Internet has upset so many applecarts in society. I mean, the
very idea that people can communicate these days faster and more acc-
uratly with each other without having to beg the media to tell the
story has the same media very angry with us. The government does not 
like the citizens able to communicate freely with each other with any
degree of accuracy without them getting the government 'spin' on
things as presented by the media. The entertainment industry does not
like us because they can no longer make us pay money to see their
shows, etc. We used to have to rely on what the newspapers/magazines
told us we believed (no longer); we used to have to pay the entertain-
ment industy to amuse us; the sheer volume of paperwork made it very
problematic for us to get into details the government did not want us
knowing about; no longer. Nearly everything these days is only a
couple of keystrokes away. The media and entertainment industry says
that's bad news. Even the stupidest of us these days can pretty much
do as we damn please; the government says that's bad news. 

I saw on a web site the other day where some nasty lady involved in
the motion picture business asked a question (of a webmaster) about
the ability (of netizens) to bring up the source code for a web page
and the 'problem' of deep-linking into their pages. "Can't we stop
'them' from looking at our pages, etc" was her plaintif cry. No lady,
you can't stop it. That's the idea and rationale behind the world 
wide web. The webmaster told her as much. You people who do not like 
the way the web operates, do us a favor and drop out. We are not going
to change a damn thing, no matter how much you push. You should not 
have been here to start with. You've tried ostracizing us, back when
'home computers' were the exception by calling us all hackers. You
have tried guilt trips (Frightened Mothers, worried Christians, hate-
speech concerns, pornography and pedophilia, etc.) None of it worked.
None of it will work. Now of late, you have been hawking the copyright
laws as your thing, combining the guilt-tripping routine with the
other items in your bag of tricks. Let's face it, this internet-thing
is the worst quandry many of you in Hollywood, the newspapers and
the government have ever seen in your life, isn't it? People doing
their own thing and you mostly powerless to stop or control them. And
Monty Solomon thought it was news worthy, I guess, that you all
struggle to regain the controls you had for years but are now
gradually slipping away from you. You stupid hypocrites!     PAT]

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

From: Joey Lindstrom 
Date: Sun, 27 Oct 2002 13:40:03 -0600
Subject: FTP Synchronization Software for Windows?
Reply-To: joey@garynuman.info


Can anyone recommend some good FTP synchronization software for
Windows (98 currently, soon to be 2000)?  This is for the Telecom
Digest Archives CD-ROM project -- I'd like the CD's that I burn on
behalf of Pat to be COMPLETELY up to date, but the archives are
absolutely humungous.  :-) I'm looking for something that will, either
on demand or on a schedule, login to the massis machine (a *nix box),
burrow its way into each and every directory, get a listing of all the
files available, and then download anything either missing, new, or
changed since the last run (to my local hard drive).

"Free" would be preferred but a small shareware donation wouldn't
cause too much concern.


/ From the desk of Joey Lindstrom
/
/ Goodness without wisdom always accomplished evil.
/         -- Valentine Michael Smith, "Stranger In A Strange Land"
/            (Robert Heinlein)

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

Subject: Re: Looking for Inexpensive Small Business PBX Solution
From: tom.horsley@att.net (Thomas A. Horsley)
Organization: AT&T Worldnet
Date: Sat, 26 Oct 2002 22:09:22 GMT


> I'm looking for a very inexpensive PBX or other type of solution that
> can accomodate a small home business.

The gadget I just ordered to use as a telemarketer blocker might be
just what you are looking for since it is really designed as an
inexpensive PBX. Check out:

   http://www.avinta.com/products-1/trivox/home/trivoxhme.htm

The only problem might be that they could be hard to get since they
were just written up in a cnn.com article on telemarketer blocking
devices. I'm still waiting on mine to ship :-).

For PBX use, you basically have one of these for each phone and
add an answering machine up front to tell folks what numbers to
press to get to each extension.


>>==>> The *Best* political site  >>==+
      email: Tom.Horsley@worldnet.att.net icbm: Delray Beach, FL      |
 Free Software and Politics <<==+

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

From: noone@home.com (That Larry)
Subject: Re: Digital TV Will Soon be Mandatory. For Chip Makers It's Prime
Organization: WebUseNet Corp.  http://corp.webusenet.com - ReInventing UseNet
Date: Sun, 27 Oct 2002 00:01:54 GMT


If DCMA stands ... LIBRARIES will be illegal, loaning out copyrighted
materials to those who didn't pay for them.  You COULD become liable
for that INDIVIDUALLY LICENSED CD of country music star "Bud Twang's
Greatest Hits".  You'll be required to DESTROY the "software", just
like with Windoze ... instead of selling it at your yard sale for 50c
so someone else can listen to it.  It's not yours, you know!!  You
only had a license to play it for ONLY YOU!

If you let your girlfriend listen to Bud's CD, you'll be breaking
FEDERAL law, before this is all over ... unless, of course, you have a
royalty license to publically play it for her.

No sweat.  FCC approved a new DIGITAL RADIO SYSTEM this week so the
radio stations can turn your pocket AM-FM radios into a cash cow for
the RIAA and themselves, shortly, to go with your new Over-The-Air Pay
TV from Channel 5!  Isn't that great?!  All your old radios and TVs
will receive NOTHING after about 2008.  Want to listen to Oldies
102.5?  Dial 1-800-Feed-Me-Money and give them your credit card number
so they'll turn on your INDIVIDUALLY ADDRESSED AM-FM radio!  Oldies
102.5 will cost you $2.50/hour or you can buy the subscription for
$19.95/month.  If you don't pay, your radio will receive the same crap
DirecTV receives before you pay for it ... a spam telling you how to
subscribe ... (c;

The era of free TV and Radio over the public's airwaves is being sold
at FCC auction to the highest bidders ... The National Association of
Broadcasters, Recording Industry Association of America, Motion
Picture Association of America and the media moguls who own your local
radio and TV stations!

Watch it happen ...


Larry

Scotty!  You forgot to beam down the PUTTER!!

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

From: Dave Phelps 
Subject: Re: Looking for Inexpensive Small Business PBX Solution
Date: Sat, 26 Oct 2002 20:22:59 -0500
Organization: Posted via Supernews, http://www.supernews.com


In article , phrankster@hotmail.com 
says ...

[snip]

> We have one business line with an 800 number. We want to maintain only
> one phone line for incoming and outgoing calls. Minimally we need 2
> phones, with the ability to expand. Would like to be able to just use
> any analog phone, or at least a fairly inexpensive digital phone.

Panasonic KXTA or Avaya Partner ACS. All Pana ports support single
line sets, the ACS supports 2 single line sets for each 8 ports (waste
of money).

> When the phone rings, I'd like the caller to be presented with a
> custom greeting. Tbey can have the option to either dial an extension
> or wait for the next available representative. If the extension is
> busy, give them the option to hold or leave a voice message. I'd like
> to be able to leave an alternative greeting for calls coming in before
> or afterhours (or whenever I deem the business closed for the day).

I'm pretty sure the ACS can't do an ACD emulation in VM. I believe the 
Panasonic TVS voicemail can.

> While on hold or waiting for a rep, I'd like to have hold music
> playing with input from any external audio source (like a CD).

Either system.

> I'd like to have a distinctive ring for calls coming in on the 800
> line and the ability to do caller ID.

Distinctive ring? The only way you will get that is to get the
distinctive ring feature from your phone company and point the 800# at
the second number. I don't think either system will understand
receiving distinctive ring from the CO, but the PBX may ring strangely
when it sees the distinctive ring from the CO, which would fulfill
your requirement.

AFAIK, neither system passes CID data via analog ports. You could 
connect CID units in front of the system to handle that.

Look at the Pana KXTA-624 in a 308 configuration. You're probably
looking at about US$2000 or so.


Dave Phelps
Phone Masters Ltd.
deadspam=tippenring

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

From: J Kelly 
Subject: Re: Earth to Congress: We Watch TV
Date: Sat, 26 Oct 2002 20:32:51 -0500
Organization: pileofmonkeycrap


On Fri, 25 Oct 2002 12:27:17 GMT, Tom Schmidt
 wrote:

> J Kelly  wrote in message
> news:telecom22.96.2@telecom-digest.org:

> http://www.tvtechnology.com/features/Masked-Engineer/f-MO-Earth_to_congress
>.shtml

>> The Masked Engineer: Mario Orazio
>> Earth to Congress: We Watch TV

>> Mario Orazio is the pseudonym of a well-known television engineer who
>> wishes to remain anonymous. You can e-mail him at
>> Mario_Orazio@imaspub.com.

> Thanks for the posting -- If it were closer to April I'd think this
> was an April fools posting. I've been involved with the copyright
> debate and have not paid too much attention to the broadcast
> issues. It is truly amazing to watch Congress do the bidding of
> Hollywood. The DTV issue is a little different. Spectrum license
> revenue was used to help mask the huge budget deficit, so the FCC is
> under a lot of pressure to make sure it will really happen even though
> nether consumers or producers seem all that interested in the new
> technology.

> I agree HDTV looks better, even the analog stuff they have in Japan is
> pretty impressive. But I'm not all that interested in paying large
> sums of money to see prettier commercials. On can see a lot of movies
> or read tons of books for the cost of this new technology.

> I wonder if the FCC and Congress realize that in doing the bidding of
> Hollywood they will for all intents and purposes kill both the
> Internet and TV? Just goes to show you that if you want to be a
> successful business in the US you need to have at least a few
> Congresscritters in your employ.

And here's the really scary part: remember the promises of all those
"cheap" DTV to analog convertor boxes?  Those would be outlawed if
this crap were to pass congress, since it will be illegal to sell any
device that outputs "analog video".  No more VCR's, no more analog
camcorders, no more DVD's with composite or S-Video outputs ...

I, unfortunately, am involved in OTA broadcasting (at a PBS station),
and I think DTV could very well be the death of broadcast television
as we know it.

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

From: John Higdon 
Subject: Re: Earth to Congress: We Watch TV
Organization: Green Hills and Cows
Date: Sat, 26 Oct 2002 13:00:42 -0700


In article ,
Tom Schmidt  wrote:

> I wonder if the FCC and Congress realize that in doing the bidding of
> Hollywood they will for all intents and purposes kill both the
> Internet and TV? Just goes to show you that if you want to be a
> successful business in the US you need to have at least a few
> Congresscritters in your employ.

Don't forget history. Cries of doom have regularly come from the
entertainment industry. Television was to be the end of radio and
theater (stage and screen). Recordings would be the end of live
performances. Home recording would end record sales. The VCR would put
Hollywood out of business. Don't forget the famous BetaMax case that
asserted just about everything Hollywood is screaming about now.
Hollywood declared that DVD would be its doom. It embraced DiVX in
desperation to keep control. DiVX died ignominiously and DVD has made
Hollywood more money than it can count. (Side note: with Hollywood,
control is frequently a bigger issue than money.)

Ultimately, I predict that DTV and HDTV will settle down into
something the public can live with. After, it is the public that will
be holding the purse strings. But on that road, there will be a lot of
early-adopters who will get it in the posterior as the standards
change in fits and starts.


John Higdon     | Email Address Valid | SF:  +1 415 428-COWS
+1 408 264 4115 |     Anytown, USA    | FAX: +1 408 264 4407

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

From: cboone@NOSPAMearthlink.net
Subject: Re: One ISP Who Refuses to Deal with Spam
Date: Sun, 27 Oct 2002 02:15:31 GMT
Organization: EarthLink Inc. -- http://www.EarthLink.net


Dear Pat,

The reply from SWB is a bunch of crap ... they DO subscribe to 
spam-blacklists and my company's Groupwise email server is WRONGLY
listed by this wonderful lists as being an open relay server ... which
it is not!!! I have sent SBC several emails (from my HOME account since
my office is BOUNCED back!) and they have not replied ... funny thing
is they are the company's ISP in CA (PacBell) where our GW server is!!! 
HMMMM! What a bunch of garbage from Bell and these Blacklist providers.


Chris

TELECOM Digest Editor wrote:

> called back to sbcglobal and told them I want to change my name and
> ditch the old account, and why. The tech said explicitly, we do not
> filter spam at all. His argument was essentially what one person
> considers spam another person considers important mail. I asked him
> what about all the chain letter 'opportunities' and all the 'you can
> enlarge your thing several sizes', etc. He said in his personal email
> he gets all those things also but the company specifically said they
> do not intend to be in the business of 'censoring email'. He claims
> SWBell got sued once by someone whose email they filtered out who lost
> an important piece of email as a result so SWB/Prodigy decided to quit
> doing it; besides which since Prodigy got sued as a 'publisher' of a
> mailing list once they now stick totally to the common carrier
> business, refusing to filter anything at all.

> Have you ever heard of an ISP who *refuses* to do any spam filtering
> at all for fear of getting sued by users?

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

Date: 26 Oct 2002 22:26:10 -0400
From: johnl@iecc.com (John R. Levine)
Subject: Re: Aircell on Your Phone
Organization: I.E.C.C., Trumansburg NY USA


>> The spread of cell phones may soon reach forbidden turf: airline
>> flights. At least two companies, AirCell and Verizon Airfone, are
>> developing technology to let passengers use their cell phones without
>> disrupting airplane electronics or ground cellular service. ...

> The article neglects to point out that the FCC has specifically ruled
> that AirCell's plan for using ordinary cellphones on planes would
> violate its rules against cellphone use while aloft and against
> cellphone jammers. ...

> 

I think people should read the FCC's order for themselves and decide
what it said.  I think it said that AirCell's current FCC waiver only
covers service using modifed phones, and that a system using regular
phones would be illegal without a different waiver that AirCell hasn't
asked for since they're nowhere near ready to deploy such a system.
(Their current system would be illegal without a waiver, too.  That's
why they have the waiver.)

It definitely said that the FCC saw no problem with AirCell's current
activities and so the petition by AT&T, Cingular, and Verizon for a
declaratory ruling against AirCell was denied.


John R. Levine, IECC, POB 727, Trumansburg NY 14886 +1 607 387 6869
johnl@iecc.com Village Trustee and Sewer Commissioner http://iecc.com/johnl 
Member, Provisional board, Coalition Against Unsolicited Commercial E-mail

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

From: richardmarshall76021@yahoo.com
Subject: Re: Is there a Telephone Industry Magazine?
Date: 27 Oct 2002 04:51:07 -0800
Organization: http://groups.google.com/


Another good technical magazine is "Telecommunications."

at www.telecommagazine.com

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

Date: Sun, 27 Oct 2002 15:51:25 -0500
From: Monty Solomon 
Subject: News Headlines Of Interest 10/28/02


Fare Idea Returns to Haunt Airlines
By SAUL HANSELL

IT was, someone in the room said, "a Don Corleone moment." The room
was in the New York office of the Boston Consulting Group, to which
top Microsoft executives had been summoned in November 1999.

The offer, made by executives of four big airlines, was this: They 
would give Microsoft's online travel agency, Expedia, access to their 
discounted "Web fares" and, in return, get half of Expedia. And the 
threat: If Microsoft refused, the airlines would announce their own 
travel site the next day, which happened to be the day of Expedia's 
initial public offering.

Microsoft, unaccustomed to being on the receiving end of threats, 
refused. So on the morning of Expedia's offering, the airlines said 
they would start a rival service, ultimately known as Orbitz.

The code name for the venture was T2, which the travel industry took 
to mean Travelocity Terminator. The airlines wanted protection 
against the rising power of Expedia and Travelocity, another online 
agency. They also saw Orbitz as a way to force down the costs of 
reservations systems, like Travelocity's owner, the Sabre Group. And, 
of course, they wanted to make a mint by taking Orbitz public.

http://www.nytimes.com/2002/10/27/business/yourmoney/27ORBI.html


Phone Cards Aren't Created Equal
By JULIE FLAHERTY

FOR Kamlesh Rijhwani, a technology consultant from Somerville, Mass., 
a simple way to keep in touch with friends and family in Bombay, and 
to save money in the process, is to use prepaid phone cards. But 
finding the right card hasn't always been easy.

Mr. Rijhwani, 27, says he has tried many brands of cards over the 
last four years, typically buying them at Indian grocery stores, 
through vendors catering to that ethnic market. "They come up with 
these funky names," he said. "They have names like `Exotic India' or 
`Bollywood Card.' I used to use `Tele Taxi.' "

But he says he is never certain which card will offer him the best 
deal. "You basically rely on the person giving you the card to give 
you a good card," he said.

Choosing the right phone card can be confusing for many people 
because of the rapid expansion of the prepaid calling market over the 
last decade. Consumers are expected to spend $3.6 billion on prepaid 
cards this year, up from $750 million in 1995, according to AMC 
Atlantic, a research firm in Boston.


http://www.nytimes.com/2002/10/27/business/yourmoney/27CALL.html


Wireless Enron demonstrates privatization aches

by Andy Oram
Oct. 9, 2002
URL: http://www.nytimes.com/2002/10/09/business/09BIZC.html

Privatization was supposed to be easy. Give assets to a bunch of 
entrepreneurs, loosen the old regulatory bonds, and away they go! But 
in case after case, courts and regulators have had to stick around a 
lot longer than they expected.

I like privatization in many instances. It promotes competition and 
all kinds of innovation that were unimaginable before. But it can be 
carried out only where real opportunities for competition exist--not 
where there are historical or physical conditions that subtly enforce 
monopoly.

It happens that one place where a natural monopoly exists is
spectrum. When Congress legislated the auctioning of spectrum --
arguments over the degree of scarcity in spectrum notwithstanding--it
was clearly dividing a finite resource among numerous firms, each of
which owned a monopoly on a piece of a resource.

When two many pieces of a finite resource get tied up, it hurts.

http://www.oreillynet.com/pub/wlg/2126


BUSINESS INTELLIGENCE: Here's a 911 call that's better left unanswered
By D.C. Denison, Globe Staff, 10/27/2002

Pro-failure advocates are not easy to find. There's no status in
advocating for tossing in the towel, raising the white flag, giving
up. We'd much rather hear steely Ed Harris/Mission Control types
declare ''failure is not an option.''

Yet early last week, no less than 44 Internet analysts and business 
executives signed a letter to Federal Communications Commission 
chairman Michael Powell, urging him not only to let the current 
telecommunications industry fail, but to let it ''fail fast.''

Specifically, the letter referred to recent FCC hearings in 
Washington on the telecom crisis in which several speakers suggested 
various mechanisms that should be deployed to help the 
telecommunications industry ''recover.''




E-card Sneakware Delivers Web Porn

A Trojan horse program created by an Internet adult entertainment 
company routes surfers to racy sites.

By Kevin Poulsen, Oct 21 2002 12:08AM

It's no coincidence that one of the most recent Trojan horse programs 
to enter the FBI's bi-weekly rogues gallery of malicious code is 
named after an Internet porn company.

The program, dubbed "Cytron" by the bureau's National Infrastructure 
Protection Center (NIPC)and some anti-virus vendors, is a covert 
browser plug-in that gives Internet Explorer users something they 
probably don't want: more pop-up ads, promoting a slew of adult 
websites.

Users are lured into accepting the program through a wholesome e-mail 
from egreetings@yahoo.com -- a forged return address. The mail looks 
convincingly like an electronic greeting card notification, with a 
cute smiley face background and the text "You have received an 
e-card" in squiggly block letters.

http://online.securityfocus.com/news/1350

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

Date: Sat, 26 Oct 2002 16:07:01 EDT
From: dhorvath@cobs.com (David B. Horvath, CCP)
Subject: Business Directory


> 1-800-345-9708   (Free, 2 minute message)
>        DO NOT RESPOND BY EMAIL AND 
>        DON'T GO TO SLEEP WITHOUT LISTENING TO THIS

The strange thing about the next one is that they are *always* busy, every
time I try to call them to get removed:

> If you have previously unsubscribed and are still
> receiving this message, you may email our Abuse Control Center, or call
> 1-888-763-2497, or write us at: NoSpam, 6484 Coral Way, Miami, FL,
> 33155

> If you wish to unsubscribe from our mailing list, please Click
> Here or call us at 1-866-667-5399, or write to us at: NOUCE1, 
> 6822 22nd Ave. N, St. Petersburg, FL 33710-3918

But when I call that number, I get:   The number you have
reached has been disconnected or is no longer in service. 
 

Are they blocking me or just publishing a bogus number? I'm used to
hearing something like "215-2T" after interrupts.


David B. Horvath, CCP
Consultant, Author, International Lecturer, Adjunct Professor
Board Member: ICCP Educational Foundation, ICCP Test Council, and
Philadelphia Association of Systems Administrators

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

TELECOM Digest is an electronic journal devoted mostly but not
exclusively to telecommunications topics. It is circulated anywhere
there is email, in addition to various telecom forums on a variety of
networks such as Compuserve and America On Line, 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: 620-870-9697
                        Fax 1: 775-255-9970
                        Fax 2: 775-306-8390
                        Fax 3: 775-642-0603
                        Fax 4: 530-309-7234
                        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 second 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)

Email <==> FTP:  telecom-archives@telecom-digest.org 

      Send a simple, one line note to that automated address for
      a help file on how to use the automatic retrieval system
      for archives files. You can get desired files in email.

*************************************************************************
*   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.
Access to Premium (P) links requires upgrade to a paid subscription.

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

Only subscribers or registered users of ICB Toll Free News web site
will be able to access all or some of the full text of URLs provided.

LEGAL STUFF: TELECOM Digest (sm) is owned by Patrick Townson.
Copyright 2000 ICB, Inc. and TELECOM Digest. All rights reserved.
Our attorney is Bill Levant, of Blue Bell, PA.

   ---------------------------------------------------------------
    
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 twenty 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 V22 #98
*****************************
    
From editor@telecom-digest.org Mon Oct 28 16:39:07 2002
Received: from localhost (localhost [[UNIX: localhost]])
	by massis.lcs.mit.edu (8.11.3nb1/8.11.3) id g9SLd7v26308;
	Mon, 28 Oct 2002 16:39:07 -0500 (EST)
Date: Mon, 28 Oct 2002 16:39:07 -0500 (EST)
From: editor@telecom-digest.org
Message-Id: <200210282139.g9SLd7v26308@massis.lcs.mit.edu>
X-Authentication-Warning: massis.lcs.mit.edu: ptownson set sender to editor@telecom-digest.org using -f
To: ptownson
Approved: patsnewlist
Subject: TELECOM Digest V22 #99

TELECOM Digest     Mon, 28 Oct 2002 16:39:00 EST    Volume 22 : Issue 99

Inside This Issue:                            Editor: Patrick A. Townson

    Telecom Update (Canada) #355, October 28, 2002 (Angus TeleManagement)
    Re: Digital TV Will Soon be Mandatory (Paul Wallich)
    Re: Digital TV Will Soon be Mandatory (John Higdon)
    Re: FTP Synchronization Software for Windows? (Paul Erickson)
    Re: FTP Synchronization Software for Windows? (Mathew McKernan)
    Re: Telnet Into Compuserve x.25 Network (Brian Inglis)

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. WE DO NOT PERMIT NAME/EMAIL ADDRESS
HARVESTING FROM THIS JOURNAL. 'SALTED' EMAIL ADDRESSES APPEAR
HEREIN TO VERIFY THIS. YOU GET SUED IN SMALL CLAIMS COURT IF YOU
GET CAUGHT SPAMMING OR SENDING VIRUSES. DON'T DO IT.

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

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

Date: Mon, 28 Oct 2002 09:59:51 -0500
From: Angus TeleManagement 
Subject: Telecom Update (Canada) #355, October 28, 2002


************************************************************
TELECOM UPDATE
************************************************************
published weekly by Angus TeleManagement Group
http://www.angustel.ca

Number 355: October 28, 2002

Publication of Telecom Update is made possible by generous
financial support from:
** BELL CANADA: http://www.bell.ca
** CISCO SYSTEMS CANADA: http://www.cisco.com/ca/letstalk
** CYGCOM INTEGRATED TECHNOLOGIES: http://www.cygcom.com
** ERICSSON CANADA: http://www.ericsson.ca
** JUNIPER NETWORKS: http://www.juniper.net
** PRIMUS CANADA: http://www.primustel.ca
** Q9 NETWORKS: http://www.Q9.com
** TELUS: http://www.telus.com

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

IN THIS ISSUE:

** Telus to Appeal CRTC Ruling
** Delay Sought for 613/819 10-Digit Dialing
** JDS Plans More Ottawa Layoffs
** Major Internet Servers Weather Attack
** ExpressVu Sues Black-Market Dealers
** Bell Mobility, ExpressVu Rapped on Privacy
** U.S. Marketers Favour Anti-Spam Laws
** Bell Intros Wireless LANs
** Primus Supports AT&T Appeal
** Carriers Told to File Remote Switching Info Tariff
** Navigata Buys B.C. Internet Developer
** Aliant Completes Fibre Route
** BCE Profits Rise on Flat Sales
** Financial Reports
       Cogeco
       Lucent
       Sierra Wireless
** Last Chance for Telemanagement Discount

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

TELUS TO APPEAL CRTC RULING: CRTC Telecom Decision 2002-67, issued
Friday, refuses a Telus call for increases to the rates it can charge
competitors for local loops and to the subsidies it receives for local
service in high-cost areas.  Telus says the decision is "financially
unsustainable" and that it "fully expects to file an appeal to the
federal Cabinet."

http://www.crtc.gc.ca/archive/ENG/Decisions/2002/dt2002-67.htm

DELAY SOUGHT FOR 613/819 10-DIGIT DIALING: Last November, the CRTC
ordered introduction of mandatory 10-digit local dialing in Area Codes
613 and 819 by the end of 2004. (See Telecom Update #311) The NPA
613/819 Relief Planning Committee now says the need for new numbers is
less than anticipated: it will ask the CRTC to delay the change by two
years.

http://www.cnac.ca/nparelief/613-819/TIF_613_819_RE03A(2).pdf

JDS PLANS MORE OTTAWA LAYOFFS: JDS Uniphase says it will reduce its
Ottawa work force from 1,500 to "above 500," mostly in research. Most
head office functions are being centralized in San Jose.

** JDS had July-September sales of US$193 million, down 13%
    from the previous quarter and 41% from a year ago. Net
    loss: $521 million.

MAJOR INTERNET SERVERS WEATHER ATTACK: The FBI is investigating an
hour-long Denial of Service attack against the Internet's root servers
on October 21. Five of the servers continued operating, and disruption
was minimal.

EXPRESSVU SUES BLACK-MARKET DEALERS: Bell ExpressVu and three
broadcasters are suing 19 alleged dealers in black-market satellite
equipment for $100 million in damages. Broadcasters complain that the
Supreme Court's April decision barring sale of equipment designed to
receive satellite TV signals from outside Canada was not followed by
any "ramp-up in enforcement." (See Telecom Update #330)

BELL MOBILITY, EXPRESSVU RAPPED ON PRIVACY: The Federal Privacy
Commissioner has ruled that Bell Mobility and Bell ExpressVu violated
federal privacy legislation by not properly disclosing that they share
customer data with other BCE companies for marketing, and did not give
customers the opportunity to opt out.

http://www.privcom.gc.ca/cf-dc/cf-dc_021016_5_e.asp

U.S. MARKETERS FAVOUR ANTI-SPAM LAWS: In a major policy shift, the
U.S. Direct Marketing Association has announced that it will support
federal and state legislation to stop spam. CEO Robert Wientzen said:
"Without a solution that includes legislation, legitimate marketers
who use e-mail to communicate with consumers will continue to suffer
at the hands of spammers."

BELL INTROS WIRELESS LANs: Bell Canada now offers wireless LAN network
infrastructure and applications to businesses across Canada, using
technology from Cisco and Symbol Technologies.

PRIMUS SUPPORTS AT&T APPEAL: Long distance reseller Primus Canada has
filed comments supporting AT&T Canada's appeal to Cabinet of the Price
Caps Decision (see Telecom Update #347).  Primus says that the
decision failed to reaffirm the CRTC's longstanding support for resale
in the fostering of competition.

** Seven parties have now filed comments on the AT&T appeal.
    All but one oppose it.

http://strategis.ic.gc.ca/SSG/sf05987e.html

CARRIERS TOLD TO FILE REMOTE SWITCHING INFO TARIFF: In response to an
application by the Coalition for Better Co-Location, CRTC Decision
2002-66 orders SaskTel, MTS, and Aliant to file tariffs specifying
rates and other terms for responding to competitors' queries regarding
the locations of telco remote switches.  Bell Canada and Telus already
have such tariffs.

http://www.crtc.gc.ca/archive/ENG/Decisions/2002/dt2002-66.htm

NAVIGATA BUYS B.C. INTERNET DEVELOPER: Navigata, formerly RSL Com and
now owned by SaskTel, has agreed to buy Entirety Communications, a
Victoria-based Internet Service Provider.

ALIANT COMPLETES FIBRE ROUTE: Aliant Telecom says it has completed
construction of a $25 million 10 Gbps fibre optic route from
St. John's, Newfoundland, through Nova Scotia and terminating in Saint
John, New Brunswick. The route will eventually connect to Bell
Canada's national fibre network.

BCE PROFITS RISE ON FLAT SALES: BCE reports third quarter revenue of
$4.82 billion, the same as a year ago but 2.4% less than in the
previous quarter. Data revenue increased 5%; capital spending fell to
19% of revenue. Net income: $368 million, compared to a $144 million
loss last year.

** Net subscriber additions: 62,000 (cellular), 93,000 (DSL),
    and 45,000 (satellite TV).

** BCE has increased its debt offering, launched to pay for
    part of its buyback of SBC's share of Bell Canada, from
    $1.5 billion to $2.0 billion. The offer closes October 30.

** CEO Michael Sabia has been appointed to BCE's Board.

** Aliant revenue of $654 million was 2% higher than a year
    ago. Profits rose 32% to $44.1 million.

** BCE Emergis earned a net $4.8 million on sales of $135
    million, 5% below the previous quarter. Telesat earned
    $7.4 million on sales of $77.4 million, 1% below the
    previous quarter.

FINANCIAL REPORTS:

** Cogeco's June-August revenue was $135 million, 14% higher
    than the same period last year. A writeoff of Cogeco's
    investment in Stornoway Communications led to a net loss
    of $2.5 million. During the quarter, Cogeco lost 8,198
    basic cable subscribers and won 3,821 Internet
    subscribers.

** Lucent's pro forma revenues were US$2.28 billion in July-
    September, down 23% from the previous quarter and 52% from
    a year ago. Lucent's net loss was $2.84 billion, compared
    with $8.8 billion a year ago. Lucent ended the quarter
    with $4.4 billion in cash or short-term investments.

** Sierra Wireless had third quarter sales of US$20.1
    million, 25% higher than the previous quarter, due to
    increased sales of PC cards for higher-speed wireless
    networks. Net earnings: $0.5 million.

LAST CHANCE FOR TELEMANAGEMENT DISCOUNT: Save more than 50% off the
cover price with a one-year subscription. Offer expires October 30 --
download full details and subscribe today.

http://www.angustel.ca/teleman/Telemanagement_Special_Offer.p
df

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

HOW TO SUBMIT ITEMS FOR TELECOM UPDATE

E-MAIL: editors@angustel.ca

FAX:    905-686-2655

MAIL:   TELECOM UPDATE
         Angus TeleManagement Group
         8 Old Kingston Road
         Ajax, Ontario Canada L1T 2Z7

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

HOW TO SUBSCRIBE (OR UNSUBSCRIBE)

TELECOM UPDATE is provided in electronic form only. There are two
formats available:

1. The fully-formatted edition is posted on the World
    Wide Web on the first business day of the week at
    http://www.angustel.ca

2. The e-mail edition is distributed free of charge.
    To subscribe, send an e-mail message to:
       TelecomUpdate@add.postmastergeneral.com
    To stop receiving the e-mail edition, send
    an e-mail message to:
       TelecomUpdate@remove.postmastergeneral.com

    Sending e-mail to these addresses will automatically add
    or remove the sender's e-mail address from the list. Leave
    subject line and message area blank.

    We do not give Telecom Update subscribers' e-mail
    addresses to any third party. For more information,
    see http://www.angustel.ca/update/privacy.html.


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

COPYRIGHT AND CONDITIONS OF USE: All contents copyright 2002 Angus
TeleManagement Group Inc. All rights reserved. For further
information, including permission to reprint or reproduce, please
e-mail rosita@angustel.ca or phone 905-686-5050 ext 500.

The information and data included has been obtained from sources which
we believe to be reliable, but Angus TeleManagement makes no
warranties or representations whatsoever regarding accuracy,
completeness, or adequacy.  Opinions expressed are based on
interpretation of available information, and are subject to change. If
expert advice on the subject matter is required, the services of a
competent professional should be obtained.

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

From: Paul Wallich 
Subject: Re: Digital TV Will Soon be Mandatory. For Chip Makers It's Prime
Date: Mon, 28 Oct 2002 10:11:25 -0500
Organization: PANIX Public Access Internet and UNIX, NYC


In article , John Higdon
 wrote:

> In article , H.E.Taylor
>  wrote:

>> 	One has to wonder how long it will be before whatever copy 
>> 	protection they devise is subverted/sidestepped, rather as
>> 	it was when the PC industry went through this with floppies
>> 	in the 80's.  If there is a buck to be made or a challenge
>> 	to be overcome, someone will break it.

> There is a big difference between then and now. It is called the DMCA,
> and has already been responsible for sending people to jail for
> creating products that do nothing more than enable "fair use" of
> copyrighted material.

> If the DMCA stands, anyone who engineers and/or provides any sort of
> copy protection or encryption bypass will have Federal agents at his
> door. Same for anyone ever caught using such, regarless of whether he
> is using it to violate any other laws or not.

> TELECOM Digest Editor noted as part of the thread:

>> Motorola was making/using a chip called '02-A' which was highly
>> programmable. The FCC told them to stop making/using that chip, and
>> the FCC later got after Tandy again and made them start using a certain
>> kind of sticky wax to seal up the radio's insides, to keep guys from
>> getting in there and screwing around. I wonder how soon after these
>> new television sets start coming out guys will develop a furtive 
>> switch to hide on the back of the set somewhere. The set will work
>> as a new set, flip the secret switch and do recording, etc.    PAT]

> Anyone who advertises any such device or is EVER caught using it will, 
> thanks to the DMCA, be sent to the pokey for a very long time.

> John Higdon     | Email Address Valid | SF:  +1 415 428-COWS
> +1 408 264 4115 |     Anytown, USA    | FAX: +1 408 264 4407

> [TELECOM Digest Editor's Note: What John says is *theoretically true*
> about long jail terms, etc. But the same thing was *in theory* correct
> during the CB Radio craze also. But, if you will recall, within a few
> years after forty channel (as opposed to early twenty-three and still 
> earlier eleven channel CB radios) came into existence, things got to
> be *so wild*, the federal government lost complete control of their
> ability to regulate/govern people's behavior regards radios. Oh, they 
> did huff and puff and keep threatening for awhile, and initially had
> a series of raids 'to teach people a lesson' about illegal mods being
> made on radios. The raids by the FCC would leave people's houses in
> shambles, and as word got around it was happening, there would be 
> total radio silence for a few days. Then things would get back to
> 'normal'. As applications for licenses kept pouring into FCC headquarters
> eventually FCC decided to not require 'license approval' any longer
> and said people could make up their own call signs, consisting of 
> their name initials and zip codes. Well, you know how fraught with
> fraud that plan soon became. Soon people quit bothering at all to
> send in that postcard which was packed in every new CB radio telling
> the FCC about their rig. Then it got to the point that unless you were
> totally outrageous in running a radio (i.e. using a two thousand watt
> Browning Golden Eagle linear amp on a regular basis so your neighbors
> could not watch television at all, or you were up in forty meters
> trying to tune-up or playing music so the legitimate ham operators had
> to get after you) the FCC finally gave up entirely on any enforcement 
> of regulations, **although they never admitted that they were giving 
> up on it.** They just keep on rumbling and making public service 
> announcements on TV as warnings. I still keep hearing every few days
> or whenever I turn the CB on (rarely any more) the truck drivers in
> California screaming at their bretheren in New York through linear
> amps. 

The difference between your CB example and what's happening today is
that for CB the FCC was basically acting against industry interests,
namely to sell as much product as possible. The new regulatory regime
is backed by people willing to spend hundreds of millions of dollars
running "violators" into the ground, and apparently with no
compunctions about buying members of congress or making declarations
of questionable veracity to federal courts and international law
enforcement agencies.

Even if such laws are not universally enforced, the situation would
still be pretty bad -- you'd be giving an enormous boost to organized
criminals (see for examples prohibition or the war on some drugs) and
putting enormous numbers of people at risk of prosecution according to
the whims of whoever might have a grudge and decide to turn them in.


paul

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

From: John Higdon 
Subject: Re: Digital TV Will Soon be Mandatory. For Chip Makers It's Prime
Organization: Green Hills and Cows
Date: Mon, 28 Oct 2002 09:03:55 -0800


In article ,
noone@home.com (That Larry) wrote:

> The era of free TV and Radio over the public's airwaves is being sold
> at FCC auction to the highest bidders ... The National Association of
> Broadcasters, Recording Industry Association of America, Motion
> Picture Association of America and the media moguls who own your local
> radio and TV stations!

It may START to happen. They may WISH it would happen. But, ultimately, 
it will not happen. How can I say this? Look at history. Every time 
there is common ownership of content and the means of transmission, the 
public turns its back. Latest example: satellite radio. It is failing 
miserably. It has technical problems and lackluster programming. The 
only people willing to shell out hundreds of dollars for specialized 
receivers and $120 a year just to make it work are dedicated gadget 
freaks. This won't sustain the business and it will ultimately fail.

The one thing that keeps the moguls in check: the consumer's tight 
pocketbook!


John Higdon     | Email Address Valid | SF:  +1 415 428-COWS
+1 408 264 4115 |     Anytown, USA    | FAX: +1 408 264 4407

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

From: Paul Erickson 
Subject: Re: FTP Synchronization Software for Windows?
Date: Mon, 28 Oct 2002 13:08:59 -0500
Organization: Posted via Supernews, http://www.supernews.com


Check out WS_FTP Pro, they have a synchronization feature and scriptability,
although I have never personally used those features myself.  39 bucks.
http://www.wsftp.com/Products/WS_FTP/features.html


 -- Paul

Joey Lindstrom  wrote in message
news:telecom22.98.2@telecom-digest.org...

> Can anyone recommend some good FTP synchronization software for
> Windows (98 currently, soon to be 2000)?  This is for the Telecom
> Digest Archives CD-ROM project -- I'd like the CD's that I burn on
> behalf of Pat to be COMPLETELY up to date, but the archives are
> absolutely humungous.  :-) I'm looking for something that will, either
> on demand or on a schedule, login to the massis machine (a *nix box),
> burrow its way into each and every directory, get a listing of all the
> files available, and then download anything either missing, new, or
> changed since the last run (to my local hard drive).

> "Free" would be preferred but a small shareware donation wouldn't
> cause too much concern.

> / From the desk of Joey Lindstrom
> /
> / Goodness without wisdom always accomplished evil.
> /         -- Valentine Michael Smith, "Stranger In A Strange Land"
> /            (Robert Heinlein)

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

From: Mathew McKernan 
Subject: Re: Telnet Into Compuserve x.25 Network
Organization: Systematic Software


On Wed, 23 Oct 2002 19:08:49 GMT, Name  wrote:

> I am trying to telnet into Compuserve's x.25 network. (I believe it is
> now uunet or worldcom). I am aware that you can telnet to
> gateway.compuserve.com, but I want to get to the "Which Host" prompt
> as opposed to the CIS service.

Wouldn't that be telnet into Compuserve's TCP/IP network?  I used to
dial into my local DataPac PAD, set up my session parameters, type
Compuserve's X.25 address, then pick my service, and start
communicating.  The Procomm scripts are long gone!

Thanks. Take care, Brian Inglis 	Calgary, Alberta, Canada


Brian.Inglis@CSi.com 	(Brian dot Inglis at SystematicSw dot ab dot ca)
    fake address		use address above to reply
abuse@aol.com tosspam@aol.com abuse@att.com abuse@earthlink.com 
abuse@hotmail.com abuse@mci.com abuse@msn.com abuse@sprint.com 
abuse@yahoo.com abuse@cadvision.com abuse@shaw.ca abuse@telus.com 
abuse@ibsystems.com uce@ftc.gov				spam traps

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

TELECOM Digest is an electronic journal devoted mostly but not
exclusively to telecommunications topics. It is circulated anywhere
there is email, in addition to various telecom forums on a variety of
networks such as Compuserve and America On Line, 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: 620-870-9697
                        Fax 1: 775-255-9970
                        Fax 2: 775-306-8390
                        Fax 3: 775-642-0603
                        Fax 4: 530-309-7234
                        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 second 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)

Email <==> FTP:  telecom-archives@telecom-digest.org 

      Send a simple, one line note to that automated address for
      a help file on how to use the automatic retrieval system
      for archives files. You can get desired files in email.

*************************************************************************
*   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.
Access to Premium (P) links requires upgrade to a paid subscription.

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

Only subscribers or registered users of ICB Toll Free News web site
will be able to access all or some of the full text of URLs provided.

LEGAL STUFF: TELECOM Digest (sm) is owned by Patrick Townson.
Copyright 2000 ICB, Inc. and TELECOM Digest. All rights reserved.
Our attorney is Bill Levant, of Blue Bell, PA.

   ---------------------------------------------------------------
    
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 twenty 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 V22 #99
*****************************
    
    
From editor@telecom-digest.org Mon Oct 28 17:29:38 2002
Received: from localhost (localhost [[UNIX: localhost]])
	by massis.lcs.mit.edu (8.11.3nb1/8.11.3) id g9SMTcL29300;
	Mon, 28 Oct 2002 17:29:38 -0500 (EST)
Date: Mon, 28 Oct 2002 17:29:38 -0500 (EST)
From: editor@telecom-digest.org
Message-Id: <200210282229.g9SMTcL29300@massis.lcs.mit.edu>
X-Authentication-Warning: massis.lcs.mit.edu: ptownson set sender to editor@telecom-digest.org using -f
To: ptownson
Approved: patsnewlist
Subject: TELECOM Digest V22 #100

TELECOM Digest     Mon, 28 Oct 2002 17:30:00 EST    Volume 22 : Issue 100

Inside This Issue:                             Editor: Patrick A. Townson

    Connecting a FAX Machine to an Existing Answering Machine (D Vinograd)
    Hardwares Used in Digital/Data Communications and Phone Systems (Floyd)
    Re: Earth to Congress: We Watch TV (Tom Schmidt)
    Re: Earth to Congress: We Watch TV (Brian Inglis)
    Re: Buttons on VTECH VT 1981 to Hard to Press (Paul Erickson)
    Re: New Scam? (Paul Erickson)
    Re: The Death Of the Net/How Industry Intends To Kill The 'Net (Poster)
    Re: FTP Synchronization Software for Windows? (John R. Myers)
    Re: Looking for Inexpensive Small Business PBX Solution (Carl Navarro)

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. WE DO NOT PERMIT NAME/EMAIL ADDRESS
HARVESTING FROM THIS JOURNAL. 'SALTED' EMAIL ADDRESSES APPEAR
HEREIN TO VERIFY THIS. YOU GET SUED IN SMALL CLAIMS COURT IF YOU
GET CAUGHT SPAMMING OR SENDING VIRUSES. DON'T DO IT.

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

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

Reply-To: 
From: David Vinograd 
Subject: Connecting a FAX Machine to an Existing Answering Machine
Date: Mon, 28 Oct 2002 10:35:38 -0000


People,

I have just purchased a multi function Fax, Scanner, Copier and
Printer. The answering system is in one room and the PC along with its
new printer is in an other. I do not wish to move either system nor
can I easily run cable between the two rooms. Can anyone suggest how I
can have the Fax system in automatic receive mode without interfering
with the answering machine.

The answering machine is from BT (I live in the UK) and the multi
function system is from Lexmark.

Thanks,

David Vinograd
mailto:Vinograd@multics.org
Consultants in Networking & Security
http://vinograd.multics.org/
Peaks Island Partnership Ltd
128 Richmond Hill
8 Garden Lane
Richmond, TW10 6RN UK                                                 
Peaks Island, ME 04108 US
+44-(0)20-8-940-5723
207-766-5840


[TELECOM Digest Editor's Note: Is distinctive ringing available in the 
UK?  If it is, then your answer might be found there, assuming either
the fax or anwering machine can be trained to respond to different
style rings.   PAT]

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

From: floydmgm@yahoo.com (floyd)
Subject: Hardwares Used in Digital/Data Communications and Phone Systems
Date: 28 Oct 2002 03:16:38 -0800
Organization: http://groups.google.com/


What are some common hardwares used in Digital and Data Communications
and in Telephony (PSTN)?

For example, in Electronics, we use oscilloscopes, logic analyzers,
and signal generators as test instruments/equipment. What about for
digital communications and in telephone networks?

Topics for digital comm. include information theory and coding,
digital modulation, and noise. For telephone system: switching,
signaling, multiplexing, and network and traffic engineering.

Thank you!

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

Reply-To: Tom Schmidt 
From: Tom Schmidt 
Subject: Re: Earth to Congress: We Watch TV
Date: Mon, 28 Oct 2002 13:06:22 GMT


> I, unfortunately, am involved in OTA broadcasting (at a PBS station),
> and I think DTV could very well be the death of broadcast television
> as we know it.

I share your concern.

Ultimately the Internet will compete with OTA, Cable, and DBS. It will
be much harder or impossible for the FCC to impose transport/presen-
tation control. This poses an interesting problem for the incumbents.
The Internet decouples communication so a "broadcaster" is able to use
any encoding format they desire. The only limitation is channel
capacity and proper decoder in the receiver.

This moves the battle over control to the first-mile Internet providers
since they will be the gatekeepers for most Internet access.


Tom

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

Date: Mon, 28 Oct 2002 06:57:05 +0000 (GMT)
From: Brian Inglis 
Subject: Re: Earth to Congress: We Watch TV
Organization: Systematic Software


On Fri, 25 Oct 2002 12:27:17 GMT, Tom Schmidt 
wrote:

> J Kelly  wrote in message
> news:telecom22.96.2@telecom-digest.org:

> http://www.tvtechnology.com/features/Masked-Engineer/f-MO-Earth_to_congress.shtml

>> The Masked Engineer: Mario Orazio
>> Earth to Congress: We Watch TV

>> Mario Orazio is the pseudonym of a well-known television engineer who
>> wishes to remain anonymous. You can e-mail him at
>> Mario_Orazio@imaspub.com.

> Thanks for the posting -- If it were closer to April I'd think this
> was an April fools posting. I've been involved with the copyright
> debate and have not paid too much attention to the broadcast
> issues. It is truly amazing to watch Congress do the bidding of
> Hollywood. The DTV issue is a little different. Spectrum license
> revenue was used to help mask the huge budget deficit, so the FCC is
> under a lot of pressure to make sure it will really happen even though
> nether consumers or producers seem all that interested in the new
> technology.

> I agree HDTV looks better, even the analog stuff they have in Japan is
> pretty impressive. But I'm not all that interested in paying large
> sums of money to see prettier commercials. On can see a lot of movies
> or read tons of books for the cost of this new technology.

> I wonder if the FCC and Congress realize that in doing the bidding of
> Hollywood they will for all intents and purposes kill both the
> Internet and TV? Just goes to show you that if you want to be a
> successful business in the US you need to have at least a few
> Congresscritters in your employ.

Dear Stockbroker: 

Please sell all my US broadcast network and equipment supplier stocks
ASAP!  Please ensure you include ABC, CBS, NBC, RCA, GE, Zenith,
Disney, and any others you can think of that I may have missed.
Please reinvest proceeds into stocks of broadcast network and
equipment suppliers to free markets: Asia and Europe look promising.

Oh, damn! I think I sent this to the wrong address! ;^>

Thanks. Take care, Brian Inglis 	Calgary, Alberta, Canada


Brian.Inglis@CSi.com 	(Brian dot Inglis at SystematicSw dot ab dot ca)
    fake address		use address above to reply
abuse@aol.com tosspam@aol.com abuse@att.com abuse@earthlink.com 
abuse@hotmail.com abuse@mci.com abuse@msn.com abuse@sprint.com 
abuse@yahoo.com abuse@cadvision.com abuse@shaw.ca abuse@telus.com 
abuse@ibsystems.com uce@ftc.gov				spam traps

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

From: Paul Erickson 
Subject: Re: Buttons on VTECH VT 1981 to Hard to Press
Date: Mon, 28 Oct 2002 13:25:18 -0500
Organization: Posted via Supernews, http://www.supernews.com


> I have a Vtech 900MHz phone as well; it's my second Vtech phone.  Both
> of my Vtechs have had this identical problem.

> Here's what I do:  I disassemble the handset (quite a chore) and pull
> the rubber pad off of the keyboard.  Underneath the rubber I find slime,
> as though someone had spilled soda on the phone.

Exactly the problem with my Vtech 900Mhz.  I did the disassembly/slime
cleaning routine two or three times maybe every six months, then I
just gave up on the phone.  Ridiculous.  It's collecting dust in a box
now and FWIW I'll probably never consider a Vtech product again.

Been happy with the Toshiba 2.4Ghz (except when the microwave is on ....)


 -- Paul

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

From: Paul Erickson 
Subject: Re: New Scam?
Date: Mon, 28 Oct 2002 13:53:13 -0500
Organization: Posted via Supernews, http://www.supernews.com


> Do you all agree that this is probably a scam?  If so, am I just now
> finding out about it? Or is this a new one?

Very doubtful you would make any money in this business.  I remember
reading somewhere that the ROI on pay-per-use internet kiosks is very
low.  Let's say you get $50 - $200 worth of usage a month, but you
have to pay for the hardware, plus a DSL line, plus maintenance at a
remote site, plus some kind of cut to the property owner.  And I'll
bet this TV infomercial organization will make it all "turnkey" for a
"small" administrative fee, right?  LOL.

I've seen *free* public kiosks get used a lot, people will line up for
them -- but that relies on a banner advertising type model which
hasn't been doing terribly well the last few years.  Here's a couple
examples from my personal experience travelling around the country to
various tradeshows:

- Prudential Center, Boston, *very* busy shopping mall.  Free internet
access, lots of people/kids playing with the terminals.  Always busy.
Large overhead plasma displays w/advertising.  Cool design.  They are
no longer there, removed I would guess about a year ago.  Guess that
didn't work out ...

- McCormick Place, Chicago.  Arguably the largest convention center in
the country.  Been there with shows of 50,000 - 100,000 attendees.
Pay-per-use kiosks in front of a Starbucks!  Could not ask for a
better location.  You'd be lucky to see a person toying with the
things every now and then, let alone sticking a credit card in.
People just won't pay $5 for 5-15 minutes to check email.

I've seen these kiosks sit all alone, completely idle in other
convention centers and other public places.  IMHO, it's not the kind
of business that's going to make you rich ...


 -- Paul

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

From: The Poster 
Subject: Re: The Death Of The Internet/How Industry Intends To Kill The 'Net
Date: Mon, 28 Oct 2002 14:30:08 -0600


Yes - this is really old news.

The bigger issue is that one of the only central components of the
internet, domain names, are now run by a corrupt monopoly called
ICANN.

ICANN was supposed to be governed by a board whose majority was
democratically elected. Almost before the ink was dry on their MOU
with the US Dept of Commerce, they worked to eliminate all democracy
from their organization.

The new ICANN "reform" eliminates it altogether.

That's why the Inclusive Namespace exists - to provide an alternative. 
Recently, ICANNites have been putting out "feelers" to see if they can
get ISP's to block their user's access to the Inclusive Namespace DNS
servers.

In other words, they want to control what you can see and decide what
directories you are allowed to see and not see. This effectivly turns
control of the internet over to one corporation that has no
accountability to the public.

Doesn't sound free to me.

Monty Solomon  wrote in message
news:telecom22.98.1@telecom-digest.org:

> Jeff Chester is executive director of the Center for Digital Democracy.

> The Internet's promise as a new medium -- where text, audio, video and
> data can be freely exchanged -- is under attack by the corporations
> that control the public's access to the 'Net, as they see
> opportunities to monitor and charge for the content people seek and
> send. The industry's vision is the online equivalent of seizing the
> taxpayer-owned airways, as radio and television conglomerates did over
> the course of the 20th century.

> To achieve this, the cable industry, which sells Internet access to
> most Americans, is pursuing multiple strategies to closely monitor and
> tightly control subscribers and their use of the net. One element can
> be seen in industry lobbying for new use-based pricing schemes, which
> has been widely reported in trade press. Related to this is the
> industry's new public relations campaign, which seeks to introduce a
> new "menace" into the pricing debate and boost their case, the
> so-called "bandwidth hog."

> But beyond political and press circles are another equally important
> development: new technologies being developed and embraced that can,
> in practice, transform today's open Internet into a new industry-
> regulated system that will prevent or discourage people from using the
> net for file-sharing, internet radio and video, and peer-to-peer
> communications. These are not merely the most popular cutting-edge
> applications used by young people; they also are the tools for
> fundamental new ways of conducting business and politics.

> These goals and objectives are visible to anyone who cares to look at
> the arcane world of telecommunications policy and planning, either in
> the industry trade press or government documents. The bottom line is
> the industry want to kill the Internet as we know it.

> http://www.tompaine.com/feature.cfm/ID/6600

> [TELECOM Digest Editor's Note:  I do not know why the above is
> considered news. Really, it is old news. We have known for a long time
> that the Internet has upset so many applecarts in society. I mean, the
> very idea that people can communicate these days faster and more acc-
> uratly with each other without having to beg the media to tell the
> story has the same media very angry with us. The government does not
> like the citizens able to communicate freely with each other with any
> degree of accuracy without them getting the government 'spin' on
> things as presented by the media. The entertainment industry does not
> like us because they can no longer make us pay money to see their
> shows, etc. We used to have to rely on what the newspapers/magazines
> told us we believed (no longer); we used to have to pay the entertain-
> ment industy to amuse us; the sheer volume of paperwork made it very
> problematic for us to get into details the government did not want us
> knowing about; no longer. Nearly everything these days is only a
> couple of keystrokes away. The media and entertainment industry says
> that's bad news. Even the stupidest of us these days can pretty much
> do as we damn please; the government says that's bad news.

> I saw on a web site the other day where some nasty lady involved in
> the motion picture business asked a question (of a webmaster) about
> the ability (of netizens) to bring up the source code for a web page
> and the 'problem' of deep-linking into their pages. "Can't we stop
> 'them' from looking at our pages, etc" was her plaintif cry. No lady,
> you can't stop it. That's the idea and rationale behind the world
> wide web. The webmaster told her as much. You people who do not like
> the way the web operates, do us a favor and drop out. We are not going
> to change a damn thing, no matter how much you push. You should not
> have been here to start with. You've tried ostracizing us, back when
> 'home computers' were the exception by calling us all hackers. You
> have tried guilt trips (Frightened Mothers, worried Christians, hate-
> speech concerns, pornography and pedophilia, etc.) None of it worked.
> None of it will work. Now of late, you have been hawking the copyright
> laws as your thing, combining the guilt-tripping routine with the
> other items in your bag of tricks. Let's face it, this internet-thing
> is the worst quandry many of you in Hollywood, the newspapers and
> the government have ever seen in your life, isn't it? People doing
> their own thing and you mostly powerless to stop or control them. And
> Monty Solomon thought it was news worthy, I guess, that you all
> struggle to regain the controls you had for years but are now
> gradually slipping away from you. You stupid hypocrites!     PAT]

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

Date: Mon, 28 Oct 2002 12:37:59 -0800
From: John R. Myers 
Subject: Re: FTP Synchronization Software for Windows?


Joey Lindstrom  wrote:

> Can anyone recommend some good FTP synchronization software for
> Windows (98 currently, soon to be 2000)?  

The program you need is called "rsync'. It's quite common in the 
unix software development world these days, but I have no experience
with the Windows version. A quick check on Google suggests that the
Windows version runs under the Cygwin unix emulator.


John R. Myers / mailto:jmyers@meer.net  
Palo Alto, California  USA          
tel. +1 650 322-6863 / fax. +1 650 322-7041 

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

From: Carl Navarro 
Subject: Re: Looking for Inexpensive Small Business PBX Solution
Date: Mon, 28 Oct 2002 15:43:42 -0500
Organization: Airnews.net! at Internet America


On 25 Oct 2002 10:30:36 -0700, phrankster@hotmail.com (Frank Harris)
wrote:

> I'm looking for a very inexpensive PBX or other type of solution that
> can accomodate a small home business. I know next to nothing about
> PBX's, so I will need some well explained details. I would be willing
> to sacrifice some features to keep the cost down. I need something
> that can perform the following:

> We have one business line with an 800 number. We want to maintain only
> one phone line for incoming and outgoing calls. Minimally we need 2
> phones, with the ability to expand. Would like to be able to just use
> any analog phone, or at least a fairly inexpensive digital phone.

> When the phone rings, I'd like the caller to be presented with a
> custom greeting. Tbey can have the option to either dial an extension
> or wait for the next available representative. If the extension is
> busy, give them the option to hold or leave a voice message. I'd like
> to be able to leave an alternative greeting for calls coming in before
> or afterhours (or whenever I deem the business closed for the day).

> While on hold or waiting for a rep, I'd like to have hold music
> playing with input from any external audio source (like a CD).

> I'd like to have a distinctive ring for calls coming in on the 800
> line and the ability to do caller ID.

> I would appreciate any information that can be provided.

Frank,

What is inexpensive to you?

Panasonic KXTD-308 will do what you want, but you're not exactly
"inexpensive" if you're talking a $300 budget.  

If you really mean SINGLE line and 2 phones, there are some SOHO items
that will bridge to a single line and function with voice mail and
distinctive ring.  Check eBay or the closeout houses for voice mail
products.  A 9516 works nicely for the VM because it has different
mailboxes for distinctive ring.

You can also take your chances on an old Voice Logic product.  It
might cost you about $150 to try one out.


Carl Navarro

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

TELECOM Digest is an electronic journal devoted mostly but not
exclusively to telecommunications topics. It is circulated anywhere
there is email, in addition to various telecom forums on a variety of
networks such as Compuserve and America On Line, 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: 620-870-9697
                        Fax 1: 775-255-9970
                        Fax 2: 775-306-8390
                        Fax 3: 775-642-0603
                        Fax 4: 530-309-7234
                        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 second 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)

Email <==> FTP:  telecom-archives@telecom-digest.org 

      Send a simple, one line note to that automated address for
      a help file on how to use the automatic retrieval system
      for archives files. You can get desired files in email.

*************************************************************************
*   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.
Access to Premium (P) links requires upgrade to a paid subscription.

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

Only subscribers or registered users of ICB Toll Free News web site
will be able to access all or some of the full text of URLs provided.

LEGAL STUFF: TELECOM Digest (sm) is owned by Patrick Townson.
Copyright 2000 ICB, Inc. and TELECOM Digest. All rights reserved.
Our attorney is Bill Levant, of Blue Bell, PA.

   ---------------------------------------------------------------
    
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 twenty 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 V22 #100
******************************