From editor@telecom-digest.org Thu Mar 11 21:18:55 2004 Received: (from ptownson@localhost) by massis.lcs.mit.edu (8.11.6p2/8.11.3) id i2C2ItD06235; Thu, 11 Mar 2004 21:18:55 -0500 (EST) Date: Thu, 11 Mar 2004 21:18:55 -0500 (EST) From: editor@telecom-digest.org Message-Id: <200403120218.i2C2ItD06235@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 V23 #116 TELECOM Digest Thu, 11 Mar 2004 21:19:00 EST Volume 23 : Issue 116 Inside This Issue: Editor: Patrick A. Townson Viacom and DISH Network Reach Long-Term Agreement (Monty Solomon) EchoStar Reports Fourth Quarter 2003 Subscribersr (Monty Solomon) Pulling the Plug on TV Shows Has Its Costs (Monty Solomon) Angry Viewers Push EchoStar, Viacom Deal (Monty Solomon) Re: EchoStar May Lose More After Removing Viacom's CBS (Mark Crispin) Re: EchoStar May Lose More After Removing Viacom's CBS (Steven J Sobol) Re: EchoStar May Lose More After Removing Viacom's CBS (Garrett Wollman) Re: Celebrity Chef's Son Guilty in Phone Scam (Paul Vader) Re: PRI Voice T1 and CallerID Blocking (Justin Time) One Cell Phone / 2 Numbers? (Chris Hackett) Re: Spam Going Out Under My Name (SELLCOM Tech support) Anybody Know Anything About Broadband Over Power Lines? (Matt Simpson) Re: Snapshots in Time (Nick Landsberg) Off Premise Extension (Michael Muderick) Re: Need to Block Outgoing Calls to Specific Numbers (John C. Fowler) SCO's Tapestry of Lies (Daeron) Seen on a Manhole Cover ... (Lincoln J. King-Cliby) All contents here are copyrighted by Patrick Townson and the individual writers/correspondents. Articles may be used in other journals or newsgroups, provided the writer's name and the Digest are included in the fair use quote. By using -any name or email address- included herein for -any- reason other than responding to an article herein, you agree to pay a hundred dollars to the recipients of the email. =========================== Addresses herein are not to be added to any mailing list, nor to be sold or given away without explicit written consent. Chain letters, viruses, porn, spam, and miscellaneous junk is definitely unwelcome. We must fight spam for the same reason we fight crime: not because we are naive enough to believe that we will ever stamp it out, but because we do not want the kind of world that results when no one stands against crime. Geoffrey Welsh =========================== See the bottom of this issue for subscription and archive details and the name of our lawyer; other stuff of interest. ---------------------------------------------------------------------- Date: Thu, 11 Mar 2004 07:53:00 -0500 From: Monty Solomon Subject: Viacom and DISH Network Reach Long-Term Agreement Viacom and DISH Network Reach Long-Term Agreement; CBS, MTV Networks and BET Restored NEW YORK, and ENGLEWOOD, Colo., March 11 /PRNewswire-FirstCall/ -- Viacom (NYSE:VIA, VIA.B) and EchoStar Communications Corporation (Nasdaq: DISH) and its DISH Network today announced that they have reached a long-term, multi-channel agreement that provides for the satellite TV distribution of CBS, BET, and the MTV Networks channels previously carried by DISH Network. - http://finance.lycos.com/home/news/story.asp?story=40798560 - http://finance.lycos.com/home/news/story.asp?story=40798569 ------------------------------ Date: Thu, 11 Mar 2004 08:17:48 -0500 From: Monty Solomon Subject: EchoStar Reports Fourth Quarter 2003 Subscribers EchoStar Reports Fourth Quarter 2003 Subscribers; Fourth Quarter 2003 Earnings Call to Be Rescheduled ENGLEWOOD, Colo.--(BUSINESS WIRE)--March 11, 2004--EchoStar Communications Corporation (Nasdaq:DISH) reported today that its DISH Network(TM) satellite television service added approximately 340,000 net new subscribers during the fourth quarter of 2003. DISH Network had approximately 9.425 million subscribers as of Dec. 31, 2003, an increase of 1.245 million subscribers over Dec. 31, 2002. EchoStar also announced today that it may seek a 15-day extension of the filing deadline for its Annual Report on Form 10-K for the year ended Dec. 31, 2003. During EchoStar's previously announced 10 a.m. (MT) conference call and webcast today, management intends to discuss and respond to questions regarding the agreements announced yesterday between EchoStar and Viacom, EchoStar's recent licensing, asset purchase and settlement agreements with Gemstar, and the accounting issue described below. Since EchoStar has not yet released its fourth quarter and full year 2003 financial results, EchoStar does not plan to discuss or respond to questions regarding its earnings or other financial results. The 800-616-6729 call-in number remains unchanged and the conference call will be broadcast live from EchoStar's website at www.echostar.com and www.dishnetwork.com . Analysts and the press are invited to participate in a question-and-answer session following introductory remarks by EchoStar executives. - http://finance.lycos.com/home/news/story.asp?story=40799260 ------------------------------ Date: Thu, 11 Mar 2004 17:46:53 -0500 From: Monty Solomon Subject: Pulling the Plug on TV Shows Has Its Costs By SETH SUTEL AP Business Writer NEW YORK (AP) -- When media titans clash over television rights, there's always the weapon of last resort: pulling the plug. But as the DISH Network and Viacom Inc. found out this week, actually using that weapon can be extremely costly, not only for the two combatants but also for anyone else in the industry hoping to win friends in Washington and in the public. Even when the dispute lasts just 48 hours, as it did in this case, the fallout can be poisonous. Public interest groups and members of Congress are already on a campaign to roll back media consolidation, and a public brawl between two behemoths that traps the viewing public in the middle could hardly come at a worse time. - http://finance.lycos.com/home/news/story.asp?story=40805152 ------------------------------ Date: Thu, 11 Mar 2004 10:42:38 -0500 From: Monty Solomon Subject: Angry Viewers Push EchoStar, Viacom Deal By DAN ELLIOTT Associated Press Writer DENVER (AP) -- After a two-day blackout that brought the wrath of satellite television viewers by the thousands, EchoStar Communications Corp. and Viacom Inc. reached a deal that restored several popular channels such as MTV and Nickelodeon to the DISH Network. The two sides reached a deal early Thursday. Within 20 minutes, Viacom's channels, including VH1, Comedy Central and BET, were back on DISH, EchoStar spokesman Marc Lumpkin said. EchoStar had dropped Viacom channels early Tuesday in a dispute over fees. Up to 9 million DISH satellite television viewers were affected. The dispute also left as many as 2 million DISH viewers without CBS shows when EchoStar pulled the network's programing in cities including New York, Los Angeles, Chicago, Philadelphia, San Francisco, Miami, Boston, Denver, Minneapolis and Dallas. DISH subscribers in those cities were threatened with the loss of the upcoming NCAA men's basketball tournament, which begins March 18 on CBS. Viacom is CBS' parent corporation. - http://finance.lycos.com/home/news/story.asp?story=40800396 ------------------------------ From: Mark Crispin Subject: Re: EchoStar May Lose More After Removing Viacom's CBS Date: Wed, 10 Mar 2004 21:45:50 -0800 Organization: University of Washington On Wed, 10 Mar 2004, J Kelly wrote: > [TELECOM Digest Editor's Note: Channel 101? Isn't that a premium extra > pay (outside the basic range) channel? They want you to pay extra to > listen to Mr. Ergen? It is a premium channel here on Cable One. Our > basic channels are 2 through 62 (sixty channels total, no one or four). > One hundred up here are things like MTV-2 and Showtime Movies. I do > not get any of that. PAT] Satellite channels have no relationship to cable or broadcast channels. Cable and broadcast channel numbers correspond on 2-13. Higher numbers are different on cable than broadcast, and are not necessarily in ascending frequency (for example, 98 and 99 are VHF channels). Analog cable goes up to something like 125. Digital cable has its own channel assignments. Satellite channels, on the other hand, are more or less arbitrarily assigned numbers and have no relationship to frequency. It's just something that the receiver presents. Internally, it maps to such-and-such part of the signal from such-and-such transponder on such-and-such satellite. On DirecTV, the following is a overly-general description of how channels are grouped: 0-99 local channels, HDTV channels (73 and higher) 100-199 pay per view channels 200-399 general viewing channels 400-499 Spanish, Chinese language channels 500-599 premium movie channels (HBO, etc.), adult channels 600-799 sports channels 800-899 music channels 900-999 local channels (older receivers), DirecTV info channels Note that channel 4 for a Seattle DirecTV customer is not the same channel 4 that a San Francisco DirecTV customer gets. So, if you're in a location (such as Medford, OR) that's in the spot beam for Seattle and San Francisco, you could have two DirecTV receivers, side-by-side, each tuned to "channel 4" and showing different programming. -- Mark -- http://staff.washington.edu/mrc Science does not emerge from voting, party politics, or public debate. Si vis pacem, para bellum. [TELECOM Digest Editor's Note: Your outline above is pretty much the same as what we get on Cable One here in Independence, except there is no such thing as channel 4 at all, or channel 1 (or for that matter, channel zero.). But with sixty of the slots from 01 through 62 is our basic stuff. Oddly enough, all the other channel slots just have snow and hash *except for 'channel 70' which is obviously in use for something*, at least instead of snow/hash, there is a black screen and silence. I was downtown today at the Cable One office on Penn Street to pay my bill for this month, and inquired about 'what is seventy used for?' The woman said she did not know, and to ask her husband (who was standing there listening). I did not understand his explan- ation, but then he asked me, 'do you still have that satellite dish on your roof over there on Poplar Street?' I said I do (it is for very specialized service; it points to 61.5 degrees southwest, but it came from DISH, and its special services.) "Well," he said, "if you would sign this form for me, and authorize us to take it off your roof and the receiver that goes with it, what I can do is give you *three months* of free HBO and another *three months* of any other of the music or movie channels we offer. You would save about sixty dollars!" I reminded him that was the third time he had offered me the same deal and I had turned him down each time before. I guess he never has noticed it is not pointed in the same direction and at the same angle as all other DISH things here in town on his various trips down the alley behind my house looking at all *his* wires, boxes, etc. I told him also that the DISH agent here in Independence tried to make me the same deal: first thing I had to do was sign a form authorizing *him* to be my representative with the cable people, AND turn over my cable converter box to be returned, THEN he would gve me several months of DISH service at no charge, etc. The cable guy, and the woman in the office listened to what I said and nodded very solemnly. "Yes, he has done that around town a few times to our customers." they said. I told them I was happy with the way things were now, and would not be changing anything. I noted, "if you guys wanted to give me a full T-1 instead of that half meg I have now for my computer I might be willing to listen to that. I could actually care less about HBO, various movies and (your style of) music. I do use your cable on the back of my Bose radio to get the classical music station KRPS 89.9 out of Pittburg, KS, which is no charge (on the cable account)." He said "anything to do with computers had to come 'from our Phoenix home office' we are not allowed to make any customer deals on that, just to sell it." Thinking that I was 'too smart for my own good', he excused himself and went back to work. When I got back home, the satellite guy was puttering around over at a neighbor's house and I asked him if I could get a way to *upload* to the satellite from my computer, "then I can dump those Cable One people entirely." He said the company did not allow him to make deals like that. "The company (DISH) allows me to give away all the HBO and Showtime and sex movies and regular channels I want to lure guys away from the cable, but I am not allowed to do anything with computers and the internet. Not for free, anyway." I'll just stay put, I guess. PAT] ------------------------------ From: Steven J Sobol Subject: Re: EchoStar May Lose More After Removing Viacom's CBS Date: Wed, 10 Mar 2004 23:46:07 -0600 Tony P. wrote: >> [TELECOM Digest Editor's Note: I turned on the television today more >> out of curiosity than anything else. Of course I am on cable, not >> satellite, and it appears to me they didn't miss a single beat. All >> the usual crummy day time stuff. Jerry Springer (is that Fox? I dunno >> for sure) had one of his 'confessions' programs on today. That's where >> some poor sap comes out on the stage, tells his life story, Jerry >> tells him his wife heard it all backstage, then she marches out and >> clobbers the guy (who either had secret mistresses, was secretly gay, >> or had some picadillo or another of which she did not approve). While >> the wife is 'counseling' her husband there on the stage, another guest >> whose claim to fame is his lust for indecent exposure is busily >> running amok through the audience and back to the stage, with all his >> clothes off. That show is such a riot! And imagine how the >> authorities were complaining about Janet Jackson. Sort of hypocritcal >> IMO ... PAT] > So true, Springer is definitely THE lowest common denominator in > television. I suppose notoriety in any form is a good thing. Wasn't he > a former politician? They always end up on either television or radio > pandering to the lowest of the low. It's in their blood, they can't > help it. First, Jerry Springer is syndicated. Second, yes, he's the former mayor of Cincinnati, and he's running for one of the Ohio seats in the US Senate. He makes me feel embarrassed to be an Ohio native, and I hope he doesn't get elected. JustThe.net Internet & New Media Services, Apple Valley, CA Steven J. Sobol, Geek In Charge / 888.480.4NET (4638) / sjsobol@JustThe.net PGP: C57E 8B25 F994 D6D0 5F6B B961 EA08 9410 E3AE 35ED Domain Names, $9.95/yr, 24x7 service: http://DomainNames.JustThe.net/ ------------------------------ From: wollman@lcs.mit.edu (Garrett Wollman) Subject: Re: EchoStar May Lose More After Removing Viacom's CBS Date: Thu, 11 Mar 2004 05:38:42 UTC Organization: MIT Laboratory for Computer Science In article , Barry Margolin wrote: > Cable isn't immune from this type of problem. The cable companies > have similar contracts with content providers, and it's possible for > their renegotiations to fail just as easily. More easily, in fact, since cable companies must get "retransmission consent" from every local broadcaster they carry,[1] not just the big media conglomerates who own all the cable channels. That's the principal economic reason Comcast is hot to acquire Disney: ABC, through its broadcast stations, has been forcing all of Disney's cable services onto the "basic" tier of cable systems nationwide as a condition of carriage, resulting in a substantial increase in monthly bills for most subscribers. GE does the same with NBC and its stable of cable channels (Bravo, CNBC, MSNBC, and 1/3 of the A&E partnership). EchoStar is merely experiencing the Viacom version of the same phenomenon. Smaller media conglomerates, like E.W. Scripps, don't have nearly the sort of market power, since they own fewer local stations -- but I'm certain that HGTV, Food Network, DIY, and Fine Living are carried on every cable system in markets where EWS owns a broadcast station. Rupert Murdoch is going to be in an interesting position now that he is playing both sides of the fence; Fox is not allowed to give a better deal to DirecTV than it does to EchoStar or Comcast. -GAWollman [1] This is ignoring those broadcasters whose product is of such little economic value that no MSO would pay money to carry it; these stations can force their programming onto cable systems in their market, and onto satellite in those markets where the satellite providers offer local broadcast channels. -- Garrett A. Wollman | As the Constitution endures, persons in every wollman@lcs.mit.edu | generation can invoke its principles in their own Opinions not those of| search for greater freedom. MIT, LCS, CRS, or NSA| - A. Kennedy, Lawrence v. Texas, 539 U.S. ___ (2003) ------------------------------ From: pv+usenet@pobox.com (Paul Vader) Subject: Re: Celebrity Chef's Son Guilty in Phone Scam Date: Thu, 11 Mar 2004 16:56:26 -0000 Organization: Inline Software Creations Anonymous writes: > According to federal prosecutors, David and Nisbet leased 24 pay phone > lines from Pacific Bell from 1998 to 2000, routed 23 of the lines to > an empty office in South San Francisco and hooked them up to an > auto-dialer. Then, they made more than 2 million telephone calls to >800-numbers. Can somebody explain how this nets them any money? I must be missing something about what happens when you call an 800 number on a payphone. And where does money laundering come into it? I think there was something major missing in the article. * * PV something like badgers--something like lizards--and something like corkscrews. [TELECOM Digest Editor's Note: To answer the first question, after AT&T was divested, their 'separations and settlements' arrangement with other telcos went bye-bye. So, the owners of pay phones managed to get a surcharge added to payphone calls terminating on 800 numbers in order to get some money for the use of 'their' equipment, namely the telephone. The person or company who has an 800 number gets billed this additional surcharge for calls which orginated at a payphone, and the local telco (where the call originated, remits the surcharge to the payphone owner (in lieu of coins *not* collected in the box for the call). That's why, now and then here in this Digest when I give a bit of free advertising to a spammer and encourage phone calls to his 800 number, Carl Moore always adds, "be sure to call from a pay phone so the COCOT owner makes a little money also." What these two bozo-clowns were doing was stirring up all the toll- free calls they could so as the owners of the COCOTs (pay phones) they could collect (um, maybe) 25-30 cents on each call, when the various telcos along the way paid off (charging back their subscribers in the process.) After millions of phone calls, that adds up to a nice bit of change. PAT] ------------------------------ From: a_user2000@yahoo.com (Justin Time) Subject: Re: PRI Voice T1 and CallerID Blocking Date: 11 Mar 2004 10:01:20 -0800 Organization: http://groups.google.com desafinadonospam@hotmail.com wrote in message news:: > Is it true that a PRI ISDN voice T1 with incoming calls can always > identify the callerID of the calling party? Call blocking can't > prevent CallerID being passed along by the PRI ISDN voice T1 circuit? Not always true. It depends on what service is being provided on the PRI. If it is an inbound WATS service, you will receive ANI - Automatic Number Identification - for billing purposes. As you are paying for the call, you receive the billing information on the line accessing your trunks, but that's not Caller ID. ANI normally only provides the calling number, not the name associated with the line. If the PRI is configured for 2-way local service, your line may or may not receive Caller ID info. Normally, if the caller blocks their information, it is not carried on the PRI either, unless the setup of the line says you receive billing information, but the exchange carriers have been getting smarter about misconfigured high capacity lines. Exactly what you receive on your PRI will be defined in the local tarrifs filed by the provider. Check with your local governing authority for a copy of the tariff and what you should be receiving on your line. Rodgers Platt ------------------------------ From: Chris Hackett Subject: One Cell Phone / Two Numbers? Date: Thu, 11 Mar 2004 14:14:13 -0500 Hi, Does anyone have any information on phones or carriers that support having two phone numbers active in the same phone at the same time? I'm going to have to start carrying a cell phone for my work. I really want to avoid carrying two cell phones around with me all the time. I've gotten all sorts of conflicting information regarding this potential functionality. Any information on specific phones or carriers that you know who support this functionality (if it exists) would sure be appreciated! Thanks, Chris Hackett [TELECOM Digest Editor's Note: Any number of carriers will support this. There are many cell phone manufacturers who manufacture 'Dual NAM' or 'Quad NAM' service. Buy a 'Dual-' or 'Quad-NAM' phone then ask any cell phone company to turn it on with two numbers. The only catch is, **only one of the two (four) numbers can actually be in service at any time. Incoming calls to the other number(s) are reported as 'out of area' to the caller. The nature of cell phones is such that two or more numbers, both on the same phone available at the same time, is impossible. You have to switch that software in and out each time (which is done with a few key presses.) The 'out of area' calls go to voice mail for your retrieval. This used to be a big thing when (for example) a business person was in two or four different cities a lot, and wanted cell phone service in each town. (Long before roaming became possible or easily paid for.) It was often times much less expensive to have two different carriers in two different cities with a number in each town (thus the Dual-NAM or Quad-NAM approach) than in one place but with a humongous roaming bill each month. It was easier to have these 'foreign exchange' type things with only one actual radio-telephone to carry around with you. I rarely ever see these 'dual-NAM' phones around any more, I guess they still make them. But if you find one, **make certain** the NAM (or software) you want to use is shifted into place **before** you tell the local dealer to turn it on with one of his numbers, otherwise he will write all over it with the new number and you will lose entirely the previous number that was in there. Then go on your way, shifting (with key presses) the soft/firmware you wish to use into place in order to recieve/place calls **on that carrier**. When you do so, the other carrier (represented by the alternate NAM) will be looking for you and not find you anywhere and send your calls to voicemail. Instead of going to all this awkward trouble (now that cellphones and roaming rates -- while still sort of outrageously priced -- are more reasonable), just get a single cell phone, show it to your bosses and say 'here is the number to reach me'. Make your voicemail greeting a generic enough message that neither work callers nor personal callers will be confused by the message and let it go at that. PAT] ------------------------------ From: SELLCOM Tech support Subject: Re: Spam Going Out Under My Name Organization: www.sellcom.com Reply-To: support@sellcom.com Date: Thu, 11 Mar 2004 22:13:56 GMT TELECOM Digest Editor posted on that vast internet thingie: > I had pretty much (foolishly) assumed my name (Patrick A. Townson) and > Editor, both e-residing I'm afraid that the newer viruses are doing that these days. I get a lot of bounces of undeliverables that were "from" me, but from some obscure IP address (if there can be such a thing). Sometimes even an IP starting with 81. The virus harvests email addresses to use and uses them in the from fields. Look at the IP address, that is the key. Steve at SELLCOM http://www.sellcom.com Discount multihandset cordless phones by Siemens, AT&T, Panasonic, Motorola Vtech 5.8Ghz; TMC ET4000 4line Epic phone, OnHoldPlus, Talkswitch, Watchguard! Brick wall "non MOV" surge protection. Mini-Splitter log splitter If you sit at a desk www.ergochair.biz you owe it to yourself. ------------------------------ From: news01@jmatt.net (Matt Simpson) Subject: Anybody Know Anything About Broadband Over Power Lines? Date: 11 Mar 2004 08:51:46 -0800 Organization: http://groups.google.com Does anybody know anything about broadband service provided over power lines? I'm in an area where cable and DSL are not available, and I'm not really thrilled with the satellite option. I've been reading about powerline broadband, which until recently seemed mostly experimental, and hoping it would catch on. Now I'm reading reports that Cinergy is starting to roll the service out to their customers in the Cincinnati are (not geographically far from me). http://www.enquirer.com/editions/2004/03/02/biz_biz1acin.html That makes my dreams about my own local rural co-op getting on the bandwagon seem just a tad more realistic, althought it's probably still a longshot. I realize that even though the power lines are already there, there's still a significant capital startup cost involved before they can start providing the service, so it still might only be attractive in the urban/suburban settings where Cinergy is providing it (that already have cable/DSL) instead of the boondocks that really need it (at least they wouldn't have to worry about competition). Does anybody know anything about this service and how feasible it might be as an option in areas where customers are a long way apart? ------------------------------ From: Nick Landsberg Reply-To: hukolau@NOSPAM.att.net Subject: Re: Snapshots in Time Date: Thu, 11 Mar 2004 04:58:06 GMT Organization: AT&T Worldnet Wesrock@aol.com wrote: > On Wed, 10 Mar 2004 05:31:33 -0800 Sammy@nospam.biz wrote: [SNIP] > In a message dated Tue, 09 Mar 2004 05:30:37 GMT was written: >> I have heard of (but never witnessed) cutovers happening in the same >> building, like going from a Cross-Bar to an electronic switch. All >> the wires from the main distributing frame (MDF) were bridged to both >> switches and the "new" switch was programmed to do everything EXCEPT >> complete the outgoing call. Similarly for trunks, do everyting except >> make the final connection. [SNIP] >> Trying to pull off this trick on the other side of the MDF is walking >> where angels fear to tread. My hat is off to the folks with the brass >> to even try it, much less make it work! > It was more or less a routine procedure when offices were cut > over, whether from manual magneto or manual common battery or > step-by-step or crossbar or whatever to a new office. Whether it was > in the same building or not the procedure was about the same, but not > exactly as you describe it. Wes, you just confirmed my contention that this territory was "where angels fear to tread." It had to go off without a hitch and had to be "choreographed" and planned ... carefully. That it was routine is a credit to the folks who developed the procedure. A shame that this bit of professional paranoia has not been passed down to the modern generation. :) > Wes Leatherock > wesrock@aol.com > wleathus@yahoo.com "It is impossible to make anything foolproof because fools are so ingenious" - A. Bloch ------------------------------ From: Michael Muderick Subject: Off Premise Extension Date: Thu, 11 Mar 2004 04:24:11 -0500 I'm looking to set up a home office for a client. What he wants is to locate his receptionist at one house, with the ability to transfer necessary calls to the client's house. We live in the Phila. area, and the only service that we seem to be able to find to help with this is Centrex. Calls need to be able to be transferred, and, in the case of the absence of the receptionist, automatically ring in the client's house. He'll be using a Panasonic wireless system that has an auto-attendant built-in so calls can be routed to any of 3 extensions. Is there any way around Centrex? The houses are less than a 1/2 mile apart. Does Verizon offer just a dry pair, or loop between two locations? That would be ideal. Michael Muderick [TELECOM Digest Editor's Note: I had a situation a number of years ago quite similar. I had an OPX (off premises extension) to the building answering service in our office. A manual toggle switch allowed me to cut the off-premises end of the line off entirely when I was in my office. When I went out to lunch or home for the evening, as I walked out the door, all I had to do was toggle this switch (have it mounted by the door or in some obvious (will not forget it) place. Tell telco you want an off-premises extension (or OPX) at the receptionist's place and the other end of the the line is at the other guy's house. PAT] ------------------------------ Date: Thu, 11 Mar 2004 05:10:30 -0800 (PST) From: John C. Fowler Subject: Re: Need to Block Outgoing Calls to Specific Numbers Regarding the Alzheimer's patient who calls her neighbors to the point they perceive as harrassment, and who might use directory assistance if you remove all traces of her neighbors' phone numbers from her living space. It has been suggested before that you pay for all of her neighbors to get Call Block service, which would definitely fix it, but it might be equally effective if you just got them all unlisted/unpublished numbers. Unlisted/unpublished numbers are usually cheaper than Call Block. Be sure to get the kind of service that doesn't allow lookups through directory assistance. Then remove all traces of their phone numbers from the lady's possession. Of course, all the neighbors would have to go along with it, but if the alternative is multiple unwanted calls, I imagine they could be persuaded. Note if you remove this outlet of communication for her, you'd probably better make sure she has 900/976 blocking, too, just in case she gets any new ideas when she sees a number for people to "talk to." John C. Fowler, johnfpublic@yahoo.com (E-mail to this address might not be read.) ------------------------------ From: doug_mentohl@yahoo.co.uk (Daeron) Subject: SCO's Tapestry of Lies Date: 11 Mar 2004 07:24:46 -0800 Organization: http://groups.google.com SCO's Tapestry of Lies Bruce Perens Mar 11 2004 SCO management had a problem. Their quarterly financial report was going to show only twenty thousand dollars in income for their SCO Source licensing program. And so, in an announcement timed to distract people from the bad financial report, SCO announced two new lawsuits and license purchases from Computer Associates, Leggett and Platt, and EV1 Servers. Computer Associates' CEO was quick to blast SCO, pointing out that CA had settled a breach-of-contract suit unrelated to Linux with Canopy Group - SCO's main investor - and one of its other companies, Center7 .. [..] On the same day that CA blasted SCO, Open Source evangelist Eric Raymond revealed a leaked email from SCO's strategic consultant Mike Anderer to their management. The email details how, surprise surprise, Microsoft has arranged virtually all of SCO's financing, hiding behind intermediaries like Baystar Capital .. [..] From a finanical standpoint, Canopy Group has already won. Because it's not a public company like SCO, we can't see all that's going on there. However, we know that they have swapped some of their other holdings, including a company called "Vultus", for SCO stock. And of course they've multiplied the value of their existing SCO stock as much as forty times over the past year. I've no doubt that much of this stock has already been converted to cash. The leaked email forecasts SCO's exit from this business in the near future. When they exit, Yarro and Canopy will walk away with tens of millions. http://east.perens.com/Articles/SCO/March2004.html ------------------------------ From: chsvideo@hotmail.com (Lincoln J. King-Cliby) Subject: Seen on a Manhole Cover Date: 10 Mar 2004 20:31:40 -0800 Organization: http://groups.google.com [Or should that be 'personhole cover'?] Hi all, Hoping someone could explain what was going on here for my own curiosity -- My university's campus is about 14 years old, and is in an area that AFAIK is 100% SBC (Pac Bell) serviced. The campus provides its own telephone service off of an Intecom (EADS Telecom North America) PointSpan mega-PBX (45000 port capacity), fed by what appears to be a Pac Bell DMS-100 large remote (That's what DSL Reports tells me thats serving 760-750 -- we have the entire NPA-NXX, and its at the same address as the university). Long background short - I don't think any ILECs are anywhere _near_ the campus. I was walking across campus today and noticed one of the manhole covers blended in with the sorounding concrete better than most had "G T E Telephone" welded in fairly small (1" or so) letters around the border. Thus my question "what was this doing there?" I know its not campus related -- all of the overhead access to the tunnel system is through square "hatches" (mostly we use normal doors, but they're there just in case) -- plus the tunnel system doesn't pass near this point -- and every other manhole I've seen is labeled "ELEC ##", "STORM DRAIN", "TELECOM ##", "SEWER", etc. where ## is the number used on prints to identify that vault, so I don't think it was some cost-saving/recycling thing. What gives -- why to we have a GTE manhole out there? And by the way, what exactly is a "DMS 100 large remote," anyways? Thanks, Lincoln ------------------------------ TELECOM Digest is an electronic journal devoted mostly but not exclusively to telecommunications topics. It is circulated anywhere there is email, in addition to various telecom forums on a variety of networks such as Compuserve and America On Line, Yahoo Groups, and other forums. It is also gatewayed to Usenet where it appears as the moderated newsgroup 'comp.dcom.telecom'. TELECOM Digest is a not-for-profit, mostly non-commercial educational service offered to the Internet by Patrick Townson. All the contents of the Digest are compilation-copyrighted. You may reprint articles in some other media on an occasional basis, but please attribute my work and that of the original author. Contact information: Patrick Townson/TELECOM Digest Post Office Box 50 Independence, KS 67301 Phone: 620-402-0134 Fax 1: 775-255-9970 Fax 2: 530-309-7234 Fax 3: 208-692-5145 Email: editor@telecom-digest.org Subscribe: telecom-subscribe@telecom-digest.org Unsubscribe:telecom-unsubscribe@telecom-digest.org This Digest is the oldest continuing e-journal about telecomm- unications on the Internet, having been founded in August, 1981 and published continuously since then. Our archives are available for your review/research. We believe we are the oldest e-zine/mailing list on the internet in any category! URL information: http://telecom-digest.org Anonymous FTP: mirror.lcs.mit.edu/telecom-archives/archives/ (or use our mirror site: ftp.epix.net/pub/telecom-archives) 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. One click a day feeds a person a meal. Go to http://www.thehungersite.com Copyright 2003 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 fifty dollars per year per reader is considered appropriate. See our address above. Please make at least a single donation to cover the cost of processing your name to the mailing list. If you donate at least fifty dollars per year we will send you our two-CD set of the entire Telecom Archives; this is every word published in this Digest since our beginning in 1981. 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 V23 #116 ******************************