From editor@telecom-digest.org Thu Apr 1 14:52:15 2004 Received: (from ptownson@localhost) by massis.lcs.mit.edu (8.11.6p2/8.11.3) id i31JqF008481; Thu, 1 Apr 2004 14:52:15 -0500 (EST) Date: Thu, 1 Apr 2004 14:52:15 -0500 (EST) From: editor@telecom-digest.org Message-Id: <200404011952.i31JqF008481@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 #156 TELECOM Digest Thu, 1 Apr 2004 14:49:00 EST Volume 23 : Issue 156 Inside This Issue: Editor: Patrick A. Townson VON Keynote: ITXC Sees Unstoppable Momentum for VoIP (VOIP News) Microsoft Unveils Windows CE With VoIP (VOIP News) Michigan on the Wrong Track? (VoIP) (VOIP News) Cable's IP Telephony Conundrum (VOIP News) Has Covad Changed The VoIP Rules? (VOIP News) New Voip Adapter Offers Old Fashioned Operator Service (VOIP News) Codec Negotiation (Alfonso) Buying Books on the Net (C. Smith) I Want to Block Anonymous/Name Unavailable/Unwanted Calls (D. Mattingly) Flat Rate Plans and Modems; was Re: AOL Connection Leads (No Spam) Re: AOL Connection Leads to $2,500 Phone Bill (Carl Navarro) Remember Last January was: Bogus Collect Calls From Longview (C Moore) Press One To Score Points (Eric Friedebach) Re: Teaching my Mother How to Make Long Distance Calls (Geoffrey Welsh) Re: Bogus Collect Calls From Longview, Texas? (Clarence Dold) Re: Amazon Patents Cookies (Barry Margolin) Re: Excel Communications (John A. Weeks III) EFFector 17.11: EFF Opposes RFIDs in Passports (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. =========================== Addresses herein are not to be added to any mailing list, nor to be sold or given away without explicit written consent. Chain letters, viruses, porn, spam, and miscellaneous junk are definitely unwelcome. We must fight spam for the same reason we fight crime: not because we are naive enough to believe that we will ever stamp it out, but because we do not want the kind of world that results when no one stands against crime. Geoffrey Welsh =========================== See the bottom of this issue for subscription and archive details and the name of our lawyer; other stuff of interest. ---------------------------------------------------------------------- From: VOIP News Date: Thu, 01 Apr 2004 10:30:15 -0500 Subject: VON Keynote: ITXC Sees Unstoppable Momentum for VoIP Reply-To: VoIPnews@yahoogroups.com http://www.convergedigest.com/Bandwidth/newnetworksarticle.asp?ID=10678 VON Keynote: ITXC Sees Unstoppable Momentum for VoIP For the next two years, people will continue to purchase VoIP primarily for cost savings rather than for advanced feature sets, predicted Tom Evslin, Chairman and CEO of ITXC, in a keynote at the Spring VON conference in Santa Clara, California. To be really useful, advanced features require deployments at both ends of the call. Evslin figures that once penetration rates reach somewhere around 15% an inflection point will occur and people will start to buy VoIP in order to have the same advanced features as the early adopters. In the mean time, momentum continues to build. Evslin presented a "Top 7" List of indicators that VoIP is hot again. http://www.convergedigest.com/Bandwidth/newnetworksarticle.asp?ID=10678 How to Distribute VoIP Throughout a Home: http://michigantelephone.mi.org/distribute.html If you live in Michigan, subscribe to the MI-Telecom group: http://groups.yahoo.com/group/MI-Telecom/ ------------------------------ From: VOIP News Date: Thu, 01 Apr 2004 10:43:41 -0500 Subject: Microsoft Unveils Windows CE With VoIP Reply-To: VoIPnews@yahoogroups.com [Article #1:] http://zdnet.com.com/2100-1104_2-5182217.html Windows CE gets call for Net phones By Ben Charny CNET News.com SANTA CLARA, Calif.--Microsoft said Wednesday that major manufacturers, including NEC and LG Electronics, intend to create Internet phones with the newest version of Windows CE, Microsoft's operating system for small devices. The first substantial wave of phones from the equipment makers is expected in about three months, Microsoft Product Manager Balz Wyss said. The manufacturers are among 22 new licensees Microsoft announced Wednesday for its latest Windows CE software, which is a stripped-down version of the Windows operating system intended for handheld devices, set-top boxes and other limited-function computing devices other than PCs and servers. The new CE software, version 5, contains much improved technology for making phone calls on the Net with voice over Internet Protocol (VoIP), according to Microsoft. Internet Protocol is the most popular method of sending data from one computer to another. Full story at: http://zdnet.com.com/2100-1104_2-5182217.html [Article #2:] http://www.computerweekly.com/articles/article.asp?liArticleID=129656&liArticleTypeID=1&liCategoryID=6&liChannelID=7&liFlavourID=1&sSearch=&nPage=1 Thursday 1 April 2004 Microsoft unveils Windows CE with VoIP Microsoft will unveil enhancements to the VoIP capabilities of Windows CE in the upcoming version 5.0. The operating system forms the basis of Microsoft's platforms for embedded, automotive and mobile computing. A lot of suppliers want to add VoIP as an application to wireless handhelds and other devices, said John Starkweather, a product manager in Microsoft's Embedded Devices Group. In the latest version of Windows CE, Microsoft has added multiparty audioconferencing capability, unified messaging and integration on Exchange Server with calendar and contact searching features. They complement what has been a simpler set of telephony features built in to CE 4.2. Full story at: http://www.computerweekly.com/articles/article.asp?liArticleID=129656&liArticleTypeID=1&liCategoryID=6&liChannelID=7&liFlavourID=1&sSearch=&nPage=1 ------------------------------ From: VOIP News Date: Thu, 01 Apr 2004 10:35:49 -0500 Subject: Michigan on the Wrong Track? (VoIP) Reply-To: VoIPnews@yahoogroups.com Comment: The Mackinac Center for Public Policy is a libertarian think tank (they prefer to describe themselves as "a research and educational institute") headquartered in Midland, Michigan. http://www.mackinac.org/article.asp?ID=6483 Michigan on the Wrong Track? Early in her new administration, Gov. Jennifer Granholm won high marks for addressing tough issues without damaging Michigan's business climate. She closed a nearly $2 billion budget gap with some real spending cuts and without resorting to general tax increases. Gov. Granholm said all the right things about retaining jobs, and even ordered her Department of Environmental Quality to speed up air quality permits for industry. The Mackinac Center awarded the governor a "B-" for her first year. However, a number of recent Granholm administration actions threaten to put Michigan on the wrong track in terms of improving our economic vitality. Hopefully these missteps are aberrations, but it is not too early to raise a red flag by listing some of the bad policy moves: [.....] Voice Over Internet Protocol (VOIP). Arguably, one of the leading causes of our recent economic downturn was the destruction of $2 trillion worth of market valuation in publicly traded telecom companies, leading to the loss of 500,000 jobs in the past three years, as outlined by Mackinac Center Director of Science, Environment, and Technology Policy Diane Katz in a recent report. The destruction came about because federal and state regulators have tried to shoehorn 21st century telecommunications networks and technologies into a 19th century regulatory model. "VOIP" is a new technology that transmits voice over the Internet. It has the potential to reignite the telecom sector if the regulators keep their hands off. Michael Powell, chairman of the Federal Communications Commission, has called for a "light regulatory touch." The Michigan Public Service Commission (MPSC) may have a different idea, however. MPSC Chair Peter Lark is a Granholm appointee. In a recent press report announcing potential new VOIP regulations he said, "The commission has the responsibility to telecommunication customers in Michigan to protect ... users of Voice over Internet Protocol ... " If past performance is any measure, new regulations are most likely to "protect" VOIP users by making sure there aren't any. Full article at: http://www.mackinac.org/article.asp?ID=6483 ------------------------------ From: VOIP News Date: Thu, 01 Apr 2004 11:10:18 -0500 Subject: Cable's IP Telephony Conundrum Reply-To: VoIPnews@yahoogroups.com http://www.cabledatacomnews.com/apr04/apr04-2.html The Industry's Postponed PacketCable 1.x Push May Prove Too Little, Too Late By Michael Harris, president, Kinetic Strategies, and publisher, Cable Datacom News The good news is that cable multiple system operators (MSOs) are finally rolling out IP telephony. Large commercial deployments are underway by Cablevision Systems and Time Warner Cable, and other operators like Rogers Cable have unveiled plans to follow suit. The bad news is that a horde of telecom players is also entering the fray, exponentially increasing competition for residential voice services. Compounding problems, the PacketCable 1.x technology that MSOs are belatedly deploying increasingly seems old-fashioned, rather than cutting-edge. Full story at: http://www.cabledatacomnews.com/apr04/apr04-2.html ------------------------------ From: VOIP News Date: Thu, 01 Apr 2004 11:23:27 -0500 Subject: Has Covad Changed The VoIP Rules? Reply-To: VoIPnews@yahoogroups.com http://www.telecomweb.com/broadband/feature.htm Has Covad Changed The VoIP Rules? The first IP-based competitive local exchange carrier (CLEC) with a nationwide reach is about to be born, an event that could change the VoIP landscape. Covad Communications Group [COVD] is buying VoIP provider GoBeam for $48 million in stock. The deal is expected to close in about 60 days. The deal mates GoBeam's VoIP phone service and Covad's national broadband network. That contrasts sharply with the current situation, where just about every would-be VoIP player is forced to ride the wires of an ILEC. "For really the first time there's actually going to be a company that's going to be able to provision all aspects of the VoIP business over their own facilities," says Steve Lail, Covad's vice president of voice deployment. Moreover, Lail says Covad still is willing to accommodate competing VoIP carriers, even though it will be a VoIP carrier itself. That gives the VoIP industry an alternative to dealing with the ILECs. That, in turn, has significant implications for the current battle at the FCC and in the courts over whether ILECs should be required to open up their newest broadband networks to VoIP carriers. With Covad sitting as an alternative, it is reasonable to assume that at least some of the ILECs may reconsider their refusal to accommodate VoIP competitors, rather than see the revenue go to Covad. Full story at: http://www.telecomweb.com/broadband/feature.htm ------------------------------ Date: Thu, 01 Apr 2004 13:37:29 -0500 From: VOIP News Subject: "Hello, Central!" VoIP Adapter Brings Old-Fashioned Ease Of Use Meucci Enterprises Introduces New VoIP Adapter "Hello, Central!" VoIP Adapter Brings Old-Fashioned Ease Of Use to Internet Telephony Unit is Packaged in Attractive Real Oak Wood Box SANTA CLARA, Calif., April 1 /VoIP Newswire/ -- Meucci Enterprises today announced at the Spring VON Conference the availability of its new VoIP endpoint designed specifically for residential use. Named the "Hello, Central!" model, and packaged in a real oak wooden box with real bell gongs reminiscent of the old-time telephone ringer boxes, this VoIP adapter is designed to be displayed as a conversation piece rather than hidden away in a utility closet. The authentic reproduction of a hand crank on the side of the unit not only adds to the nostalgic look, but also actually powers a small internal generator that can be used to recharge the backup batteries in the event of a power failure. Although the unit is much larger than most VoIP adapters, the space inside is not wasted -- it contains a fully functional microcomputer designed specifically for speech generation and recognition. This means that when a user picks up a phone, instead of hearing a dial tone, they will hear the voice of an operator, saying "Number, Please" just as real operators used to do in manual telephone exchanges in the first half of the 20th century. The unit accepts voice input from a connected telephone, and will place a call to any number spoken into it. If the number is busy, the unit will say, "that line is busy, please try again later." It can be programmed for variations, for example, instead of asking the caller to try again later it can offer to keep trying the call and ring the caller's phone when a connection is made. Programming the unit is via a voice response mechanism or by accessing a web page interface. The unit is capable of providing custom calling features, but in a unique manner. For example, if call waiting is enabled, the "operator" will break into a call in progress and announce the incoming call, and ask the user to accept or reject it. When used in a home with children, the device can be programmed so that if a call attempt is made after a certain hour, it will say something like, "The telephone exchange closes at eleven o'clock, and accepts emergency calls only after that hour," thereby aiding parents in enforcing a curfew on outgoing telephone calls. The unit can take messages, and otherwise provide all the functionality of voicemail. The only difference is that the unit accepts voice commands. For example, a user can say, "Delete that message", rather than having to remember which button to press to delete the message. In answer to complaints about current VoIP adapters not being able to ring all the phones in a home, the bell on the adapter box is an actual, working, and very loud bell, reminiscent of the telephone bells heard in old black-and-white movies. "As loud as the bell is on this unit, you should be able to turn off the ringers on all the phones in your home and still hear a call come in," said Antonio Meucci, executive director of product development at Meucci Enterprises. A VoIP Adapter With An Attitude While some may prefer the nostalgic simulation of an operator at an old-time manual telephone exchange, others may prefer the unit's other choice in operators: Ernestine. Based on the famous Lily Tomlin character, Ernestine provides a bit of comic relief mixed with sarcasm while making calls. For example, if you say a number that's not valid, Ernestine will inform you that "Perhaps you should ask your mommy to help you use the telephone." If you happen to utter an off-color word while giving the number you wish to call, Ernestine may say, "Profanity! I am not required to listen to such language while on duty!" and hang up on you. And of course, instead of the normal ringback tone, you'll hear "one ringy-dingy ... two ringy-dingies..." No matter which operator is chosen, the unit can be trained to remember certain spoken names, and dial an associated number. So you can train it to recognize "Call Dad," or "Connect me with Bill Smith," and the unit will place the call to the appropriate number. Caller ID can be displayed in the normal manner on a Caller ID telephone, or the unit can be set to have the "operator" announce the calling number after the receiver is lifted off the hook. For example, if "Ernestine" is the chosen operator, she will ask "Is this the party to whom I am speaking" and upon hearing an affirmative response, she will announce the calling number and ask the answering party to accept or reject the call. One word of advice from Mr. Meucci: "Don't ever tell Ernestine that you are not the party to whom she is speaking. Just don't do it." Special Introductory Offer The first 100 people to order the "Hello, Central!" VoIP endpoint will receive upon request, absolutely free and without additional charge, an older 500-series telephone set with a dial blank instead of a dial. These phones are exactly like the phones used by telephone subscribers in manual telephone exchanges back in the 1950's. They are provided to show that it is possible to make full use of the "Hello, Central!" VoIP adapter without the need for a dial, Caller ID display, or most of the other gizmos found on modern telephones. "Using the Hello, Central! adapter is simplicity itself, because it can be completely controlled by the spoken word." For those who may not care to use a voice interface, the unit will also accept numbers dialed using any rotary dial telephone. Contact: Meucci Enterprises Sciocco Di Aprile Florence, Italy [Jack Decker's Note: These VoIP adapters make great gifts at Christmas ... [TELECOM Digest Editor's Note: I want a dozen. Can I get them for friends, etc? PAT] ... on Ground Hog Day, or on April Fool's Day!] [TELECOM Digest Editor's Note: Oh! Maybe this should have been a Last Laugh item, eh? PAT] ------------------------------ From: alfvillarreal@hotmail.com (Alfonso) Subject: Codec Negotiation Date: 1 Apr 2004 09:54:43 -0800 Organization: http://groups.google.com Hi guys, I'm a new guy in the town and I introduce myself: Alfonso. Currently I'm trying to send calls with H.323 from an IVR platform to one AS5300 gw to another Gk which routes the calls to any part in the calls. The problem is that the AS5300 isn't negotiating the codec with the Gk when the termination end has normal/slow start. Does any one could help me to try find why ? I have this in my voip dial-peer: dial-peer voice 201 voip description *** IVR Calls *** . . . voice-class codec 1 And my voice-class codec is: voice class codec 1 codec preference 1 g729r8 codec preference 2 g729br8 codec preference 3 g723r63 codec preference 4 g723r53 codec preference 5 g723ar63 codec preference 6 g723ar53 Do you have some idea why this isn't working properly ? Thanks in advance. Rgds. ------------------------------ Subject: Buying Books on the Net From: C. Smith Date: Thu, 01 Apr 2004 10:31:09 GMT I have bought dozens of books on the Net and, so far (touch wood), without any problems. I have paid for most of transactions by credit card. On occasions (at the suggestion of the bookseller), I have emailed my CC number in two halves, by separate emails. Is this sound practice for me and for the retailer? And am I exposing myself to unnecessary risk? [TELECOM Digest Editor's Note: That may be a good suggestion, but I think a better one might be if the merchant collected your credit card number *one time only*, encrypted it, then on future purchases asked if you wish to use the 'same card as last time', and if you said 'yes', the put the charge through to it without you having to pass the details a second time. Another good suggestion would be what a one of the local banks here in Independence does. They issue 'debit cards' (like most banks, with a Visa/MC style account number) but they serve like a 'firewall' against your real bank account and source of money. Mine has a zero balance in it all the time, or maybe ten or twenty dollars. If I see something I want to purchase on the net, you can always 'pretend' a debit card is a credit card, and use that 'credit card' number to make the purchase. Then the bank transfers enough money to cover that purchase into the 'firewall account'. Hackers and other malefactors who want to rip off my 'bank account' on the net see that firewall there and rip into it thinking they will make a bundle, only to find maybe three or five dollars in the whole thing at best, if that much. A variation on this is the PayPal debit card which is good for a couple things: I put money into it from the telecom account; it becomes immediatly spendable from my personal account via PayPal debit card (they have a MasterCard style number) and there is *so little* in there at any time, I could care less if some theives take it. (Well, not really, but you see the idea.) Maybe it is all a moot point: I very seldom have any spare money, other than the proceeds of my social security disability check for the month, not yet removed by the bank for other autodebits such as utilities, the SRS housekeeper I have to pay a little for each month, etc. PAT] ------------------------------ From: dennismattingly@hotmail.com (D. Mattingly) Subject: I Want to Block Anonymous/Name Unavailable/Unwanted Calls Date: 1 Apr 2004 06:33:56 -0800 Organization: http://groups.google.com I hope I am posting this in the correct group. I want a simple device for my home that will prohibit "Name/Number Unavailable" calls from ringing through and any other numbers I wish to add. I have this service from Verizon, but it will only let me block numbers from residential land-line phones. Thanks. [TELECOM Digest Editor's Note: Well, I do not think it is just 'residential land-line phones' that can be blocked, but those are the kind of phones most likely to NOT have special equipment on them to bypass blocking attempts. For instance, I have found Vonage and my two cell phones can both be blocked ** if star-67 is used to call my personal home phone from any of them **. I have a feature like you on my line to 'block anonymous calls', and if I *deliberatly and willfully* use star-67 from any of them, they get blocked also when calling my personal phone. But the problem comes when the caller either makes no attempt to hide but either sends a bogus number such as all zeros OR the distant telco is unable to block. All zeros or other deliberate camouflouge is supposed to be illegal these days when its a telemarketer. Complaining to telco is futile. What I would like to see is Mike Sandman or another vendor develop a box to be plugged in at the head end which was trainable: all zeros, other ridiculous number, nothing at all, out of area, or other numbers I teach it are all rejected. Either just ring open forever, or preferably go off hook one or two seconds -- enough to start supervision and run up the phone bill of the caller -- then hang up. No apologetic recording, nothing. PAT] ------------------------------ Date: Thu, 01 Apr 2004 12:03:08 -0500 From: No Spam Subject: Flat Rate Plans and Modems; was Re: AOL Connection Leads to $2,500 On 1 Apr 2004 04:32:34 -0000 John Levine wrote about Re: AOL Connection Leads to $2,500 Phone Bill > The AP story identifies the guy and his daughter by name, and says > Qwest agreed to settle the bill for $375. > I would think that was generous except that he could have signed up > for flat rate long distance for $25 and the calls would have cost $0 > above that. > http://www.usatoday.com/tech/news/2004-03-30-aol-phone-bill_x.htm The fine print I have seen on several of these plans specifically excludes modem calls. ------------------------------ From: Carl Navarro Subject: Re: AOL Connection Leads to $2,500 Phone Bill Reply-To: cnavarro@wcnet.org Date: Thu, 01 Apr 2004 11:23:16 GMT Organization: Road Runner High Speed Online http://www.rr.com On 1 Apr 2004 04:32:34 -0000, John Levine wrote: >> [TELECOM Digest Editor's Note: John, does this story sort of have the >> marks of an urban legend? Yes, there was a newspaper account of it, >> and newspapers do not usually write fiction (the New York Times and >> the Boston Globe being two exceptions) but has anyone ever identified >> the person who got this humongous telephone bill or audited how the >> telco heard the sad story then refused to make an adjustment, etc? > The AP story identifies the guy and his daughter by name, and says > Qwest agreed to settle the bill for $375. > I would think that was generous except that he could have signed up > for flat rate long distance for $25 and the calls would have cost $0 > above that. Not exactly. The fast talker at the end of the spot for flat rate LD states that internet access is not included in the rate plan :-) Some lady in Chicago found that out. She had been calling her ISP before the change and after got a huge bill for ISP calls. Carl Navarro ------------------------------ Date: Thu, 1 Apr 2004 11:33:19 EST From: Carl Moore Subject: Remember Last January (was Re: Bogus Collect Calls From Longview) In writing about the bogus collect call problem (Longview, Texas), I also pointed out my concern about a Texas telephone number showing up in the "From" part of a legitimate call I made on AT&T calling card from Connecticut to Delaware. Don't forget the post just this past January where I pointed out that I made AT&T calling card call from rest area just inside Canada on 450-246 prefix but the bill showed somewhere else within 450 area. ------------------------------ From: friedebach@yahoo.com (Eric Friedebach) Subject: Press One To Score Points Date: 1 Apr 2004 08:56:24 -0800 Organization: http://groups.google.com Aude Lagorce, 03.31.04, Forbes.com NEW YORK - After the Golden Globes, the Oscars and the Grammies, please welcome the Mobies, the first distinctions to reward...the best mobile phone games by category. Never heard of them? Not surprising since they took place for the first time last week at the Cellular Telecommunications and Internet Association trade show in Atlanta. Keep an eye out in the future, though: The event may not yet be broadcast on major television channels, but it is a clear sign that the mobile gaming industry is gaining heft. If you're still playing a black-and-white worm game on your mobile phone to kill a few minutes on the train, you may be surprised to learn that the mobile gaming industry is shaping up to be big business. The Yankee Group says there are already 27 million U.S. users playing games on their handsets. While the technology research firm says revenues are still "well south of $1 billion" -- tiny in comparison to the $12 billion gaming industry -- the segment has huge potential. http://www.forbes.com/technology/2004/03/31/cx_al_0331phonegames.html Eric Friedebach /Old enough to remember when MTV played music videos/ ------------------------------ From: Geoffrey Welsh Subject: Re: Teaching my Mother How to Make Long Distance Calls Date: Thu, 1 Apr 2004 11:23:08 -0500 Organization: Primus Canada Heywood wrote: > Dial arounds are not an option, this is a woman who has trouble with > Touch-Tone (tm) phones. How about investing a few bucks in a telephone with memory dial? Surely your mother wouldn't have a problem with pressing a button with your name beside it, and you could program it to dial whatever number you like. Geoffrey Welsh Always looking for a good condition original 'chicklet keyboard' Commodore PET ------------------------------ From: dold@BogusXColl.usenet.us.com Subject: Re: Bogus Collect Calls From Longview, Texas? Date: Thu, 1 Apr 2004 17:14:20 UTC Organization: a2i network Carl Moore wrote: > telephone number on the 903-381 prefix in Longview, and I have heard > that calling that number connects to a computer modem. Don't COCOT phones take incoming calls for reprogramming via modem? I thought they didn't answer for lots of rings, but they would answer with modem tone. That could have been a legitimate pay phone. Clarence A Dold - Hidden Valley (Lake County) CA USA 38.8-122.5 ------------------------------ From: Barry Margolin Subject: Re: Amazon Patents Cookies Organization: Looking for work Date: Thu, 01 Apr 2004 03:36:06 -0500 Monty's subject line is *extremely* misleading. This patent is not about cookies in general. It's about a specific technique for encoding structured, binary data into the text-based cookies. The web application makes use of a generic routine that takes a data structure and a schema file to perform the translation; additional claims cover mechanisms for tracking different versions of the data structure, so that users who have old cookies saved on their computers can be supported automatically, and things like encrypting the cookie. Barry Margolin, barmar@alum.mit.edu Arlington, MA *** PLEASE post questions in newsgroups, not directly to me *** ------------------------------ Subject: Re: Excel Communications Date: Wed, 31 Mar 2004 23:11:00 -0600 From: John A. Weeks III Organization: Newave Communications In article , William Robison wrote: > I attended a presentation by Excel Communications last night. They > appear to sell telecom services (local, long-distance, internet, > cell). The presentation was for prospective sales people, but it had > all the hallmarks of a pyramid scheme. Sign up for $400, sign up more > sellers and get a substantial "incentive", The people you sign up sign > up more and you get a different kickback, etc. William ... if you would like to know more, please send me E-mail so we can keep this out of the Digest. To give brief answers to your points ... 1) All successful organizations from GM to the US Army are delta shaped organizations, with a few highly placed people on top who make the big bucks, and lots of worker bees at the lower level making it happen. 2) Excel pays commissions in advance. For example, they know how many customers a typical sales rep will sign up, how much those customers will spend each month, and how long they will stay with the company. Excel then does the math, and pays you the commission up front. There is so little profit in long distance that it would otherwise take years for folks to see any reasonable paychecks, to this advanced commissions puts a little jazz into it. 3) There is no fee to become an Excel sales rep. There are other ways to join, including a package that includes a bunch of marketing materials, training classes, and management services. The level that you quote is to become a paid company trainer and go around the country training new sales reps. That fee pays for the advanced training classes that you need to take to be able to train others. 4) A pyramid scheme is where there is no product involved, rather, money coming in goes to pay other members. This is illegal. The poster child for this was the Ponzi scheme, where new "investors" put in their money, and that was used to pay the rate of return that was promised to existing members. Excel does not pay out a single dime until a sales person makes a sale to a number of customers, and those customers use the service to generate revenue and commissions, so everything is 100% legal -- nothing shady or grey area about it. John A. Weeks III 952-432-2708 john@johnweeks.com Newave Communications http://www.johnweeks.com ------------------------------ Date: Thu, 1 Apr 2004 08:38:04 -0500 From: Monty Solomon Subject: EFFector 17.11: EFF Opposes RFIDs in Passports EFFector Vol. 17, No. 11 March 31, 2004 donna@eff.org A Publication of the Electronic Frontier Foundation ISSN 1062-9424 In the 283rd Issue of EFFector: * EFF Opposes Radio Tracking Technology, Biometrics in Passports * Let the Sun Set on PATRIOT - Sections 201 and 805 * EFF's Deep Links - The Weblog * MiniLinks (16): Canada's Copyright Revolution: As Good As It Gets * Staff Calendar: 04.06.04 - Fred von Lohmann speaks at Columbia University Law School, New York, NY * Administrivia http://www.eff.org/effector/17/11.php ------------------------------ 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 2004 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 #156 ******************************