From editor@telecom-digest.org Sun Apr 11 17:29:59 2004 Received: (from ptownson@localhost) by massis.lcs.mit.edu (8.11.6p2/8.11.3) id i3BLTxN19180; Sun, 11 Apr 2004 17:29:59 -0400 (EDT) Date: Sun, 11 Apr 2004 17:29:59 -0400 (EDT) From: editor@telecom-digest.org Message-Id: <200404112129.i3BLTxN19180@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 #178 TELECOM Digest Sun, 11 Apr 2004 17:28:00 EDT Volume 23 : Issue 178 Inside This Issue: Editor: Patrick A. Townson Re: CRTC: VOIP is Just Phone Service (John Levine) Re: CRTC: VoIP is Just Phone Service (VOIP News) Revolution in Phone Technology Approaching (VOIP News) Re: Overseas Crooks Abuse Phone Service For Deaf (Nick Landsberg) Re: Hot-Spot Wi-Fi Business (info@patronsoft.com) MMS/SMS Fixed Line Emulator (Paul M.) Re: Spam Issues (Barry Margolin) Re: Spam Issues (Tom Betz) Watchdogs Push for RFID Laws (Monty Solomon) American Released Passenger Data (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. ---------------------------------------------------------------------- Organization: I.E.C.C., Trumansburg NY USA From: John Levine Date: 11 Apr 2004 14:47:26 -0000 Subject: Re: CRTC: VoIP is Just Phone Service Reply-To: VoIPnews@yahoogroups.com > I like Canada and I like Canadians in general, but I am sure glad > sometimes that I don't have to live under the regulations imposed by > the CRTC (Canadian Radio-television and Telecommunications > Commission), which makes some really boneheaded decisions from time > to time (I assure you this isn't the first!).  On the contrary, it's the most sensible ruling about VoIP I've ever seen. VoIP advocates have a bad habit of talking out of both sides of their mouths. On the one hand, VoIP is fabulous, it's amazing, it's disruptive, it's going to be so cheap it'll drive all the dinosaur telcos out of business. On the other hand, VoIP is so delicate and fragile that unless it gets a special exemption and doesn't pay the taxes that real telephones pay, it'll shrivel up and die even though it already gets a huge free ride on top of Internet connections that cost between $30 and $50 per month, but nobody seems to think are part of the cost of VoIP. Cell phones have many of the advantages of VoIP, notably location independence and bundled long distance, they pay taxes like real phones, and rather than receiving subsidies, they pay billions of dollars in spectrum auctions for more PCS capacity. They're real phones. Is VoIP real? If VoIP actually costs less and can provide better features like people claim, it can easily compete on a level playing field. If it's not, and it can only survive with subsidies and tax exemptions, why are we wasting our time? Regards, John Levine, johnl@taugh.com, Taughannock Networks, Trumansburg NY http://www.taugh.com ------------------------------ From: VOIP News Date: Sun, 11 Apr 2004 13:28:35 -0400 Subject: Re: CRTC: VoIP is Just Phone Service Reply-To: VoIPnews@yahoogroups.com At 02:47 PM 4/11/2004 +0000, John Levine wrote: >> I like Canada and I like Canadians in general, but I am sure glad >> sometimes that I don't have to live under the regulations imposed by >> the CRTC (Canadian Radio-television and Telecommunications >> Commission), which makes some really boneheaded decisions from time >> to time (I assure you this isn't the first!). > On the contrary, it's the most sensible ruling about VoIP I've ever > seen. > VoIP advocates have a bad habit of talking out of both sides of their > mouths. On the one hand, VoIP is fabulous, it's amazing, it's > disruptive, it's going to be so cheap it'll drive all the dinosaur > telcos out of business. On the other hand, VoIP is so delicate and > fragile that unless it gets a special exemption and doesn't pay the > taxes that real telephones pay, it'll shrivel up and die even though > it already gets a huge free ride on top of Internet connections that > cost between $30 and $50 per month, but nobody seems to think are part > of the cost of VoIP. John, in my opinion the flaw in your logic is that you think "VoIP advocates" want special treatment for VoIP, even though what we're really asking is that it be treated like any other *Internet application*. VoIP gets no more of a "free ride" than e-mail, web browsing, instant messaging, streaming audio and video, usenet news, or any of the other thousands of applications that people run over their Internet connections. Bear in mind that very few people get a "free" Internet connection - almost everyone pays for their Internet connection in some form or another. So the transport IS being paid for, but by the end user, not the VoIP company. And what the end-user is paying for is "broadband" -- not "voice transport", "text transport", "graphics transport", "video transport", or any other specific type of transport. Rather, from the customer's viewpoint, if it can be converted to bits and bytes, he's paying a flat month rate to transport it. Now you may object that VoIP companies are commercial applications -- that they charge an extra monthly charge. And my reply would be, "so what?" When a customer buys something from eBay or Amazon, should those companies have to kick back an extra fee to the customer's ISP? When a customer listens to streaming audio or views streaming video that may include advertising, should the audio or video producer be required to kick back to the customer's ISP? Of course not, because the customer has already paid for the transport as part of their monthly rate. VoIP is no different than any of these applications - it's not getting a "free ride" in ANY sense of the word. > Cell phones have many of the advantages of VoIP, notably location > independence and bundled long distance, they pay taxes like real > phones, and rather than receiving subsidies, they pay billions of > dollars in spectrum auctions for more PCS capacity. They're real > phones. And your point is? VoIP isn't cellular telephony. It's an Internet application. You seem to think that any form of voice communications had better be spending big money and paying big taxes or it's not "real." Well, if that's the case, let's all use the "unreal" stuff and save some money! By the way, just so you know, I think this whole business of auctioning off airwaves is totally wrong and evil. The government is in effect usurping ownership of something it has no ownership rights to. They might as well try to tax air. They can make it work because they have the guns to back it up, but they have essentially stolen what belongs to all of us and are selling it off to big corporations. In one sense, it's sort of the modern-day equivalent of invading another country, putting all the conquered land in the name of the government and then selling it off to the highest bidder. > Is VoIP real? If VoIP actually costs less and can provide better > features like people claim, it can easily compete on a level playing > field. If it's not, and it can only survive with subsidies and tax > exemptions, why are we wasting our time? Exactly what subsidies are we talking about here? As for "tax exemptions", I for one would be perfectly happy if those taxes were eliminated for all forms of communications. This is my point, maybe VoIP will be the thing that finally frees us from at least some of the onerous taxes that have been tacked onto our phone bills. At least that is the thing I'd hope for -- rather than add all these ridiculous taxes and fees onto VoIP, let's instead eliminate them from traditional telephony. Then you would have your "level playing field." The real problem is that because VoIP is just another Internet application, people will always be able to use it to some degree without paying the taxes and fees. If U.S. providers are forced to impose these taxes, what's to stop some VoIP company from setting up shop in Mexico or Bermuda or England and offering tax-free calls to U.S. customers? Sure, you can try to make it illegal, but as the file-sharing programs have proved, just because you make something illegal doesn't mean it will go away. Think about this: If you try to tax Internet telephony, what's to stop people from making an "Internet walkie-talkie" application (there actually was such a thing once, I don't recall the name offhand, but I think it went belly-up in the big dot-com bust. But a similar program could easily be created). Now you don't have telephony per se, you're just shipping audio files back and forth. Where, exactly, do you make the distinction between "audio files" and "telephony", and do you really want government officials trying to draw that line? I find it interesting that on your web site you (correctly) conclude that e-postage for e-mail won't work. I wonder why, then, you are so comfortable with the idea that voice communications over the Internet should have taxes and fees applied. In my opinion, like e-postage, it simply won't work, primarily because people won't accept the higher costs. The thing to bear in mind is that if U.S. providers were ever forced to impose the current system of taxes and fees on VoIP providers, and if offshore VoIP providers could then as a result offer the same service for less money, people will use the offshore providers. VoIP will exist without the taxes and fees, the only real question is, will it exist that way in the United States, or will we all someday be going through a phone company in some island nation to connect to the PSTN? U.S. officials could very easily chase this business offshore, if they really want to. Now, as for Canada, I've heard various opinions on that since the ruling came out. For example, one anonymous Canadian posted the following in the BroadbandReports.com VoIP forum: "Hold your horses guys. This ruling isn't as bad as you think. Right now, the situation in Canada is that there is still to this day almost no competition on the "local" front. Bell Canada still has 95 percent of all the residential phone lines, in Ontario and Quebec. What the CRTC is trying to do is bring about competition to the local arena. This ruling will loosen the reins of regulation for incumbent entrants into VOIP, such as for cable companies and others that want to provide this type of service. The regulation part applies mostly to Bell and Telus. Cable companies will not be subject to the same regulations, at least until such a time that their is real competition at the local level. The only requirement will be to provide 911 service and that's it. If Bell and Telus offer similar VOIP service then the same regulatory structure still applies to them, in the same way it applies to their current circuit switched local service. This is a definite win-win for the cable c ompan ies and other entrants to the VOIP arena." (The above was posted in the thread at http://www.broadbandreports.com/forum/remark,9912766~mode=flat ) So while there are various opinions on the CRTC ruling (and it probably remains to be seen what the actual effect of the CRTC order will be), in no way would I call it "the most sensible ruling about VoIP I've ever seen." The thing that is not sensible about it is that it does not recognize VoIP as a new type of communications. It isn't wireline, and it isn't cellular. It does connect to the PSTN in some cases, but where it does it usually has to go through a CLEC, which may in fact be paying some of the taxes and fees that you think are being avoided (and including those in what it bills the VoIP company). Perhaps others will have more to say about this, but those are my thoughts on the subject. 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/ [TELECOM Digest Editor's Note: I wonder what people think about services like Jeff Pulver's FWD which, as a rule, does not touch the public telephone network at all, except as a coincidence when FWD had their 'holiday gift to the net' by allowing phone calls everywhere for free? Should people who use his service get stuck with the myriad of taxes and fees and terms and conditions 'regular' telephone users get foisted on them? Maybe John Levine will explain if FWD is 'just another phone service' also? Should police have to have a computer in their station (well, they do, but that's another issue) equipped to receive '911 calls' which originate on FWD? Should the oppressive people who promote CALEA also logically promote it for Pulver's FWD service? At what point does the, IMO, coincidental mixing of computer networks and telephone networks cause basically computer stuff to be now referred to as 'telephone' service? Or is there, in essence, just a communications network and the government wants to have its hands in it as much as possible? PAT] ------------------------------ From: VOIP News Date: Sun, 11 Apr 2004 14:40:25 -0400 Subject: Revolution in Phone Technology Approaching Reply-To: VoIPnews@yahoogroups.com http://www.canada.com/national/nationalpost/news/story.html?id=73c4f734-8ccc-456a-b96e-2c714edb1908 Revolution in phone technology approaching, but will consumers make the switch? GREG BONNELL Canadian Press TORONTO (CP) - A revolution in how telephone conversations are transmitted is as close as your Internet connection, but it remains to be seen if consumers will switch to sending calls via cyberspace. Voice-over-Internet-protocol, or VOIP, is all the buzz in the tech community, with Bell planning to launch services this year and Primus and Telus already in the game. Cable companies Rogers and Shaw are working toward entering the market as well. The technology digitizes voices and encodes them into packets of data which are then shot across cyberspace. Conversations take place in real time on the phone you already have, or something very similar, which is linked to a high-speed Internet connection. Calls can be made to other Net-enabled phones as well as regular phones. Technology-wise, it far outstrips any experience you may have had using PC-based instant-messaging software to send voice over the Internet. Pretty neat, but given that most people don't understand how traditional phones work, it's going to take more than a new system of delivery to convert the masses. "If all you're talking about is your home phone line, the case has got to be 'Can I get a better deal?' " said Ian Angus of Angus TeleManagement Group from his Ottawa office. "If all you need is a basic phone service, you're probably not going to save any money with VOIP." Where residential users can expect to save is in package deals. The "ultimate bundle" from Primus -- with call answer, call waiting and all the other goodies at $34.95 a month - is about 15 to 25 per cent cheaper than traditional services. The manner in which VOIP can deliver those extras is another bonus. Full story at: http://www.canada.com/national/nationalpost/news/story.html?id=73c4f734-8ccc-456a-b96e-2c714edb1908 ------------------------------ From: Nick Landsberg Reply-To: hukolau@NOSPAM.att.net Subject: Re: Overseas Crooks Abuse Phone Service For Deaf Date: Sun, 11 Apr 2004 05:11:54 GMT Organization: AT&T Worldnet Jim Burks wrote: > Monty Solomon wrote in message > news:telecom23.176.1@telecom-digest.org... >> By Tim Steller >> ARIZONA DAILY STAR >> Overseas scam artists have hijacked a telephone relay system for deaf >> people and turned phone operators in Tucson and nationwide into >> full-time facilitators of fraud. > Once again, with the ADA, regulations triumph over common sense. > TDD relay calls should be mostly private. Personal details should not > be disclosed. However, the operators should not have to facilitate > fraud. They should be able to hang up on these calls, and also be able > to report them. > Unfortunately, the government seems to have no common sense whatever. Holtman's Homily: "Common sense is very uncommon." (especially among bureaucrats). Seriously, tho, should this be forwarded to the Risks Digest? We have a perfectly legitimate and needed service which, because the folks who thought up the service never envisioned how the "bad guys" might subvert it, is actually being subverted! (Change the word "fool" in the sig line to "bad guy" and you'll get my drift.) "It is impossible to make anything foolproof because fools are so ingenious" - A. Bloch [TELECOM Digest Editor's Note: Well, if you are going to talk about the 'risks' involved in a useful service getting abused because no one ever thought of how 'bad guys' might subvert it, then send something to Dr. Neumann about the 'risks' of opening your door and walking outside. Or maybe the 'risk' in a bunch of very intelligent people forming a co-operative computer network to exchange email and news; something like Usenet News or SMTP for email. I mean, who, among the many intelligent people who began putting together this network we are on now, 25 years ago, give or take a few years, would *ever have begun to dream* the amount of abuse in the form of spam, virii, etc our network has had to deal with in the past five or so years? Who, among the 'gentle' anarchists of 1978-80 or thereabouts could have ever, in their wildest dreams pictured a scenario like we have here and now? So did they lack common sense? So many things we all thought were unthinkable back in 1980 are now becoming quite 'thinkable' are they not? Maybe in 1980 a better idea would have been for Adolph Hitler to be appointed Moderator Emeritus in Chief over the whole thing? PAT] ------------------------------ From: info@patronsoft.com (info@patronsoft.com) Subject: Re: Hot-Spot Wi-Fi Business Date: 11 Apr 2004 00:51:58 -0700 Organization: http://groups.google.com Try FirstSpot ( http://patronsoft.com/firstspot ). It is a pure software based Hotspot management solution. Server based pricing with no CALs (Client Access License). D. Jones wrote in message news:: > I would like to operate a profitable hot-spot (Wi-Fi) service for my > community. People would access my network for a $1 a day in our > communities cafe's and parks. I'm thinking to have about 8 hot > spots. How much would a hot spot cost to run? Also, how could I > collect payments? Is there a hot-spot management system out there? ------------------------------ From: Paul M. Subject: MMS/SMS Fixed Line Emulator Date: Sun, 11 Apr 2004 09:15:41 +0100 Hello, Does anyone know of a MMS/SMS Fixed Line Emulator? Seems to be plenty about for mobile stuff but nothing for normal fixed lines. Basically it would be used to send & recieve MMS from/to a normal residential line connected to an MMS phone. Thanks, Paul ------------------------------ From: Barry Margolin Subject: Re: Spam Issues Organization: Looking for work Date: Sun, 11 Apr 2004 12:10:58 -0400 In article , jmeissen@aracnet.com wrote: > Fortunately, or unfortunately, blackhole sites are nothing more than > publishers. They establish their own listing criteria and processes. > However, it's important to note that they are NOT the ones rejecting > the email -- the recipient's mail server is doing that. Isn't this similar to the argument given by people who operate web sites that list abortion doctors, when they are included as conspirators or accessories when these doctors get murdered? In both cases, the list operators know full well what purpose their lists will be put to, they're hardly just innocent publishers. They compile these lists with the express purpose of encouraging others to use them for a specific purpose. Barry Margolin, barmar@alum.mit.edu Arlington, MA *** PLEASE post questions in newsgroups, not directly to me *** [TELECOM Digest Editor's Note: Then should no one say anything at all since there is always a 'risk' that someone will abuse the 'list' someone else prepared by acting out inappropriately on it? People are responsible for their own behavior, are they not. It would not occur to me to proclaim your 'express purpose' in doing anythign you do. PAT] ------------------------------ Subject: Re: Spam Issues From: Tom Betz Organization: XOme Date: Sun, 11 Apr 2004 12:15:05 -0400 (EDT) Pat, Thanks for making me look better than I deserve here! Quoth Tom Betz in news:telecom23.177.4@telecom- digest.org: > Quoth SELLCOM Tech support in > news:telecom23.176.16@telecom-digest.org: >> The trash running http://www.five-ten-sg.com/blackhole.php have whole >> sections of the world blocked without any real cause and they won't >> remove such listings after notification. > The operators of the blocklist block nothing. > The owners of mail servers choose to use the information Fiveten > provides to block e-mail. It is the owners of the mail servers who do > the blocking. They could more easily not use it -- but it has > obviously proven to be of value to them. > What is the IP address in question? > Did you e-mail blackhole13 at five-ten-sg.com, as the web page you > mentioned advises? Did you call them "trash" or hurl other invective > at them when you did so? > What was their response? >> I assume that spam issues are on topic since I have seen them >> discussed. > They are more on-topic in news.admin.net-abuse.email. > I know you know about it, because you have posted there before. > Why did you not take this matter there? "I am afeard there are few die well that die in a battle; for how can they charitably dispose of anything when blood is their argument? Now, if these men do not die well, it will be a black matter for the King that led them to it; who to disobey were against all proportion of subjection." - W.S. [TELECOM Digest Editor's Note: If I made you look better than you feel you deserved (to look) then you are quite welcome. PAT] ------------------------------ Date: Sun, 11 Apr 2004 01:01:44 -0400 From: Monty Solomon Subject: Watchdogs Push for RFID Laws By Mark Baard CHICAGO -- RFID is too powerful a technology and Wal-Mart and its suppliers are too cozy with the U.S. Department of Homeland Security for the companies to be trusted with the data gathered from radio tags on consumer goods, say a civil rights lawyer and a privacy law expert. But the companies, led by Procter & Gamble, are opposing RFID legislation, and want consumers to allow them to keep RFID tags active after checkout, and to match shoppers' personal information with particular items. The civil rights lawyer, Barry Steinhardt, director of the Technology and Liberty Program at the American Civil Liberties Union, spoke at the RFID Journal Live conference in Chicago last week. He said companies could use RFID tags to profile their own customers and share their information with the government -- violating the companies' own privacy policies. The U.S. Department of Homeland Security , meanwhile, is working with companies like Wal-Mart and Procter & Gamble to develop RFID (which stands for radio-frequency identification) to monitor America's consumer supply chains. Homeland Security may find the combination of live tags and customer profiles hard to resist when investigating suspected terrorists, or as a means to monitor entire groups of people, said the privacy expert. http://www.wired.com/news/privacy/0,1848,62922,00.html [TELECOM Digest Editor's Note: I have never 'felt good' about having any more than absolutely necessary to do with Walmart, and not just because of that (now resolved) fiasco last week with my debit card. I cannot explain why, it's just that something doesn't fit together right. PAT] ------------------------------ Date: Sun, 11 Apr 2004 01:04:12 -0400 From: Monty Solomon Subject: American Released Passenger Data Associated Press 02:46 PM Apr. 10, 2004 PT WASHINGTON -- American Airlines became the third U.S. airline to acknowledge giving passenger records to the government, sparking denunciations from privacy advocates. The world's largest airline said late Friday that in June, 2002 it shared approximately 1.2 million passenger itineraries with the Transportation Security Administration and, inadvertently, four research companies vying for contracts with the agency. Fort Worth, Texas-based American said it agreed to provide the TSA with the information "because of the heightened interest in aviation security at the time and American's desire to ensure its passenger and crew safety" following the Sept. 11, 2001, attacks in which two of its planes were hijacked. In 2002, American's privacy policy did not expressly prohibit sharing passenger data with the government, according to a spokesman. Today it does. http://www.wired.com/news/privacy/0,1848,63018,00.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, 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 #178 ******************************