From editor@telecom-digest.org Tue May 4 20:09:48 2004 Received: (from ptownson@localhost) by massis.lcs.mit.edu (8.11.6p3/8.11.3) id i4509mQ04681; Tue, 4 May 2004 20:09:48 -0400 (EDT) Date: Tue, 4 May 2004 20:09:48 -0400 (EDT) From: editor@telecom-digest.org Message-Id: <200405050009.i4509mQ04681@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 #225 TELECOM Digest Tue, 4 May 2004 20:09:00 EDT Volume 23 : Issue 225 Inside This Issue: Editor: Patrick A. Townson Network Card Theft Causes Internet Outage (Monty Solomon) Groups Seek to Block Cingular-AT&T Wireless Deal (Monty Solomon) Verizon to Expand DSL Offerings With New, Higher-Speed Service (M Solomon) Phone Companies Gain Ground in Speedy Web Access (Monty Solomon) Nextel Launches International Walkie-Talkie Links (Monty Solomon) Re: How to Block Unknown Caller (CharlesH) Re: How to Block Unknown Caller (Scott Dorsey) Re: A Link of Interest to Ham Radio Operators (J Kelly) Re: A Link of Interest to Ham Radio Operators (Tony P.) Re: A Link of Interest to Ham Radio Operators (Fred Atkinson) SMS Secure Query ("Vikram Sareen) Firewall (Pix) Not Getting IP (DHCP) on SBC DSL (jsinger986) Ip Telephony Service Provider (Karim T) GE Phone Issues (Craig) Re: Missouri Moves to Ban 'UnFees' - Part of Larger Backlash (Wesrock) Re: Telemarketers Buy Suspicious Lists (Hank Karl) Re: Iraq/Westchester Area Code (Justin Time) Re: Internet Phone Service DOESN'T Attract Wider Use (AES/newspost) Do Modem Calls Work Over Vonage? (Mark Rejhon) Re: Winning the Election The Republican Way (Mark Crispin) Re: Winning the Election The Republican Way (Charles Cryderman) HDTV and Bush (Miikka Kiprusoff) Re: VoIP Analogy (Charles Cryderman) 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. ---------------------------------------------------------------------- Date: Tue, 4 May 2004 14:22:39 -0400 From: Monty Solomon Subject: Network Card Theft Causes Internet Outage By Sean Gallagher, Chris Gonsalves and Craig Newell The theft of network cards from a Verizon central office in New York has caused some customers there to lose their Internet access. A handful of corporate customers were left without e-mail and Internet access Monday after the theft of networking equipment from a New York City office late Sunday. Law enforcement officials said four DS-3 cards were reported missing from a Manhattan co-location facility owned by Verizon Communications Inc. The theft at 240 E. 38th St. occurred just after 10:30 p.m. on Sunday and is being investigated by New York City Police and members of the joint terrorism task force, according to NYPD spokesman Lt. Brian Burke. The outage affected area customers of Sprint Corp., including Ziff Davis Media Inc., the publisher of eWEEK.com. http://www.eweek.com/article2/0,1759,1583347,00.asp ------------------------------ Date: Tue, 4 May 2004 15:09:45 -0400 From: Monty Solomon Subject: Groups Seek to Block Cingular-AT&T Wireless Deal WASHINGTON, May 4 (Reuters) - Two top U.S. consumer groups on Tuesday urged communications regulators to block Cingular Wireless' proposed purchase of AT&T Wireless Services Inc. (NYSE:AWE), citing concerns that it would lead to higher prices and poor service. Cingular, a joint venture of local phone companies BellSouth Corp. (NYSE:BLS) and SBC Communications Inc. (NYSE:SBC), has agreed to buy its smaller rival for $41 billion in cash to create the largest U.S. wireless company, leapfrogging ahead of Verizon Wireless. Consumers Union and the Consumer Federation of America petitioned the Federal Communications Commission to prevent the combination on the grounds that it would cut competition and consolidate too much valuable spectrum in a single company. - http://finance.lycos.com/home/news/story.asp?story=41251581 ------------------------------ Date: Tue, 4 May 2004 15:08:42 -0400 From: Monty Solomon Subject: Verizon to Expand DSL Offerings With New, Higher-Speed Service Voice-Over-IP Package First-Quarter Record Sales of Verizon Online DSL Help Fuel DSL Industry Market-Share Growth NEW YORK, May 4 /PRNewswire/ -- Building on momentum from a record DSL sales quarter, Verizon will spur its home broadband growth by offering an additional higher-speed DSL service to consumers this summer and by developing new service packages that include residential voice-over-Internet-protocol (VoIP) services. - http://finance.lycos.com/home/news/story.asp?story=41251008 ------------------------------ Date: Tue, 4 May 2004 15:10:44 -0400 From: Monty Solomon Subject: Phone Companies Gain Ground in Speedy Web Access By Justin Hyde WASHINGTON, May 4 (Reuters) - For the first time, U.S. local telephone companies have sold more high-speed Internet connections than than cable providers, a milestone that could intensify competition and lower prices. After taking a leisurely approach to high-speed Internet access for years, phone companies now see broadband as essential to their survival, committing billions of dollars to extend their networks, market their services and offer extras like free wireless home networking gear. The four largest "Baby Bells" -- Verizon Communications Inc., (NYSE:VZ) SBC Communications Inc., (NYSE:SBC) BellSouth Corp. (NYSE:BLS) and Qwest Communications International Inc. (NYSE:Q) -- added 1.05 million digital subscriber lines (DSL) during the first quarter of 2004. While some cable companies have yet to report results, analysts with Goldman Sachs and Deutsche Bank estimate new DSL lines barely outsold new high-speed cable connections in the quarter, with a total for both of about 2.3 million. There's some desperation behind the phone companies' drive for broadband. Revenues from traditional phone service has been in decline for years, as prices fall and customers switch to wireless phones. The Baby Bells have tried to compete by bundling services but face numerous competitors. And with the rise of phone service over the Internet, customers who shut off their phone lines for cable broadband may never have a reason to turn them on again. With DSL, the Baby Bells do not have to open their service to competitors, and can sell DSL as an add-on to local service. Thanks to rising demand for high-speed Internet access, DSL has become the anchor that keeps the Baby Bells in many households. - http://finance.lycos.com/home/news/story.asp?story=41251601 ------------------------------ Date: Tue, 4 May 2004 15:11:32 -0400 From: Monty Solomon Subject: Nextel Launches International Walkie-Talkie Links NEW YORK, May 4 (Reuters) - Mobile service provider Nextel Communications Inc. (NASDAQ:NXTL) said on Tuesday it expanded its service to allow walkie-talkie users in the United States, Canada, Brazil, Argentina and Peru to talk with each other. The Reston, Virginia-based company said its customers can now just press a button to connect immediately with subscribers of Telus' (TSE:T) service in Canada and NII Holdings Inc.'s (NASDAQ:NIHD) customers in Latin America. Nextel has used this feature, also known as push-to-talk, to attract business clients as it reduces the few seconds delay it takes workers in transportation or construction to reach their colleagues on a standard mobile phone call. Nextel, which was the only provider of a combined walkie-talkie and mobile phone service for years, began beefing up its offer last year amid new competition from bigger U.S. rivals like Verizon Wireless (NYSE:VZ)(LSE:VOD) and Sprint (NYSE:FON). Latin American and European companies are also hoping to build a business clientele with push-to-talk style services. - http://finance.lycos.com/home/news/story.asp?story=41251613 ------------------------------ From: hoch@exemplary.invalid (CharlesH) Subject: Re: How to Block Unknown Caller Date: 4 May 2004 19:19:45 GMT Organization: http://newsguy.com In article , wrote: >> [TELECOM Digest Editor's Note: Probably not. Privacy Manager (at least >> the SBC version of it, which I think the same generics most telcos are >> using), only works when the caller **deliberatly** does *67 on their >> call or their phone system deliberatly inserts *67 in the dialing >> string. I do not know if the Sony Z-600 has any hardware on the phone >> itself (or built in firmware, etc) to make it happen. PAT] > SBC's Privacy Manager works both with blocked calls and calls without > delivery of caller ID (i.e, "out of area" calls). > So far as I know, no wireless carrier, including SBC, offers Privacy > Manager as a cellular service option. The network control issues > would probably be too complex with wireless. When my SBC landline phone is forwarded to my Verizon Wireless cell phone, and SBC Privacy Manager needs to ask me how to deal with a CID-blocked call (for example, the caller spoke their name), I get the call from Privacy Manager on my cell phone, and it manages the call per my instructions just as if I were on my landline phone. ------------------------------ From: kludge@panix.com (Scott Dorsey) Subject: Re: How to Block Unknown Caller Date: 4 May 2004 15:49:40 -0400 Organization: Former users of Netcom shell (1989-2000) In article , Ray Normandeau wrote: > moulbai@hotmail.com (David Courmanof) wrote in message > news:: >> Is there a way to block or on my mobile? >> I have an Sony Z-600. > I answer and say: > "Your number is not coming thru on caller ID. Please hang up and try > again." > Then I hang up before they can speak. > One friend using a calling card couldn't send caller ID tho. Yes, and I have a number of friends on the Pembroke, Virginia Telephone Cooperative, which does not send caller ID information. --scott "C'est un Nagra. C'est suisse, et tres, tres precis." ------------------------------ From: J Kelly Subject: Re: A Link of Interest to Ham Radio Operators Date: Tue, 04 May 2004 14:02:11 -0500 Organization: http://newsguy.com Reply-To: jkelly@newsguy.com On Tue, 04 May 2004 01:50:04 GMT, Fred Atkinson wrote: > I prefer using ZoneEdit.com to dyndns.org. It works pretty well and > you have as many subdomains on each of your accounts as you want. Up > to five domain names can be used on ZoneEdit.com with no charge. Only > after you exceed the bandwidth limit (which is rather high) or have > more than five domain names in your account do they start charging. > And their rates are really very low. > I suggest you go ahed and pay the little bit of extra money and get an > email account with your domain registration on Registernames. Zoneedit can also do email forwarding to the ISP you already have. For me, that works great because my ISP has BrightMail spam filtering. You can forward as many email accounts as you want through Zoneedit, each can be forwarded to a different 'real' address if you wish. And as Fred mentioned, it is free. I've never gone over the bandwidth limit and I've been using it for 3 years for both regular DNS and for the email forwarding. ------------------------------ From: Tony P. Subject: Re: A Link of Interest to Ham Radio Operators Organization: ATCC Date: Tue, 04 May 2004 19:37:07 GMT In article , fatkinson@mishmash.com says: > Yes, Godaddy is a little cheaper, but they don't provide you with an > email address. Actually they have several plans where they'll not only setup your MX, but your A record as well and host it on their servers. I think I was paying a little under $10 a month to host my page and had 5 or 10 email addresses under that domain. ------------------------------ From: Fred Atkinson Subject: Re: A Link of Interest to Ham Radio Operators Date: Tue, 04 May 2004 01:50:04 GMT Organization: EarthLink Inc. -- http://www.EarthLink.net Yes, Godaddy is a little cheaper, but they don't provide you with an email address. I prefer using ZoneEdit.com to dyndns.org. It works pretty well and you have as many subdomains on each of your accounts as you want. Up to five domain names can be used on ZoneEdit.com with no charge. Only after you exceed the bandwidth limit (which is rather high) or have more than five domain names in your account do they start charging. And their rates are really very low. I suggest you go ahed and pay the little bit of extra money and get an email account with your domain registration on Registernames. And with the arrangement described in my article, you have total control of your DNS and you domain registration. You can update and alter it at any time without any extra charge. Also, ZoneEdit.com supports dynamic IP addresses. There are a number of programs you can install on your PC that will report a change in IP address to the ZoneEdit.com server if you get a new IP address when you boot up. The program I am using on my PC for that purpose is called 'Dynamic DNS Client' and can be purchased on the Internet for a mere ten dollars. Then you can set your PC up on your cablemodem, DSL, or whatever other high speed Internet connection you might have. 73, Fred, WB4AEJ On Mon, 03 May 2004 15:44:36 GMT, William Warren wrote: > Fred Atkinson wrote in message > news:telecom23.221.13@telecom-digest.org: >> Some time back, I sent you an email asking for another link on the >> telecom-digest.org site. I never saw it up there. Did you ever see >> it? >> It's for ham radio operators, but it's IT related. And there are >> a good number of hams in the IT/telecom community. >> The name of the article is Your Own Ham Domain and the URL is (on >> my ham domain site, appropriately enough): >> http://www.wb4aej.com/hamdomain > Pat, > Fred's basically saying that ham operators can get their call sign as a > domain name. Since I'm a ham, I'll mention a couple of things hams (or > anybody, for that matter) can do. > 1. Use Godaddy: they're charging $7.95 a year for new domain right now. If > anyone knows a better price, please pass it along. http://www.godaddy.com/. > 2. You can put your web site on your own server if you have dsl or > cable (always on) connections. You'll need a "dynamic" dns like > http://www.dyndns.org/, but that's easy to set up. You can either pay > the dns provider to handle your domain (dyndns is about $25/year), or > Godaddy will forward it for you, free, and you can get the Javascript > from Fred's site to show it as the destination when people click > in. Just be sure you know what you're doing, because it means keeping > a computer on 27/7/365, and keeping up with patches too. On the plus > side, you can assign yourself any email address you want, and then > delete it if it gets spam; this is great for those places that make > you supply an email address when you register, because you can turn > one on, get the serial number, and then never be annoyed by them > again. > 3. The ampr.org domain, which is the 44.0.0.0 network, is the ham's > "real" home, since it's for AMateur Packet Radio. Any ham can get a > free domain name that looks like http://w1aw.ampr.org/, and if you ask > nicely, they'll even put in an MX record so that email coming from the > Internet is redirected to your regular account at AOL or wherever, so > you can get email addressed to, e.g., w1aw@w1aw.ampr.org. Of course, > ampr.org is mostly for doing IP over AX.25, but they're not hard assed > about it. > 4. It's usually better to host your site on your ISP's computers, > since they do all the backups and maintenance for you. That way, you > get the best of all worlds. Most ISP's provide at least 5 MB of space > as part of your basic package, and that's more than enough for a > simple site, and you probably have an extra email address from your > ISP anyway, unless your kids already took them. > HTH. > William Warren > (Filter the noise out of my address for direct replies) ------------------------------ From: Vikram Sareen Subject: SMS Secure Query Date: Tue, 4 May 2004 15:49:36 +0530 Regarding your query posted in the URL : http://mirror.lcs.mit.edu/telecom-archives/telecom-archives/TELECOM_Digest_Online/0007.html Did you get the answer? If yes, then kindly share it with me. vikRAM ------------------------------ From: jsinger986@yahoo.com (jsinger986) Subject: Firewall (Pix) Not Getting IP (DHCP) on SBC DSL Date: 4 May 2004 08:50:02 -0700 Organization: http://groups.google.com My Cisco Pix 501 doesn't seem to be obtaining an IP address over my SBC Yahoo DSL connection. This identical configuration has worked properly with two other dsl providers and this is the first time I haven't been able to get it to work. Everything behind the firewall is working properly (multiple machines using NAT/DHCP). The pix's outside interface won't pick up an ip address and shows the following as its IP address: IP address 127.0.0.1, subnet mask 255.255.255.255 The SBC equipment I was provided with was a Efficient Networks Speedstream 5100. Here is some info from the Pix: Cisco PIX Firewall Version 6.1(1) Cisco PIX Device Manager Version 1.1(2) Hardware: PIX-501, 16 MB RAM, CPU Am5x86 133 MHz Result of PIX command: "sh int" interface ethernet0 "outside" is up, line protocol is up Hardware is i82559 ethernet, address is 0008.e317.c2a7 IP address 127.0.0.1, subnet mask 255.255.255.255 MTU 1500 bytes, BW 10000 Kbit half duplex 0 packets input, 0 bytes, 0 no buffer Received 0 broadcasts, 0 runts, 0 giants 0 input errors, 0 CRC, 0 frame, 0 overrun, 0 ignored, 0 abort 9 packets output, 5310 bytes, 0 underruns 0 output errors, 0 collisions, 0 interface resets 0 babbles, 0 late collisions, 0 deferred 9 lost carrier, 0 no carrier input queue (curr/max blocks): hardware (128/128) software (0/0) output queue (curr/max blocks): hardware (0/1) software (0/1) interface ethernet1 "inside" is up, line protocol is up Hardware is i82559 ethernet, address is 0008.e317.c2a8 IP address xxx.xxx.xxx.1, subnet mask 255.255.255.0 MTU 1500 bytes, BW 10000 Kbit full duplex 482 packets input, 53478 bytes, 0 no buffer Received 100 broadcasts, 0 runts, 0 giants 0 input errors, 0 CRC, 0 frame, 0 overrun, 0 ignored, 0 abort 377 packets output, 169529 bytes, 0 underruns 0 output errors, 0 collisions, 0 interface resets 0 babbles, 0 late collisions, 0 deferred 0 lost carrier, 0 no carrier input queue (curr/max blocks): hardware (128/128) software (0/3) output queue (curr/max blocks): hardware (1/7) software (0/7) Result of PIX command: "sh conf" ip address outside dhcp setroute ip address inside xxx.xxx.xxx.1 255.255.255.0 ip verify reverse-path interface outside arp timeout 14400 global (outside) 1 interface nat (inside) 1 xxx.xxx.xxx.0 255.255.255.0 0 0 http xxx.xxx.xxx.0 255.255.255.0 inside Thanks! ------------------------------ From: karimatmariano@yahoo.com (Karim T) Subject: Ip Telephony Service Provider Date: 4 May 2004 08:51:19 -0700 Organization: http://groups.google.com Hi! I live in Montreal, Canada and want to use IP telephony through an IP phone (that I can connect through a device to my regular DSL phone line, right?) Does anyone know of any service provider which offers this service? Also, I heard that I can connect my IP phone anywhere in the world, so does it really matter that I live in Montreal? (Thus, does the service provider have to be in Montreal?) Thank you. [TELECOM Digest Editor's Note: Yes you can do that, and http://vonage.com not long ago added Canada to the list of countries they serve. It does not matter if you are in Montreal or not, but you may want to get a local area number in Montreal if that is where you are located. Ask me for a promotional coupon (month's free service) if you want to check it out. PAT] ------------------------------ From: cphite@hotmail.com (Craig) Subject: GE Phone Issues Date: 4 May 2004 09:01:53 -0700 Organization: http://groups.google.com I have a GE 24.ghz phone that's been giving me some issues; I've tried contacting service (it's made by a company called Thomson) but so far I've not been able to get through, so I'm hoping someone here can offer some suggestions ... The problems started sometime after we got our DSL service turned on at a new apartment, but I think it's the phone and not the line. Anyway ... The main issue is with the answering machine. It will hang up on people who try to leave a message more than half the time, usually right after the beep but occasionally while they're recording. Also, there have been some occasions when we'll pick up the phone to answer a call and it seems to just hang up at that point. Also, if there is a phone message and we try to listen to it, it will sometimes stop playing partway through and "Initializing..." will be displayed on the base. If I remove the handset from the cradle and try playing the same message, it works perfectly. If I put the handset back in the cradle and try to play the same message, it is interrupted as before. This is why I suspect the phone and not the line. I suspected that it might be an issue with the handset, but I've switched that -- it's one of those models with the main base and a secondary base that can be placed in another room. Any suggestions would be appreciated. I suspect it's the phone, but don't want to buy a new one if it might be a line problem. The phone company did check the line and found no problems. Thanks, Craig ------------------------------ From: Wesrock@aol.com Date: Mon, 3 May 2004 19:38:09 EDT Subject: Re: Missouri Moves to Ban 'UnFees' - Part of Larger Backlash On Fri, 30 Apr 2004 05:26:21 GMT, Michael D. Sullivan wrote: >> Regulatory recovery charges typically seek to recover costs that have >> been imposed on carriers that are not figured into their standard rates, >> pursuant to provisions in tariffs or contracts that permit this. Other regulated businesses do not charge a "regulatory recovery charge." The food industry, for example, is heavily regulated from the farmer, and the farmer's suppliers, through each step of the way until the food reaches the consumer. Railroads and truck lines would be greeted with incredultiy if they tried to charge a "regulatory recovery charge." Both types of businesses are heavily regulated, particularly as to safety issues, and while they have much more freedom than before on economic and service issues, railroads in particular have to deal with the Surface Transportation Board and the Federal Railroad Administration. Would your stockbroker or your banker try to impose a "regulatory recovery charge"? Almost every business is heavily regulated. To impose a separate "regulatory recovery charge" is ridiculous. It's part of the cost of doing business. Wes Leatherock wesrock@aol.com ------------------------------ From: Hank Karl Subject: Re: Telemarketers Buy Suspicious Lists Date: Tue, 04 May 2004 12:52:06 -0400 Organization: NETPLEX Internet Services - http://www.ntplx.net/ On Fri, 30 Apr 2004 13:32:48 GMT, Fred Atkinson wrote: > If they pretend not to know about the DNC list, then that is one > you should definitely report to the FTC. If they get enough > complaints about them, they may well take action. From the FTC's publication on the Telemarketing Sales Rule (TSR): "It is a violation of the Rule to substantially assist a seller or telemarketer while knowing or consciously avoiding knowing that the seller or telemarketer is violating the Rule. Thus taking deliberate steps to ensure one's own ignorance of a seller or telemarketer's Rule violations is an ineffective strategy to avoid liability." Note It's illegal for most telemarketers to call into an area code without having a copy of the DNC list, but there are some exceptions. Per the TSR: "In addition, it's against the law for a telemarketer, calling on behalf of a seller, to call any person whose number is within a given area code unless the seller has first paid the annual fee for access to the portion of the National Registry that includes numbers within that area code." > Fred > On Tue, 3 Feb 2004 10:11:02 -0500, McWebber > wrote: >> Recently I got two calls from telemarketers that ask for my name and >> when I ask how they're spelling my name they give me a misspelling >> that exists only on the old Internic, (now Network Solutions), whois >> database. I got a call yesterday, despite being on the DNC list from >> (561-338-7877 Hunter Scott Financial) a telemarketer with some >> investment scam. Played dumb when I mentioned the DNC list and thought >> all they had to do was promise not to call me again. >> McWebber >> No email replies read >> If someone tells you to forward an email to all your friends >> please forget that I'm your friend. ------------------------------ From: a_user2000@yahoo.com (Justin Time) Subject: Re: Iraq/Westchester Area Code Date: 4 May 2004 12:14:15 -0700 Organization: http://groups.google.com kludge@panix.com (Scott Dorsey) wrote in message news:: > wrote: >> First thank you for the excellent work with Telecom Digest. >> I have a question: In the article >> http://www.nationinstitute.org/tomdispatch/index.mhtml?pid=1396 >> that speak of with a satellite phone, a regular Iraqi cell phone >> ("Iraqnafone"), and a special CPA phone with a 914 (Westchester, NY) >> area code just to stay in touch with people. Even then, most of the >> time you can't call one type of phone from the others. >> Why would you not be able to call one from another except for lack of >> coverage perhaps? > Almost certainly political issues. Everybody has their own fiefdom. > In Nigeria, there is a government telephone system, and there is a > Shell Oil telephone system, and there are only limited interconnection > trunks between them, whick work poorly when they work. > In the US, we had a number of businesses with independant telephone > networks, like the railroads. Bell Telephone did not like > interconnecting with them, for fear people would "leak" long distance > calls through the company networks. > --scott Gee, you wouldn't be referring to SP Comm, the Southern Pacific Railroad Internal Network Telecom system by any chance would you? Rodgers Platt ------------------------------ From: AES/newspost Subject: Re: Internet Phone Service DOESN'T Attract Wider Use Date: Tue, 04 May 2004 13:45:09 -0700 In article , VOIP News wrote: > Internet phone service -- also known as VoIP for voice over Internet > Protocol -- has been widely available to consumers for more than a > year through small companies such as VoicePulse, Vonage and > Packet8. So far, Americans have been slow to sign on. <<<<<<<<<<<<<< I'd suggest that this is in a large part a consequence of what happened to phone services broadly following deregulation: 1) A lot of the new phone services that emerged were in one way or another scams or were offered by scammers (e.g., all the offshoots of the 900 number system, or long distance services that advertised "two hour calls only 75 cents!" -- not mentioning that if you signed up for their service 30 second calls were 75 cents also). 2) As a general proposition, quality and reliability of service deteriorated all around. 3) Compatibility also -- one new service might or might not interface with another one. 4) Stability also -- new services and vendors came, went, and disappeared. 5) In general the complexity of offerings and of dealing with "the phone system" went way up, leading to massive confusion. I'm not listing these points to argue that deregulation should not have happened, just to note that all these negative consequences of deregulation *did* happen -- and that as a consequence of that, public trust of "the phone system" has gone *way* down. Perhaps equally important, the ability of consumers to get detailed, reliable and understandable information about services offered by either old line telcos or by innovators offering new services has gone way down as a result of telco cost-cutting and innovations in automation. The phrase "phone tree Hell" entered the language; a quick Google search will show how ubiquitous it is, and how universally it's hated. Bottom line: I'm a reasonably technically savvy "early adopter" of many technologies (computers, digital cameras, PDAs, consumer GPS, even residential WiFi and DSL), and I have no problem beliving that VOIP is the future -- but at the same time I believe that many others share my attitude of total distrust and disinterest toward *any* kind of new telephone service, until it's been around and checked out by many others, for several years at least. ------------------------------ From: spamguard@marky.com (Mark Rejhon) Subject: Does Modem Calls Work Over Vonage? Date: 4 May 2004 14:02:28 -0700 Organization: http://groups.google.com Hi, I am considering switching to Vonage Canada (which uses the same system as Vonage USA, including the Fax port option, etc). Right now, I use Primus TalkBroadband. At the moment, I use Magma DSL (www.magma.ca), which is a high-uptime business quality DSL provider in Ottawa that is only 17 milliseconds ping away from the TalkBroadband VoIP gateway, from my home. I successfully made a flawless 52Kbps modem connection over VoIP over TalkBroadband (Yes, 52Kbps). Because I am deaf, I require the ability to call modem and TDD phone numbers, (including Relay Services that converts typed text into voice and vice versa). Does faxes or modem calls work over Vonage (without getting a second modem phone line). Does Vonage use a lossless codec like Primus TalkBroadband does? (i.e. reliability will only be limited by quality of my ISP) Thanks, Mark Rejhon http://www.marky.com ------------------------------ From: Mark Crispin Subject: Re: Winning the Election The Republican Way Date: Mon, 3 May 2004 14:22:53 -0700 Organization: University of Washington On Mon, 3 May 2004, Gary Novosielski wrote: > "If you commit a felony in Florida, you lose your right to vote there, > and you're 'scrubbed' from the rolls. You become a non-citizen, like in > the old Soviet Union. This is not the case in most other states; it's an > uncivilized vestige of the Deep South. Hardly an unbiased article. Nothing like appealing to clueless northeast liberal prejudices about the south. "Most other states" (including northeast liberal states) also deny felons the right to vote, unless that felon goes through a fairly elaborate procedure to have civil rights restored. Besides voting, felons are also stripped of other civil rights. This includes Second Amendment rights. A middle-aged man found that out when he tried to buy a hunting rifle because of a "violent felony" on his record. The "violent felony" turned out to be a statutory rape conviction when he was 17. The "rape" had been discovered when the 17 year old "victim" became pregnant. They had subsequently been married for 35 years. The only reason why it ever got to court was that a Bible-thumping DA wasn't satisfied with a shotgun wedding. Unlike the procedure to get voting rights restored, it is almost impossible to get gun rights restored. There is a procedure in law to do that via application to the Justice Department, but the Democrats in Congress have blocked any funding for the procedure. The legal term for extinction of civil rights is "Attainder". Contrary to what the uneducated may think, attainder *does* exist in the US. The Constitutional prohibition is of a "Bill of Attainder"; that is, a law passed in the legislature or a regulation in the executive branch to extinguish a named individual's civil rights. Courts, on the other hand, are quite able to attaint. The English Parliament was quite willing to pass Bills of Attainder at the whims of the ruling monarch, and this was an abuse that the Founding Fathers wanted to prevent in the US. There's a related concept in English law called "corruption of blood" which was also significantly limited by the US Constitution; this bars an attainted person from inheriting, retaining, or transmitting any assets. In the US, corruption of blood ceases when the attainted person dies, thus his heirs can claim any assets still in his possession. -- Mark -- http://staff.washington.edu/mrc Science does not emerge from voting, party politics, or public debate. Si vis pacem, para bellum. ------------------------------ From: Charles Cryderman Subject: Winning the Election The Republican Way Date: Tue, 4 May 2004 08:52:40 -0400 Gary Novosielski whined some more: > Consider the following quote from Greg Palast, investigative reporter for > BBC Considering the BBC is one of the biggest of the media left wing I don't care what he says. As to his "quote" about the blacks I have no doubt he made that up for effect, it wouldn't be the first time the BBC made up a lie for their political purposes. You talk about the optical scan ballots not scanning correctly, well how dumb are you that you can't complete a arrow, I don't think they are qualified to vote if they can't do something that simple. And of course leave it to a BBC reported the imply that there are other problems out there without providing proof, or was it so little you chose not to provide it because it wouldn't advance your cause? But then you missed the whole point of my e-mail in the first place, "Get over it". Gore couldn't even win his own state. Chip Cryderman ------------------------------ Date: Mon, 03 May 2004 15:27:01 +0100 From: Miikka Kiprusoff Subject: HDTV and Bush Reply-To: miikka@calgaryweb.net J Kelly wrote about Re: Feds: No Analog TV by '09 on Date: Thu, 29 Apr 2004 17:41:47 -0500: > I find the gray bars unacceptable, black I could live with. But what > is the point when 90%+ is in 4:3 anyway. As somebody else already pointed out, the gray bars are easier on your TV than the black ones. "Unacceptable" is an absolute. Are gray bars really a deal-breaker for you? Wow. That's incredibly picky. Your figure of 90%+ is inaccurate, at least as far as the big networks are concerned. Much of their primetime lineup is now HDTV widescreen. Heck, even reruns of TV shows such as Babylon 5 (which went on the air in 1992, 14 years ago) are in widescreen. If you can't find widescreen content, then you're not looking for it. (That said, watching ABC's Saturday afternoon broadcasts of the hockey playoffs is laughable: their entire broadcast is 4:3 standard definition, but the locally-inserted commercials and promos are 16:9 widescreen. ABC should be hanging their collective heads in shame.) But more to the point: in five year's time, pretty much all first-run programming is going to be 16:9 widescreen. Sure, you can buy a 4:3 TV today and smirk at us idiots who are "wasting" precious screen real estate. But five years down the road, the situation is going to be reversed. We're going to be using every inch of our screens, while you'll be watching letterboxed content on your 4:3 set (which you had to equip with a digital-to-analog converter box), wasting several inches on the top and bottom of the screen. Enjoy your sense of superiority while you can. Then Pat chimed in with: > With NPR, however, its a bit harder to administratively get them to > shut up. 'Propoganda' is what Bush claims NPR is dishing out; I must have missed this Bush quote. You'd think it'd be a well known quote, as it's quite a controversial thing to say. Can you cite the date he claimed NPR is dishing out propaganda (note correct spelling), and which publications carried it? Or is this just another example of you inventing facts to fit your bias? [TELECOM Digest Editor's Note: And I must have missed reading the Digest the day I added the above quote to what began as a message on 'No Analog TV by 09'. I *did* make the statement attributed to me, but do not recall it getting in with the 'No Analog TV' thread. As I said to you in private email, I do not know the exact dates when NPR made statements Bush disagreed with, nor the instance of Bush speaking against NPR for their alleged statements, only that it was earlier this year; check the news tickers on the net or Yahoo News, etc. But as I also said to you, I will mark and remember the date (April 30/May 1) when ABC News and others broke the news about how American soldiers were abusing Iraqi prisoners of war sexually and otherwise in complete contravention of the Geneva code. All the while Bush was telling us that the Iraqi goverment was so horrible (I agree), Bush's military was busily engaged in sodomizing and otherwise humiliating Iraqi men. Bush finally (as of yesterday, Monday) owned up to it once some twenty prisoners of war told their horrible stories of getting photgraphed nude in lewd postures, and frequently raped. The Iraqi papers have been full of the news and pictures, etc for two or three days; even the very conservative news sources here in the USA have been dealing with it a lot in the past two days. It appears that the American atrocities were committed in the very same prison where Saddam Hussein had committed his, according to Bush. Now we can understand why a country that was beginning a little to calm down after the war exploded as much as it has in the past month or so. The people there are quite offended by all this. So am I; so are most decent people. I have to wonder if the American soldiers who were involved in this will be put on trial, and upon conviction be stigmatized by the very same 'sex offender' label placed on civilians who are found guilty of the same crimes. It is all very doubtful, IMO. I doubt Bush will remember this for very long, if he is allowed to forget about it. What is more amazing to me is why *Canadians* (even those in Alberta, who it is alleged feel quite strongly about conservative USA politics) can't just get the point and 'BUTT OUT' of USA affairs. Damn, you'd think *they thought* they were USA citizens. PAT] ------------------------------ From: Charles Cryderman Subject: Re: VoIP Analogy Date: Tue, 4 May 2004 16:04:39 -0400 Lisa Hancock wrote: "(In poor times, people would go into a cafeteria and take free hot water and ketchup to make soup." Ketchup soup was a main stay in the barracks when I was in Germany with the Army. Come to the end of the month we'd be broke (working shift we got separate rations and didn't use the mess hall) so we'd buy a bottle of ketchup and saltines, nuke some water, and there you have it, tomato soup. Chip Cryderman ------------------------------ 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 #225 ******************************