From editor@telecom-digest.org Wed May 5 19:37:29 2004 Received: (from ptownson@localhost) by massis.lcs.mit.edu (8.11.6p3/8.11.3) id i45NbTA16483; Wed, 5 May 2004 19:37:29 -0400 (EDT) Date: Wed, 5 May 2004 19:37:29 -0400 (EDT) From: editor@telecom-digest.org Message-Id: <200405052337.i45NbTA16483@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 #227 TELECOM Digest Wed, 5 May 2004 19:36:28 EDT Volume 23 : Issue 227 Inside This Issue: Editor: Patrick A. Townson Re: GE Phone Issues (Tony P.) Data Validation and Certification Server Protocols (Majeri, M.I.) Re: Missouri Moves to Ban UnFees Part of Larger Backlash (Mike D. Sullivan) Re: Missouri Moves to Ban UnFees Part of Larger Backlash (Gary Novosielski) Re: Winning the Election The Republican Way (Lisa Hancock) Re: Winning the Election The Republican Way (Gary Novosielski) Re: Winning the Election The Republican Way (John Smith) 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: Tony P. Subject: Re: GE Phone Issues Organization: ATCC Date: Wed, 05 May 2004 05:18:43 GMT In article , cphite@hotmail.com says: > 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 ... Welcome to the world of Thompson Electronics, by far the crappiest electronic gear out there. I've got a 4 year old GE television that's starting to red out. But then, my other gripe is my RS 900MHz phone that supposedly understands CLID on CW. But I don't CLID on CW - and listening on a regular phone I don't hear the data stream and I should. Verizon has been unable to figure out the problem. > 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. Sounds like the volume level is low. You've got DSL so your loop length is more than likely < 15K feet. Might be a bad phone. > 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. Yes, it's sounding more and more like a bad handset. It looses sync with the base too often. > 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. Out of curiosity, you're not by chance running a wireless network are you? They sit right on the 2.4GHz band where phones do. Talk about a problem just waiting to happen. ------------------------------ Subject: Data Validation and Certification Server Protocols Date: Wed, 5 May 2004 15:03:20 +0200 From: Majeri, M.I. I am trying to write a summary report about "Data Validation and Certification Server Protocols". I was wondering if it could be possible that you provide me with some useful informations to help me in my task ? I look forward to hearing from you. Best regards, IKBAL ------------------------------ From: Michael D. Sullivan Subject: Re: Missouri Moves to Ban 'UnFees' - Part of Larger Backlash Date: Wed, 05 May 2004 06:28:37 GMT In article , Wesrock@aol.com says: > 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. Looked at your gas or electric bill lately? An airline ticket? All of these pass through to the end-user various government "fees," "charges," and "taxes" that are levied on the provider. How about a car rental? A 1-week rental with a base rate of, say, $300, ends up being about $500 when all of the mandatory line items (gross receipts taxes levied on the provider, airport surcharge, etc.) are added on -- and this is before the CDW and similar charges are computed. The big difference between RR/Truck and telecom companies is that the RR and trucking companies are not assessed separate charges by regulators based on their customers' usage to, for example, subsdize the construction of loading docks for schools, libraries, or hospitals or to subsidize rural area delivery services or rural track-laying. That's what USF, in effect, does: it subsidizes services and facilities unrelated to the telecom carrier who is required to pay (internet wiring of schools and libraries and broadband access for rural healthcare). Moreover, wireless carriers have had to lay out significant dollars to make it easier for customers to desert their service (wireless number portability). Is there some reason this ought to come out of the carriers' profits, if any (or increase their losses), instead of coming from the pockets of the customers who now have the ability to port their numbers? And what about the fees or taxes imposed by state regulators on wireless carriers' gross receipts to fund upgrades to emergency centers' ablility to respond to E911 calls? Should the carrier internalize these costs, too, by taking them out of earnings as a cost of doing business? What if the state diverts the funds collected to fix up state trooper barracks (as happened in NY)? It seems to me that these are external costs that the carrier is entitled to pass through to the consumer. If the state doesn't follow through on the purpose of the assessment, it seems to me, consumers should be pissed at the state, not the carrier who jacked up their rates. > Would your stockbroker or your banker try to impose a > "regulatory recovery charge"? Actually, yes. I have gotten confirmations from Merrill Lynch, Citibank Smith Barney, and E*Trade with line items next to the commission for SEC Fee or the like. Not on every one, just some. No explanation. > Almost every business is heavily regulated. To impose a > separate "regulatory recovery charge" is ridiculous. It's part of the > cost of doing business. I don't suppose you pay the costs imposed on the oil companies to support the highway trust fund, known as the gasoline tax. And then there's the sales tax. It should just be a cost of doing business, you would think. I also suppose that when you go to the auto dealer's service department, you take exception to the 10-15% "shop supplies" or similar charge and the dollar- or percentage-based recycling charge for used oil and fluid disposal? Michael D. Sullivan Bethesda, MD, USA Delete nospam from my address and it won't work. ------------------------------ From: Gary Novosielski Subject: Re: Missouri Moves to Ban 'UnFees' - Part of Larger Backlash Date: Wed, 05 May 2004 07:02:39 GMT Wesrock@aol.com wrote: The Regulatory Recovery Charge is important to do away with on principle, before the telcos get the idea of expanding these "recovery charges" into other areas for which they failed to properly plan. Imagine the cost to consumers if they ever decided to pass on a management malfeasance recovery charge, for instance. You can probably think of others. ------------------------------ From: hancock4@bbs.cpcn.com (Lisa Hancock) Subject: Re: Winning the Election The Republican Way Date: 4 May 2004 15:26:21 -0700 Organization: http://groups.google.com 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. I need to correct an inaccuracy in the above post. In _many_ states (if not most), you lose your right to vote upon conviction of a felony crime. This is by no means just Florida or southern states. The use of the comparison phrase "like in the old Soviet Union" suggests the writer is using propaganda, not facts. It is also not accurate. In the Soviet Union, those declared non-citizens disappeared, that is, were shot in the head and buried in a mass grave, or sent out to slave labor camps. FWIW, many people in the news media painstakingly recounted by hand the ballots and found that Bush won by a very small margin. Apparently it is easier to blame Bush and the Repubs for the outcome rather than perhaps the Dems not working harder to get out the vote, designing a confusing ballot, and getting Nader out of the race. Had Nader been out, Gore would've easily won. [TELECOM Digest Editor's Note: My question is for *what period of time* does a 'convicted felon' lose the right to vote or his other rights? Is it for some number of years, or forever, or? If it is forever then it would appear to me that as more and more American citizens get convicted of rather petty (yet, feloneous) acts such as minor drug things -- a very popular type of police 'bust' then fewer and fewer people would be eligible to vote. Prisons are overloaded with people convicted on drug charges. Don't any of them ever get to vote again? And what happens to someone situated like this who goes ahead and votes in an election anyway? Is that still another felony he committed? PAT] ------------------------------ From: Gary Novosielski Subject: Re: Winning the Election The Republican Way Date: Wed, 05 May 2004 06:51:41 GMT Mark Crispin wrote: > 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. Be that as it may, you've missed the point of the article. A follow-up test showed that over 90% of the people on the so-called "felons" list were NOT actually guilty of ANY crime whatsoever. They were improperly deprived of their right to vote, and the primary selection criterion for doing so appeared to be their race. Since blacks voted overwhelmingly for Gore where their votes WERE counted, any strategy designed to depress turnout, eligibility, or counting of ballots in predominantly black districts would act to benefit Bush. If not for these fraudulent activities by Jeb and Kathleen, George would have lost Florida by thousands to tens of thousands of votes. =Gary [TELECOM Digest Editor's Note: Well, many of that 90 percent were 'guilty' of being black, weren't they, and probably some police officer somewhere took a dislike to them. PAT] ------------------------------ From: John Smith Subject: Re: Winning the Election The Republican Way Date: Wed, 05 May 2004 07:13:54 GMT Charles Cryderman wrote: > 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. It's not an arrow, it's a circle or other small mark. The ballots looked perfectly fine to the researchers who checked them, but were marked "spoiled" allegedly because the machine could not read them. You assumed that the ballots were actually marked incorrectly, and you assumed it was due to stupidity. And when you're done assuming all that without any apparent basis, you turn around and say that I've provided no proof? Of what earthly use would proof be to someone with that many preconceptions. > 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? No, I didn't provide it because I'm not the one who wrote the book. If you want the full details and footnotes, visit your library. ------------------------------ 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 #227 ******************************