From editor@telecom-digest.org Thu May 6 17:09:46 2004 Received: (from ptownson@localhost) by massis.lcs.mit.edu (8.11.6p3/8.11.3) id i46L9kn26308; Thu, 6 May 2004 17:09:46 -0400 (EDT) Date: Thu, 6 May 2004 17:09:46 -0400 (EDT) From: editor@telecom-digest.org Message-Id: <200405062109.i46L9kn26308@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 #228 TELECOM Digest Thu, 6 May 2004 17:09:00 EDT Volume 23 : Issue 228 Inside This Issue: Editor: Patrick A. Townson Pulver.com Announces Inaugural VON Canada (VOIP News) Africa Can Only Gain From Legalising VOIP (VOIP News) Phone Service Of The Future Saves Money (VOIP News) Free World Dialup Now Supports Asterisk (VOIP News) Vonage (John Jones) Blackberry Won't Delete Web Email (Brent Wheeler) Re: Winning the Election The Republican Way (Gary Novosielski) Re: Winning the Election The Republican Way (Michael Chance) Re: Winning the Election The Republican Way (Charles Cryderman) Re: Winning the Election The Republican Way (Lou Jahn) Re: HDTV and Bush (Gene S. Berkowitz) Re: Important (verification) (Clive) Hopefully, Last Word on Voting Democratic/Republican (Charles Cryderman) Newspaper Promotes Nonsense on Guns (alan@gunlaws.com) 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, 06 May 2004 10:25:02 -0400 Subject: Pulver.com Announces Inaugural VON Canada Reply-To: VoIPnews@yahoogroups.com http://www.prnewswire.com/cgi-bin/stories.pl?ACCT=104&STORY=/www/story/05-06-2004/0002168662&EDATE= Skype Speaks: CEO Niklas Zennstrom to Deliver First Ever North America Speech in Conference Keynote MELVILLE, N.Y., May 6 /PRNewswire/ -- Pulver.com announces that the inaugural VON Canada 2004, the premier global Conference series bringing together key executives and thought leaders from the IP Communications and VoIP industry, will take place May 18th-20th in Toronto, Canada at the Markham Conference Centre. IP Communications, Voice over Internet Protocol (VoIP) in particular, has emerged as the most pressing telecom issue in Canada this year. VON Canada 2004 (http://www.voncanada.com) provides the ideal venue for stakeholders to gather together to discuss, explore and debate the critical issues impacting the Canadian IP Communications industry today, and developments that will shape the industry going forward. According to a study released last year by the International Telecommunication Union (ITU), Canada ranks third in the world with just over 11 broadband subscribers per 100 inhabitants. Because the Canadian market is ripe for innovation that can capitalize on high broadband penetration, it is not surprising that the VoIP industry has received increased attention from regulators, traditional phone service providers, cable companies, investors and government officials in Canada. This year's Conference will examine the industry's pressing issues, showcase new products and services, and enable participants to hear from the industry leaders, regulators and key decision-makers shaping VoIP's future. Featured speakers include: * Niklas Zennstrom, CEO, Skype (First North America Speech) * Dr. Robert Pepper, Chief of Policy Development, Federal Communications Commission * John Yoakum, Emerging Opportunities, Nortel Networks * Lawson Hunter, Executive Vice President, Bell Canada & Bell Canada Emergis * Eugene Romans, CTO, Bell Canada * Jeff Pulver, CEO, Pulver.com * Peter Briscoe, CEO, Convedia * Girish Pathak, Chief Customer Strategist, Telus * David Cork, COO, Natural Convergence VON Canada 2004 will examine the most critical and thought-provoking issues facing the IP Communications industry today, including: * The VoIP Regulatory Climate in Canada * VoIP in the Enterprise * VoIP for Call Centers * Canadian VoIP Venture Capital * The Roll Out of Consumer Voice Services * VoIP Implications for Social Policy * SIP Standards * The Future of VoIP in Canada The VON exhibit hall will feature companies demonstrating the best of what the industry has to offer. For additional Conference information on attendee registration, accommodations, directions, sponsoring and exhibiting, please visit http://www.voncanada.com About VON Conferences Today, expected attendance at the United States VON's, held in the fall and spring, reaches over 2,000. Additional VONs are held in Europe and Canada as well. Attendees include leading technologists and business people from major telephone and networking companies, as well as small Internet start-ups. Hundreds of speakers and exhibitors complement registered delegates to establish a vibrant atmosphere of networking and learning. Jeff proudly proclaims a zero "walking-dead" index -- in other words, everybody you encounter will be a potential supplier, customer, partner, or competitor. This is a focused industry conference, not a flashy show for disinterested outsiders. About Pulver.com Jeff Pulver is the President and CEO of pulver.com, and one of the true pioneers of the Internet telephony/VoIP industry. Mr. Pulver is a globally renowned thought leader, author and entrepreneur. He is the publisher of The Pulver Report and VON magazine, and creator of the industry standard Voice on the Net (VON) conferences. Additionally, Mr. Pulver is the founder of Free World Dialup (FWD), the VON coalition, LibreTel, WHP Wireless, pulverinnovations, Digisip, and is the co-founder of VoIP provider, Vonage. Recently, Mr. Pulver's petition for clarification declaring Free World Dialup as an unregulated information service was granted by the Federal Communications Commission (FCC). This landmark decision by the FCC, now referred to as "the Pulver decision", was the first decision made by the FCC on IP communications, and provides important clarification that computer-to- computer VoIP service is not a telecommunications service. SOURCE pulver.com Web Site: http://www.voncanada.com http://www.pulver.com ---------------------------------------- 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, 06 May 2004 10:23:14 -0400 Subject: Africa Can Only Gain From Legalising VOIP Reply-To: VoIPnews@yahoogroups.com http://www.itweb.co.za/sections/telecoms/2004/0405061007.asp?A=AFN&S=All%20Africa%20News&O=FPT BY RODNEY WEIDEMANN, ITWEB TELECOMS EDITOR [Cairo | ITWeb, 6 May 2004] - Africa only stands to gain through the legalisation of voice over IP (VoIP) technology, as it can allow developing nations to 'leapfrog' to the forefront of the telecommun- ications market. This is the view of Dan Powdermaker, senior VP for worldwide sales at iBasis, a VOIP provider, addressing delegates at the ITU Telecom Africa 2004 conference in Cairo. He said there are numerous myths surrounding the concept of VOIP, such as that it is an idea that does not work, it is a technology that can be blocked and it is designed to aid new entrants into the telecoms market, while hurting incumbent operators. Full story at: http://www.itweb.co.za/sections/telecoms/2004/0405061007.asp?A=AFN&S=All%20Africa%20News&O=FPT ------------------------------ From: VOIP News Date: Thu, 06 May 2004 11:18:21 -0400 Subject: Phone Service Of The Future Saves Money Reply-To: VoIPnews@yahoogroups.com http://www.theksbwchannel.com/money/3269527/detail.html Consumers Need Broadband Connection, Special Adaptor SALINAS, Calif. -- How would you like to have several phone numbers linked to your home phone, all with different area codes? Or how would you like to be able to get your home calls wherever you go? It's all possible, thanks to the phone service of the future -- and the future is here. Charlie Roffe recently switched to using a broadband Internet connection to talk on the phone. "The quality of the sound is great. Most people have not been able to tell that there's a difference," Roffe said. The Internet phone service, which is officially called Voice over Internet Protocol, or VoIP, has been around for a while, but consumers used to have to use a computer to talk. Now that consumers can use their ordinary handset, experts say VOIP is about to burst onto the scene. "It is the communications technology for the next century. So, buckle your seat belts because you're going to have access to technologies, and they're going to blow you away," said telecommunications analyst Jeff Kagan. Full story at: http://www.theksbwchannel.com/money/3269527/detail.html ------------------------------ From: VOIP News Date: Thu, 06 May 2004 11:55:43 -0400 Subject: Free World Dialup Now Supports Asterisk Reply-To: VoIPnews@yahoogroups.com This is from The Jeff Pulver Blog at http://192.246.69.231/jeff/personal/ These days user of real-time communication networks including Free World Dialup are at times still challenged when needing to traverse some home NATs and Firewalls. Last year the FWD team started work on supporting protocols in addition to SIP and I'm happy to announce that we are formally supporting the Inter-Asterisk eXchange Protocol (version 2) - IAX2 on the FWD Network. This is in addition to our "experimental" peering support of both H.323 and Cisco Call Manager. We have found that there are times that IAX2 is able to traverse NATs and Firewalls better than SIP. In fact, Free World Dialup now encourages all members who are using Asterisk to connect with FWD using our IAX2 proxy. Details regarding the FWD/IAX support is available on the FWD website. After subscribing to this new feature, Asterisk users can use their FWD number and password to register their asterisk service and connect with any FWD number. Posted by jeff at 05:13 AM ------------------------------ From: John Jones Subject: Vonage Questions Date: Thu, 6 May 2004 11:34:28 -0400 I am considering switching to Vonage from SBC. I would like your advice on the matter. I have a WideOpenWest 4Gbs connection with an SMC 7004ABR Router. My connection is lightly used (I stress lightly). I am in the 614 area code. What type of service can I expect from Vonage? I have heard about no dial tones, poor sound quality (duplexing), etc. Do you recommend switching? Thanks, John T. Jones 2003 National Dean's List Honoree "Talent does what it can; Genius does what it must" -- Edward Bulwer-Lytton (1803-1873) [TELECOM Digest Editor's Note: Well, bearing in mind that I am possibly a little prejudiced (I do not think so, but I am sure that some readers would say I am), I would suggest that Vonage would be a good thing for you to try. Its not a 'typical phone service' in the sense you call the company, they turn it on, install it and your only 'obligation' is to pay the bill each month and otherwise bitch and moan about the cost, the rules and regulations, etc. It greatly helps if you have some knowledge about computers, networking and stuff like that. The 'no dial tone' problems generally occur when vonage.com is unable to 'see your box' becaause of firewalls, network congestion, etc. 'Poor sound quality' is nearly always a bandwidth issue, and the newer style Vonage adapters (they are now giving out Motorola MTA adapters instead of the older style Cisco ATA-186 boxes) to cure most of that. My suggestion is DO NOT give up your SBC service, at least not at first. Have it available; run SBC and Vonage in parallel until you are satisfied. You can get Vonage (the adapter and first month of service paid in advance) for a hundred dollars or less. Plug it in, try it and fine tune it as needed for your own network. Then, whatever type of service package you bought (prices range from $14.99 per month to around $50 per month; whatever you need) you can get the **second month of service** completely free with an e-coupon. (Ask me). After two months you should have been able to make your mind up. PAT] ------------------------------ From: mrbrent62@yahoo.com (Brent Wheeler) Subject: Blackberry Won't Delete Web Email Date: 6 May 2004 09:05:42 -0700 Organization: http://groups.google.com I wonder if anyone has heard of this or maybe has a fix. There are two people in my company who use Blackberry's for their email. One's provider is T-Mobile the other is Cingular. When they get an email on their Blackberry and delete it, it doesn't delete from their web in-box through the provider. They have to go online from a PC and delete the messages. Shouldn't the message delete from the web-client if they delete on the Blackberry. The mailbox ends up filling up. We have another user with a Blackberry minus the built-in phone and his works fine. T-mobile says it's Groupwise which is our email here at work. Any help would be appreciated C. Brent Wheeler BPJ ------------------------------ From: Gary Novosielski Subject: Re: Winning the Election The Republican Way Date: Thu, 06 May 2004 04:35:02 GMT Lisa Hancock wrote: > FWIW, many people in the news media painstakingly recounted by hand > the ballots and found that Bush won by a very small margin. INWM. I'm curious about how could they count ballots which were never cast. The tens of thousands of predominantly black law abiding citizens on the scrub list had been denied the right to vote, remember? [TELECOM Digest Editor's Note: The way I read that, they were not denied the right (in the first place) to approach the ballot box and cast their vote; but rather, in a regular, routine audit of the voters who appeared to cast votes, they were disqualified later on the basis of their alleged felony crimes. Did I get that wrong? PAT] ------------------------------ From: Michael Chance Subject: Re: Winning the Election The Republican Way Organization: SBC http://yahoo.sbc.com Date: Thu, 06 May 2004 09:15:26 GMT John Smith wrote: > No, [Bush] was appointed by the Supreme Court when the election fraud > perpetrated by his brother Jeb began to unravel, and time was of the > essense. You know, it continues to amaze me that somehow the facts that: 1) A Democrat designed the infamous "butterfly ballot" that supposedly cost Gore votes; 2) Several counties with high African-American populations had a disproportionately high number of voters turned away by election authorities controlled by Democrats; 3) In many of the same counties, sheriffs departments headed by elected Democrats were reported to have intimidated minority voters into not voting; 4) lawyers for Democrat candidate Al Gore succeeded in disqualifying hundreds of absentee military votes (which were cast predominantly for George W. Bush); 5) the Voters News Service announced an hour before the polls closed in the western panhandle part of Florida that Gore had won Florida, depressing the predominantly Republican vote in that part of the state; are evidence of a *Republican* conspiracy to steal the election for Bush. But, of course, none of this discussion is telecom related. Michael Chance [TELECOM Digest Editor's Note: You are right, none of it is telecom- related, which is the reason for our existence here, so as much fun as this discussion has been, I really need to close it down, after maybe another day. Meanwhile, a couple more last minute thoughts from some readers on the same topic will follow. Regards your point number 5 above on announcements being made while polls are still open, the east coast people have messed up the west coast voters like that for years. At least now the news services do not announce at 6 PM *Eastern time* the purported winners and screw the west coast people out of three hours of voting time. I've heard of plans that could eliminate the time differences entirely, by adjusting the times of polls open/closed such as opening/closing east coast polling places three hours later i.e. open 9 to 9 while west coast places were open 6 to 6 so they would all open and close in a contemporaneous fashion. Or maybe split the difference by two hours, and having Alaska and Hawaii start at midnight and close at noon. Guam and the Pacific Trust area would vote on *Monday* instead of Tuesday. Then unless the news services wanted to use the Hawaii and Pacific Trust areas as their predictions of winners, they would just have to cool their heels and wait until the others closed **at the same time**. PAT] ------------------------------ From: Charles Cryderman Subject: Re: Winning the Election The Republican Way Date: Thu, 6 May 2004 10:54:16 -0400 Master Pat, our esteemed moderator asked: > 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, felonious) 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, This is decided by each state by law. Here in Michigan you lose your right to vote after being convicted of a felony and are serving time. Once you are out of jail or prison your right to vote is fully restored. I believe this is as it should be. If there was a attempt to restrict voter rights more then that I don't think they could get any further then maybe adding the time you are on parole or probation. Michigan is a strong "voter's right" state and I plan to do my best to make it that way. Now some other states take away the right with a "venting process" that is dang near impossible to meet. That is wrong. Chip!!! ------------------------------ From: Lou Jahn Subject: Re: Winning the Election The Republican Way Date: Wed, 5 May 2004 21:31:46 -0400 Organization: Info Partners Corp. In V23#227: Subject: Re: Winning the Election The Republican Way Gary Novosielski wrote responding to Mark Crispin: > 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. Obviously Gary does not let facts get in the way of his argument. Is good that history recorded the true facts: 1) The voting registration and voting procedures in four major districts having voter problems were managed by Democrats. 2) The four counties had 2 recounts by November 8, 2000, with President Bush still winning. 3) If Gore's campaign had asked for a total Florida "manual" recount (of all 67 counties) rather than their request for only four counties to be recounted in an attempt to "pick and choose" selective districts they expected to be favorable to his cause, he would have had a legitimate and legal recount. 4) When the Florida Supreme Court violated their own Florida law on granting selective versus total recounts, and allowed the four recounts to proceed without establishing an overall standard of measurement, they effectively created "new voting law" for those four districts. This rightfully opened the Republican suit to the Federal Supreme Court, asking them to stop the Florida Supreme from making "new voting law". So while the Democrats in "charge of the four districts" in effect blew the voting process, that was then mis-managed by the Gore team in not asked for a full recount, where and how did the Republicans do anything wrong? If Gore was not smart enough to manage a simple recount based on established law, how could he have ever managed the countries business? I suggest it is time for many people to get on with their lives! Lou Jahn ------------------------------ From: Gene S. Berkowitz Subject: Re: HDTV and Bush Date: Wed, 5 May 2004 22:46:52 -0400 In article , miikka@calgaryweb.net says: > 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. Actually, no. In five years time, I'll be watching 16:9 content on a _new_ monitor, which, thanks to advances in technology and stiff competition among the set manufacturers, will cost 30-50% less, will be intelligent enough to discern 4:3 from 16:9 content automatically, will have improved power management to preserve pixels not used when displaying 4:3 content, have better interpolation algorithms so that old NTSC doesn't look like it's being viewed through a radiator grille, will incorporate the CableCard standard so no set-top box is required, and will have Tivo-like DVR functionality built in. And I will have to thank the early adopters for making it all possible, by paying too much today. --Gene ------------------------------ From: Clive Reply-To: Clive Subject: Important (Verification) Date: Thu, 06 May 2004 07:54:01 -0700 Clive here, I'm protecting myself from receiving junk mail. Just this once, click the link below so I can receive your emails. You won't have to do this again. http://spamarrest.com/a2?ZGp2ZQZjZGcjqT93oaAioxOgLKAmnKZhoTAmYz1cqP5yMUHj Spam Arrest - Take control of your inbox! http://spamarrest.com/affl?1760301 You are receiving this message in response to your email to Clive, a Spam Arrest customer. Spam Arrest requests that senders verify themselves before their email is delivered. When you click the above link, you will be taken to a page with a graphic on it. Simply read the word in the graphic, type it into the form, and you're verified. You will only need to do this once per Spam Arrest customer. [TELECOM Digest Editor's Note: My problem, Clive, is in typing in such a huge, ugly URL or cut and paste, etc when I am working with a *text-based* journal. Yes, I could easily forward this message to my personal account and then yes, the link for me to click on would stand out and I could just click on it, but I am afraid your Spam Arrest would then white list or authorize 'Patrick Townson' at my personal cableone.net address instead of 'TELECOM Digest' or 'editor@telecom-digest.org' and I do not think that is what you want to do. On the other hand, in the process of getting sent out, this Digest is also run through a pseudo 'HTML on the fly' sort of thing called 'TELECOM Digest Online' on our web page. So in a few minutes I will go by there, and click on the link at that point. Presuming your Spam Arrest only looks at what response is typed to the graphics then I should be all set. If that is true -- that only an answer to a graphic matters, and Spam Arrest pays no attention to the actual site of the 'sender' of the message, then we are all set. On the other hand, so is everyone else around here who can read English and respond, including the more advanced and sophisticated among the Spammer species. That 'click on this link and respond to this graphic' thing should get quite a workout when this message goes out. I hope they are all the responses you want. PAT] ------------------------------ From: Charles Cryderman Subject: The Last Word, Hopefully, on Voting like a Republican in Florida Date: Thu, 6 May 2004 11:00:07 -0400 John Smith (real name?, just kidding) replied to me: > 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. As I told you in my private e-mail, I have only used the arrows and never seen the dots. But again, if you can't fill in a dot there should be question raised about your competency. Chip Cryderman ------------------------------ Date: Thu, 6 May 2004 13:03:00 -0400 From: alan@gunlaws.com Subject: Newspaper Promotes Nonsense The story, "Dad, Teen Track Gun Use" reaches unsupported conclusions, but gets front-page coverage anyway. By Alan Korwin, Author Gun Laws of America In a nutshell: An ASU professor and his young son counted some newspaper stories on gun use, and from this concluded that guns are rarely used in self defense. The results of this "research" appeared on the front page of "The Tribune" (Arizona) and is being published in the Canadian journal "Injury Prevention." The results, declared scientific by the professor, were said to cast doubt on a famous scholarly study (Kleck, 1995) that found guns are used constantly in self defense. The father and son conclude that perhaps guns should be sold, "without bullets." My open letter to Prof. Fabricius (and ASU leaders, the newspaper brass and the journal editor) appears below. The original story appears at the end for reference, after some devastating remarks exchanged candidly by the reporter, another contact at "The Tribune," and myself. Alan. May 6, 2004 From: BLOOMFIELD PRESS 4718 E. Cactus #440 Phoenix, AZ 85032 gunlaws.com Office 602-996-4020 Fax 602-494-0679 Sales 1-800-707-4020 To: Associate Professor William Fabricius Dept. of Psychology Arizona State University P.O. Box 871104 Tempe, AZ 85287-1104 Dear Professor Fabricius, I was dismayed to read the recent story in "The Tribune" about you, your son, and your tabulation of old newspaper stories, presented as a scientific study of guns used in self defense in America. It's hard to believe that no one in the editing chain saw the obvious errors in the tale, "Teen, Dad Track Gun Use" (4/8/04). I'm sorry to inform you that you have merely tracked the story selection choices of the newspaper, not the use of firearms in American life. The story reflects an unfortunate and embarrassing lack of judgment. Although you declared in the story that the work was scientific, it is clearly anything but that. The concept is flawed, the sample unrepresentative, and the published conclusion is literally preposterous. It is a glaring instance of what is meant by the term, "junk science." Perhaps an example will help illuminate the problem. Can you imagine conducting a similar "study" that finds most black people are either criminals, entertainers or sports figures, based on an analysis of blacks who are covered in the paper? It is too outrageous to consider! Can you then see how similarly flawed your father-and-son project was, as far as meaningful research goes? Can you see how the newspaper's non-critical retelling of this nonsense, with no counterpoint whatsoever, is biased and derogatory? Every ethical tenet of journalism and scholarship requires a prominent correction. I understand how difficult this is, but admitting the errors is the honorable course and it is the best choice. Your mistake has been detected, acknowledge it, and move on. Although your child is quoted as saying: "Almost nobody uses their guns in self-defense," the only accurate statement he could have made from the research described by reporter Marija Potkonjak is that "almost no stories about using guns in self defense appeared in the newspaper clippings I collected when I was 12 years old, six years ago." While it is clever that you spent time to track down judicial resolutions of those shoot-em-up stories, that is no substitute for, and does not mitigate, using such an egregiously biased sample. This misrepresentation harms a huge segment of the body politic that exercise their civil right to keep and bear arms. It is typical of a kind of endemic bias that observers have noted for many years. By any measure it is a great enough deception to warrant a prominent correction to the front-page Tribune story. People who unfortunately hate guns and gun owners -- and there are many of them out there, paradoxically thinking of themselves as beyond hate -- no doubt loved your story, took heart in its unsupported conclusions, and will retell it. They have been misled. Your report falsely denigrates cherished rights Americans have, and have always had. You have exposed, and are a victim of, a situation gun owners know about and constantly lament -- many people think guns are mainly linked to crime, because that's normally all the news media ever show. You and your son were erroneously led to this very conclusion yourselves. The fact that guns save lives, guns stop crime, guns are for safety and guns are why America is still free, these are themes the mainstream media somehow consistently omit. It's not a conspiracy, just business as usual, and would make a good story by itself. In contrast, true scholarly work is substantial on DGUs (Defensive Gun Uses), with three university-level studies and a study from the U.S. Justice Department under President Clinton. These all point to several million DGUs annually. The virtually total lack of coverage of such incidents by the news media, which your work detected, is thoroughly documented in John Lott's scrupulously researched new book, "The Bias Against Guns." That book would be illuminating for you. You and your son have taken steps to confirm Dr. Lott's work, but nothing more. It's widely recognized that reported incidents have little bearing on total incidents. The FBI and other authorities don't even routinely collect data on self defense because it, and justifiable homicide, are not crimes. Blatant errors like this, which are obvious on their face to even a simple reader, contribute to the severe lack of credibility the press has been enduring lately. People do not trust the media because the media isn't earning any trust. Your contribution to this sorry state of affairs cries out for a retraction. If you allow "Injury Prevention" to publish your specious report, knowing now how unfounded it is, you would bring shame to yourself, your son, your university, and the publishers of that hurtful material. One must wonder about the bona fides of a Canadian journal that would give ink to such amateur silliness, and an ASU associate professor who would publicly state this methodology is scientific. Please do the right thing and make a prompt and prominent correction to "The Tribune" and to "Injury Prevention." A count and analysis of newspaper stories about guns says nothing meaningful about self defense or actual gun use in America. If you feel a correction to the newspaper story is not warranted, please let me know why, so I can explain that to people when they ask me. I've copied this letter to some folks I know at "The Tribune", at ASU, and elsewhere, who might have seen your story and been misled. Sincerely, Alan Korwin, Author The Arizona Gun Owner's Guide Gun Laws of America I suggested a correction that would be accurate if run by "The Tribune": "The Tribune" ran a page-one story by staff reporter Marija Potkonjak (4/8/04) that said a new study shows that guns are rarely used in self defense. Further examination however shows that the study, conducted by amateurs, was not scientific and its conclusions were not supported by the limited and inadequate research conducted. The study only confirmed that newspaper coverage of gun incidents is neither complete nor representative of what actually occurs in society. The scholarly studies that have found millions of defensive gun uses annually are not impacted by this father-and-son project, as we had erroneously reported. "The Tribune" deeply regrets the errors, apologizes for the aspersions it cast, the abusive denigration of human rights it implied, and is forwarding a copy of this retraction to the Canadian journal "Injury Prevention" that we indicated intends to publish the inaccurately produced report." Excerpts of what a reporter at "The Tribune" told me: I loved your "correction," but I hope you realize it's hardly appropriate for our corrections section... Of course I'm squirmy on this. I agree with a lot of what you said, but I'm not about to trash Marija for this story. Nor do I feel comfortable telling my editor he was an idiot for running this story, which is basically what I'd be telling him if I do what you ask... I'll trash the content of the story all day long, though. As far as running what people say, we print BS the cops and the governor and our "leaders" tell us all the time ... We depend on our readers to keep us on our toes sometimes when we don't have the time, resources or know-how to check stuff out 100 percent. When people see BS in our paper they need to call us on it. Just like you intend to do. I'll talk to you later ... Alan, I agree the "study" was pure nonsense. However, what you call an "error" I call a matter of opinion. I went back over Marija's story just now and saw no "editorializing." Everything was clearly attributed to the people who were the subject of the article. I did not see any errors of Marija's that could be corrected in the correction section ... The original story: William Fabricius, left, and his 17-year-old son, John Denton, have been collecting newspaper articles about the use of guns in self-defense from April through June 1998. Teen, dad track gun use By Marija Potkonjak, Tribune A study debunking the notion that guns are used in self-defense started out as a question in the mind of a 12-year-old boy from Tempe. After reading a 1998 Tribune article about a woman facing prosecution for a shooting she claimed was in self defense, John Denton wanted to know how many people actually used guns in self-defense. With the help of his father, William Fabricius, a psychology professor at Arizona State University, Denton collected articles in "The Tribune" from April through June 1998 and tracked the cases through the courts to get an answer. His conclusion? "Almost nobody uses their guns in self-defense," said Denton, now a 17-year-old senior at Mountain Pointe High School. Denton's study, "Reality check: Using newspapers, police reports and court records to assess defensive gun use," will be published in the April edition of the Canadian journal "Injury Prevention." Fabricius said the study was conducted in a scientific manner. Of 81 incidents in which a gun was used, only two were legitimately for self-defense, "and both those instances were socially irresponsible because a child could have been caught in the crossfire," Fabricius said. In one instance, there were "bullets flying all over the place in broad daylight." Fabricius said the study calls into question a widely cited 1995 study by researchers Gary Kleck and Mark Gertz, who in a telephone survey of civilians found that 1.1 percent of the population used guns in self-defense. Using the findings of Kleck and Gertz, there should have been 98 killings or woundings and 236 instances of guns fired in self-defense during the period Denton and Fabricius monitored the newspapers, Fabricius and Denton said. "People in a phone survey might say it was self-defense, but a judge might not agree," Fabricius said. Denton and Fabricius found that in six cases where self-defense was claimed, the court ruled only two were actually self-defense. One unfounded claim involved an elderly Scottsdale resident who fired shots into his ceiling after he heard what he thought were "footsteps" in his attic. The police found no intruder and the man was charged with disturbing the peace. In another incident, a man shot and wounded two teenagers driving past his home at 3 a.m. because he felt "threatened" by them. He was charged with aggravated assault. Using newspaper articles and supplementing them with police reports and court records was an innovative approach, said Barry Pless, a pediatric epidemiologist and editor of "Injury Prevention." "These researchers were imaginative and creative to realize this is an important data set," Pless said. At first, Denton and Fabricius started a Web site and posted their research in the hopes other kids across the country would start tracking these cases in the newspaper. "At first we thought it would be very easy," Denton said. "If people know about this they might think about it before buying a gun or think about whether they really need bullets for (the gun)." Denton said he has no illusions about the impact the study will have on Arizona's gun-toting population. "We're kind of a Wild West state," he said. "It's obviously not going to turn the state into a bunch of hippies spouting peace and love." But, he would like to see stricter guidelines for gun purchases and thinks buying a gun without bullets might be enough of a deterrent. Contact Marija Potkonjak by email (mpotkonjak@aztrib.com) or phone (480) 898-6818. Contact: Alan Korwin BLOOMFIELD PRESS "We publish the gun laws." 4718 E. Cactus #440 Phoenix, AZ 85032 602-996-4020 Phone 602-494-0679 FAX 1-800-707-4020 Orders http://www.gunlaws.com alan@gunlaws.com Call, write, fax or click for a free catalog. Check out our new best seller: "Supreme Court Gun Cases Two Centuries of Gun Rights Revealed" If you can read this, thank a teacher. If you're reading this in English, thank a veteran. ------------------------------ 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 #228 ******************************