From editor@telecom-digest.org Sat May 8 21:18:17 2004 Received: (from ptownson@localhost) by massis.lcs.mit.edu (8.11.6p3/8.11.3) id i491IHD20632; Sat, 8 May 2004 21:18:17 -0400 (EDT) Date: Sat, 8 May 2004 21:18:17 -0400 (EDT) From: editor@telecom-digest.org Message-Id: <200405090118.i491IHD20632@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 #232 TELECOM Digest Sat, 8 May 2004 21:18:00 EDT Volume 23 : Issue 232 Inside This Issue: Editor: Patrick A. Townson Re: Canada to Criminalize Watching Foreign TV and Radio (Laura Halliday) Re: Canada to Criminalize Watching Foreign TV and Radio (Mark Crispin) Re: Ditching Copper - Getting Fax Machines; VoIP to Play Nice (F Atkinson) Re: GE Phone Issues (Craig) Re: Missouri Moves to Ban 'UnFees' - Part of Larger Backlash (Dave Close) Re: Caller ID Blocked to Long Distance Service - Please Help (Tony P.) Re: Caller ID Blocked to Long Distance Service - Please Help (John Levine) Re: Best Price on Home Phone Service? (John Levine) Last Laugh! Re: Newspaper Promotes Nonsense ANOTHER THREAD CLOSED (J Galt) 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: marsgal42@hotmail.com (Laura Halliday) Subject: Re: Canada to Criminalize Watching Foreign TV and Radio Programming Date: 8 May 2004 11:15:30 -0700 Organization: http://groups.google.com Mark Crispin wrote in message news:: > The Canadian House of Commons is considering a bill, C-2, which will > make it illegal to receive foreign satellite TV and radio programming > in Canada. Canada already has censorship of US newspapers and US TV > programming carried on carried on Canadian cable TV systems. Huh? The Bill (did you actually read it?) makes it illegal to import gear for decrypting satellite signals unless the Powers That Be say it's OK. This has *nothing* to do with actually receiving the signals or watching the programs -- it just makes it a little harder to do. If al-Jazeera, Telemundo et al were in the clear, Bill C-2 wouldn't apply. Nor do I see any provisions for retroactivity, though owners of DirectTV and similar systems have been hassled under other legislation. In Canada it's legal to receive any signal (AMPS cell phone users take note!). But, with fairly narrow exceptions, it's illegal to divulge what you hear. It's all in the Radio Act and General Radio Regulations. Since the Feds are likely to call an election in the next few days, this bill is unlikely to pass anyway. It will die on the order paper. Oh, BTW: *what* censorship? Laura Halliday VE7LDH "Que les nuages soient notre Grid: CN89mg pied a terre..." ICBM: 49 16.05 N 122 56.92 W - Hospital/Shafte ------------------------------ From: Mark Crispin Subject: Re: Canada to Criminalize Watching Foreign TV and Radio Programming Date: Sat, 8 May 2004 11:56:42 -0700 Organization: University of Washington On Fri, 7 May 2004, dannykewl wrote: > In my opinion, this act will not affect your ability to watch/listen > to foreign broadcasts. Did you read the text of the act? It specifically bans watching/listening to foreign encrypted broadcasts -- regardless of whether or not the receiver is authorized by the service provider -- and establishes draconian penalties. Currently, there is a grey area if the receiver is not a "pirate" receiver; that is, it is authorized by the service provider and someone is paying its bills. The typical trick is to use a relative's address in the US to get your bills. Although this arrangement is technically illegal, the Canadian courts have not enforced it. They've only gone against the producers and users of illegally modified receivers that steal the signal without paying. Although the Canadian government has authorized Canadian service providers to carry some foreign language channels, the Canadian satellite companies refuse to do so on the grounds that there isn't enough of a customer base. The Canadian government does not allow any of its service providers to carry FOX News, and the state-run media vigorously denounces FOX News on a regular basis. Canadians watch FOX News to get an alternative to the state-run media; and for the same reason that Americans smuggle liquor-filled chocolates, 222s, and Cuban cigars from Canada -- because it's forbidden. On Sat, 8 May 2004, jared wrote: > Many countries recognise a danger that American dross will swamp their > own culture. Canada not only shares a border but also a language (for > the majority) and so is particularly at risk. I find this an interesting comment, coming from Rupert Murdoch's home country. I'll grant that Murdoch is now a US citizen and has moved News Corp. operations in all but name from Australia to the US. > Culture aside, money talks. Exporting movies and radio & TV > programming is gravy for the USA exporter as their own country's large > market has paid for production costs. It's hard on the other country's > producers as they have to pay all costs for their work across a small > market vice import pricing at marginal cost. Hence we see entrenched > media interests putting their cash on the line to block imports under > the guise of cultural protection. Most Canadian media sucks. The "Bob & Doug McKenzie" parody on "Second City TV" (and the movie "Strange Brew") of Canadian content was, like many parodies, funny because there was so much truth to it. The only really worthwhile Canadian network is APTN (aboriginal people's television network) which I wish would be carried on US satellite providers instead of the dreary NWI (put together by the Canadian state-run media and recent sold to Al Gore). Given a choice, Canadians vote with their channel selectors. Even in the far north of Canada, the cable networks offer the Seattle ABC, CBS, and NBC stations (forget UPN, WB, and especially FOX). The most recent time I was in Canada was during the east coast blackout last year. I was in central BC and driving south. The state-run media was full of coverage about the blackout, and about how those evil Americans were blaming Canada for it. They came back to that point every 10 minutes or so, all based upon one quote from a Consolidated Edison spokesman: "the problem started somewhere in the midwest, possibly Ontario." They only played the quote once or twice, perhaps realizing how weak the actual quote made their case, but harped over and over again about how Canadian power authorities had proven that it started at a substation in Manhattan. As it turned out, the problem started at a small power company in Ohio, spread to Ontario, and from there took down New York and the rest of the eastern US and Canada. The power grid is completely interconnected. It indeed was not "Canada's fault", but this stuff about a Manhattan substation was bullshit. The Canadian state-run media made it up. Canadian radio is not nearly as obnoxious nearer to the border; the competition with US stations forces Canadian radio to be interesting. It's only when you're in the interior, out of range of the foreign influence, that you get the relentless propaganda. Perhaps that's why many people in the interior don't listen to radio. -- Mark -- http://staff.washington.edu/mrc Science does not emerge from voting, party politics, or public debate. Si vis pacem, para bellum. ------------------------------ From: Fred Atkinson Subject: Re: Ditching Copper - Getting Fax machines and VoIP to play nice Date: Sat, 08 May 2004 18:39:48 GMT Organization: EarthLink Inc. -- http://www.EarthLink.net I guess that my question on this one is why would you want to perpetuate fax machines? Why not just send to a printer (via the Internet) in some other part of the world. VOIP seems to be like killing an ant with a sledge hammer for FAX. Maybe create a subdomain that points to the printer. Example: fax.mishmash.com would point to a printer within my company. All that would be necessary is to come up with the software to transmit the images directly over the Internet. If it's on paper, use a scanner and transmit it to a printer somewhere. In my opinion, FAX should become obsolete. It's going to outlive its usefulness. Fred On Fri, 07 May 2004 11:23:54 -0400, VOIP News wrote: > http://www.broadbandreports.com/shownews/43548 > While VoIP is a fantastic new toy for many, it often doesn't play > particularly well with older copper reliant technology (like many > security systems > ). Many broadband > users have often reported problems with fax machines working properly > with their VoIP service. One user in our VoIP forum > > finds that by using a DSL filter in reverse orientation, their fax > problems all but disappeared. The question now is, does the same > method allow users to conquer one of the last great VoIP roadblocks: > allowing your DirecTV/Tivo modem to dial out via your VoIP connection. > Article plus comments found at: > http://www.broadbandreports.com/shownews/43548 > 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: cphite@hotmail.com (Craig) Subject: Re: GE Phone Issues Date: 8 May 2004 11:40:26 -0700 Organization: http://groups.google.com Tony P. wrote in message news:... > 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. Their customer service is just as bas as their products. > 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. I asked my phone company about this and the loop length is less at our new place than our old place. I'm almost certain it's the phone at this 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. > Yes, it's sounding more and more like a bad handset. It looses sync with > the base too often. Over the past few days it's gotten worse - the thing won't play back messages all the time even with the handset off the cradle. >> 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. I considered that, and tried it for a while with the wireless turned off, and then with my modem physically turned off -- same issues. I think at this point I'll just get a new phone. Thanks for taking the time to help :) ------------------------------ From: dave@compata.com (Dave Close) Subject: Re: Missouri Moves to Ban 'UnFees' - Part of Larger Backlash Date: 8 May 2004 17:41:45 -0700 Organization: Compata, Costa Mesa, California Michael D. Sullivan writes: > 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). The biggest difference is that, except for some freight charges, the prices charged are not regulated in most industries. There certainly is a cost imposed on those businesses by regulation, but they are free to adjust their actual prices to compensate whenever they please. Telcos, at least the ILECs, have to file tariffs, then can't easily adjust them, so they use any subterfuge they can to get extra revenue. FedEx and UPS add a fuel surcharge. But they announce the charge in advance and apply it to individual shipments, not to the overhead cost of maintaining an account. I have no objection in principal to any vendor charging prices which are sufficient to make a profit. But if their prices are regulated, then all of those prices need to be subject to the same rules. As it is, we have no way to audit a particular fee to determine if it bears any relationship at all to the declared costs. We know that, because such fees vary between carriers and exceed the direct costs imposed by the regulations, each carrier is inserting its own profit margin. If the industry were not regulated, I would be free to insist on a contract with a fixed price that could not be changed without advance notice and agreement. But I don't get to have an individual contract with a telco, I can only agree to be subject to the tariff. Even other regulated industries, like airlines, are free to offer special pricing to large customers. (I have no doubt that telcos do that too, but they have to do it in a backdoor way.) Dave Close, Compata, Costa Mesa CA +1 714 434 7359 dave@compata.com dhclose@alumni.caltech.edu "Political campaigns are the graveyard of real ideas and the birthplace of empty promises." -- Teresa Heinz Kerry ------------------------------ From: Tony P. Subject: Re: Caller ID Blocked to Long Distance Service - Please Help Organization: ATCC Date: Sat, 08 May 2004 19:09:40 GMT In article , janetk@ieee.org says: > My mother in Ohio has phone service with SBC and has been using USA > datanet for long distance calls. USA datanet does not have a local > access number in Ohio, so she has been dialing an 800 number to make > her long distance calls. Recently, she cannot use the service because > her home phone number is being blocked and the service does not > recognize her as a subscriber. She has tried *82 and *67 options and > has repeatedly contacted both companies. Each company blames the > other for the problem and will not initiate a call on her behalf. > She is a 90 year old woman who lives by herself with her children out > of state. It has been over a month since she has been able to call > them using her USA datanet access. I have also tried calling the > companies, the FCC and the Ohio PUC with very little success. > Any idea on getting her number unblocked? We're at a stalemate. Probably SBC isn't transmitting the ANI correctly to USA Datanet -- it has to transmit the exact telephone number or else it won't allow you onto the network. That being said, I think they have a mechanism built in where you can dial into the 800 number, key your phone number and pin and then make your call. That being said, I don't think a 90 year old wants to dial a string of 35 digits to make a long distance call. (That's 11 to dial the 800 number using 1+, then ten for the phone num, 4 for the pin, then ten for the destination number.) > [TELECOM Digest Editor's Note: My suggestion would be instead of > wasting your time and hers trying to correct a problem with a long > distance service which may not be the best deal around anyway, just > get her converted to some other company at more or less the same > prices or possibly a little better. SBC comes to mind. You could get > her converted to one-plus dialing on SBC for three or four cents per > minute, depending on her volume of calls. Check through the various > SBC plans and choose what is appropriate for her needs. Or if you will > tell us here about how much long distance calling she does in a > month's time, I am sure guys here could help you plan her package. SBC > is just an example; there are many dial one plus arrangements which > bill through her regular phone account for convenience and are cheap > enough. DO NOT get her all wrapped up in situations where she has to > dial either an 800 number or some other 'local access number' first. PAT] USA Datanet worked for me because I have speed dialers on all phones and a local access number or three. But I don't really use it other than for my 800 service now because I've since switched to Verizon's unlimited ld plan. ------------------------------ Date: 8 May 2004 23:57:58 -0000 From: John Levine Subject: Re: Caller ID Blocked to Long Distance Service - Please Help Organization: I.E.C.C., Trumansburg NY USA > My mother in Ohio has phone service with SBC and has been using USA > datanet for long distance calls. USA datanet does not have a local > access number in Ohio, so she has been dialing an 800 number to make > her long distance calls. Their 800 access number is not particularly cheap, about 14 cents/min. If she makes as much as an hour a month of calls, I'd suggest she sign up for SBC's "Just Call 60 II" plan which is $3 for the first 60 minutes per month, then 7 cpm after that, billed on her local phone bill so there's no separate check to write or bill to pay. If she makes fewer calls than that, I'd suggest looking at Cognigen's Cognicall card which is 6.9 cpm with 800 access, billed to her credit card with no monthly fee or minimum. I've used it for dialaround for ages since their international rates are quite good. See http://ld.net/products/?product=cogcall Regards, John Levine, johnl@iecc.com, Primary Perpetrator of "The Internet for Dummies", Information Superhighwayman wanna-be, http://www.johnlevine.com, Mayor "More Wiener schnitzel, please", said Tom, revealingly. ------------------------------ Date: 9 May 2004 00:16:50 -0000 From: John Levine Subject: Re: Best Price on Home Phone Service? Organization: I.E.C.C., Trumansburg NY USA > I live in the southern NJ (856) area code. Can someone provide me with > the best rate on flat rate phone service? IE local and long distance? > Can you also tell me if the service provides DSL? The only local telco down there is Verizon, so anyone else will be reselling VZ's local service, perhaps bundled with someone else's long distance. VZ's Freedom package is $55 for your phone, unlimited (for some version of unlimited) calls anywhere in the US and Canada, and a bunch of features like voice mail and call waiting. DSL would be another $30, but VZ says it's not available on your line. If you want VZ wireless, they'll bundle that in and give a modest discount, too. My mother in law has that plan which works fine. You might be able to piece together something a little cheaper from other vendors, but it's nice to have a single place to complain when something breaks. Regards, John Levine, johnl@iecc.com, Primary Perpetrator of "The Internet for Dummies", Information Superhighwayman wanna-be, http://www.johnlevine.com, Mayor "More Wiener schnitzel, please", said Tom, revealingly. ------------------------------ From: John David Galt Subject: Last Laugh! Re: Newspaper Promotes Nonsense ANOTHER THREAD CLOSED Date: Sat, 08 May 2004 15:43:58 -0700 Organization: Diogenes the Cynic Hot-Tubbing Society Paul Vader wrote: > If I want to participate in a gun debate, I'll go to a newsgroup with > 'gun' in the name. I'm in a moderated group with 'telecom' in it because I > expect to see stuff related to telecommunications there, not flame bait. * snip > [TELECOM Digest Editor's Note: I am thinking about starting an 'alt' > newsgroup for the political discussions which get in here, and am > trying to decide what name to give it. Make your suggestions, please. How about using alt.usenet.kooks for this purpose? (For the uninitiated, AUK is a group of vandals, mostly hiding behind fake addresses, who claim the "right" to crosspost random chatter anywhere they please within Usenet. It's about time somebody returned the favor in THEIR backyard.) [TELECOM Digest Editor's Note: Or what about alt.usenet.cooks where guys could post recipies and instructions for cooking dinner. I hope people would not get 'cooks' confused with 'kooks'. PAT] ------------------------------ 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 #232 ******************************