From editor@telecom-digest.org Sun May 9 18:20:59 2004 Received: (from ptownson@localhost) by massis.lcs.mit.edu (8.11.6p3/8.11.3) id i49MKxP28826; Sun, 9 May 2004 18:20:59 -0400 (EDT) Date: Sun, 9 May 2004 18:20:59 -0400 (EDT) From: editor@telecom-digest.org Message-Id: <200405092220.i49MKxP28826@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 #233 TELECOM Digest Sun, 9 May 2004 18:21:00 EDT Volume 23 : Issue 233 Inside This Issue: Editor: Patrick A. Townson Re: USR 5410 WiFi PC Card Not Transmitting (SELLCOM Tech support) Re: USR 5410 WiFi PC Card Not Transmitting (Gene S. Berkowitz) Multi-Line POTS Phone Switch, Controlled by Serial/Parallel Port (Bakhash) Re: Best Price on Home Phone Service? (Dave Hauss) Re: Missouri Moves to Ban 'UnFees' - Part of Larger Backlash (Dave Close) Re: Canada to Criminalize Watching Foreign TV, Radio Programming (Cline) Re: Canada to Criminalize Watching Foreign TV, Radio Programming (Crispin) Re: Caller ID Blocked to Long Distance Service - Please Help (Wesrock) Re: Caller ID Blocked to Long Distance Service - Please Help (jak) 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: SELLCOM Tech support Subject: Re: USR 5410 WiFi PC Card Not Transmitting Organization: www.sellcom.com Reply-To: support@sellcom.com Date: Sun, 09 May 2004 03:42:08 GMT mandm@flashnet.it (Mario) posted on that vast internet thingie: > Hello, > I have an ADSL wifi network, and in a laptop I have a usr5410 wifi > turbo pc card, which is green enabled , link quality 100%, signal > strength 84% and it sees the right mac address adsl gateway on the > network, but if I do a ping to the wifi access point or try to > navigate it doesnt seam to transmit at all. > Why? What maybe the problem? Check that any security features are the same on both. Start by making sure that security features are off, but don't live that way once you get it working. Steve at SELLCOM http://www.sellcom.com Discount multihandset cordless phones by Siemens, AT&T, Panasonic, Motorola Vtech 5.8Ghz; TMC ET4000 4line Epic phone, OnHoldPlus, Beamer, Watchguard! Brick wall "non MOV" surge protection. Mini-Splitter log splitter! If you sit at a desk www.ergochair.biz you owe it to yourself. ------------------------------ From: Gene S. Berkowitz Subject: Re: USR 5410 WiFi PC Card Not Transmitting Date: Sun, 9 May 2004 14:57:10 -0400 In article , mandm@flashnet.it says: > Hello, > I have an ADSL wifi network, and in a laptop I have a usr5410 wifi > turbo pc card, which is green enabled , link quality 100%, signal > strength 84% and it sees the right mac address adsl gateway on the > network, but if I do a ping to the wifi access point or try to > navigate it doesnt seam to transmit at all. > Why? What maybe the problem? > Thanks, > Mario Missing WEP key, perhaps? --Gene ------------------------------ From: cadet@alum.mit.edu (Dave Bakhash) Subject: Multi-Line POTS Phone Switch, Controlled by Serial or Parallel Port Date: 9 May 2004 12:24:56 -0700 Organization: http://groups.google.com Hi, I need a black-box device that can do the following: For some number of phone lines, control whether the lines are in the open- or closed-circuit position, ideally using a parallel port to control the positions of the switches. The black-box device will probably be powered, of course. Basically, I have a program that I would like to use to sometimes disconnect certain telephone lines that are otherwise in the default (closed-circuit) position. The application would have to be able to both open and close these connections, and again, I think that the parallel port would be the ideal way. Does anyone know of something like a 4-, 8-, or even 1- or 16-port device that's nothing more than a bank of RJ11 jacks that has can be switched externally via parallel port? If not, would it make more sense to just have a simple wire switch, and connect it serially to the RJ11 jacks? dave ------------------------------ From: dahauss@unlimitedsounds.com (Dave Hauss) Subject: Re: Best Price on Home Phone Service? Date: 9 May 2004 07:37:30 -0700 Organization: http://groups.google.com DSL is available on my line and I have ordered it. BUT what about MCI Neighborhood? My relatives who live right near me have it .. I think it was only $39.95? then can I still get DSL? John Levine wrote in message news:: >> 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: 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 Dave Close, Compata, Costa Mesa CA "Politics is the business of getting dave@compata.com, +1 714 434 7359 power and privilege without dhclose@alumni.caltech.edu possessing merit." - P. J. O'Rourke ------------------------------ From: Stanley Cline Subject: Re: Canada to Criminalize Watching Foreign TV and Radio Programming Organization: Myself, in Dunwoody/Sandy Springs/Atlanta, GA, USA :) Reply-To: sc1-news@roamer1.org Date: Sun, 09 May 2004 13:48:06 GMT On Sat, 8 May 2004 11:56:42 -0700, Mark Crispin wrote: > 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. What does this do to Americans crossing the border who have perfectly legal (in the US) satellite radio or TV equipment installed in their vehicles? Do I need to pull my Sirius receiver out of my car before crossing the border? Do truckers with DirecTV need to do the same? (I know there are all sorts of exemptions and reciprocal arrangements for things like amateur radios/licenses, cell phones, etc., but I can't seem to find one that covers this particular situation.) Stanley Cline -- sc1 at roamer1 dot org -- http://www.roamer1.org/ "Never put off until tomorrow what you can do today. There might be a law against it by that time." -/usr/games/fortune ------------------------------ From: Mark Crispin Subject: Re: Canada to Criminalize Watching Foreign TV and Radio Programming Date: Sun, 9 May 2004 12:05:36 -0700 Organization: University of Washington On Sat, 8 May 2004, Laura Halliday wrote: > 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. You have to read more than just the added text. You also have to work out the effect of those modifications to existing law. It's as bad as C-68 (Canada's draconian gun law); lots of people *think* they know what it means (including the MPs who passed it) but what the law actually says is totally different. > If al-Jazeera, Telemundo et al were in the clear, Bill C-2 wouldn't > apply. But they aren't, and that's where C-2 gets you. It is illegal to operate equipment to decrypt encrypted communications unless you are paying a Canadian service provider for it. Actually, it's always been illegal in Canada. However, Canadian courts have ruled that there's no offense if the signal was not actually "stolen"; that is, if the service provider is being paid for the programming and the only issue is operating it on the wrong side of the border. This creates a grey market, and C-2 is aimed at closing it. Governments hate grey markets. They hurt the protected domestic markets as much as the black market does, but unlike the black market it is almost impossible to get convictions against grey marketeers. > 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. You should hope so. Canada has been taking some fairly alarming steps down the road to authoritarianism in recent years. > Oh, BTW: *what* censorship? I personally witnessed an incident in which US newspapers were blocked at the border and US TV channels on Canadian cable censored, because they covered something that the Canadian government did not want disclosed to its population. Of course, individuals brought in newspapers and you could tune in the US channels over the air, and find out what the Canadian government didn't want you to hear. But then again, in the mid-1930s you could listen to the BBC in Germany without getting arrested. -- Mark -- http://staff.washington.edu/mrc Science does not emerge from voting, party politics, or public debate. Si vis pacem, para bellum. [TELECOM Digest Editor's Note: Maybe someone can explain this to me. *Many* years ago (perhaps 30-40 years ago) when I would go to visit friends who lived in Detroit, we would then drive across the river to see friends (of my friends) who lived in Windsor, Ontario. Or I would sometimes take the local bus which went from the Greyhound Station in Detroit to Windsor. I think it cost 25 cents. But from Windsor, the bus continued on to Sandwhich, Ontario where there was or is a General Motors plant. I guess a lot of people lived in Detroit but worked at GM in Sandwhich. What would happen *today* if I made that little trip and had a satellite radio I was carrying along? Would it get confiscated, or would I have to turn it off and not listen to it, etc? Are people in USA (or Canada) allowed these days to travel back and forth to go to work or do shopping or has Bush (or the Canadian authorities) put a stop to all that? Back in the 1960's and 70's, when the bus from Detroit going to GM in Sandwhich went past the international checkpoint, everyone would get off the bus except for the driver who took the bus to the other side, take some sort of ID card from their pocket and hold it in plain view as they walked past the persons handling the checkpoint, who, so far as I know, never looked at (or only casually glanced at the ID card.) Everyone walked past, went and re-boarded the bus and the trip continued for the few more blocks to the bus station in Windsor. I suppose it is a lot more difficult these days, with everyone being either a Patriot or a Terrorist. PAT] ------------------------------ From: Wesrock@aol.com Date: Sun, 9 May 2004 09:16:57 EDT Subject: Re: Caller ID Blocked to Long Distance Service - Please Help In a message dated Sat, 08 May 2004 19:09:40 GMT, Tony P. < kd1s@nospamplease.verizon.reallynospam.net> writes: > 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.) I think you are guilty of thinking all older people are doddering incompetents, which doesn't seem to be borne out by the facts. Certainly some 90-year-olds are doddering incompetents, but so are some 20-year-olds. The television programs seem to make a point of warning "the elderly" about "scams" because "the elderly are more likely to be taken in." This statement appears to be contrary to fact, or only very marginally true, since reports on the percentage of people conned by "scams" (telephone or otherwise) is pretty small for all ages and for "the elderly" is only a fraction of a percentage point higher than the rate for persons of all ages. "The elderly" are said to be "more trusting," although they have more experience of the world and should be more skeptical, not "more trusting," and in my observation that is true of most "elderly" people. I had an aunt who died at 96 and I could never detect any sign that she lost any of her competence right up to her finally illness. How many people of any age want to dial a string of 35 digits? Why would a 90-year-old person find it more undesirable than a younger person? Wes Leatherock wesrock@aol.com wleathus@yahoo.com ------------------------------ From: jak Subject: Re: Caller ID Blocked to Long Distance Service - Please Help Date: Sun, 9 May 2004 07:54:31 -0700 John Levine wrote in message news:telecom23.232.7@telecom-digest.org: >> 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. Thanks for your input, but the 800 number she uses gives her unlimited minutes for 1.49, same as a local access number. She only calls 4 or 5 people, has the numbers programmed and can talk for hours without clock watching. She loves the service, as do I. We're just trying to find out if SBC or USA datanet is causing the problem. If SBC doesn't transmit her number properly, she is also going to have potential problems with her modem dialup and ISP provider. Tony P. wrote in message news:telecom23.232.6@telecom-digest.org: > 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. > 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. Bingo! But how do we correct this? She could potentially have dialup ISP problems as well. > 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. She can't even use this -- the 800 won't let her through. > 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. We both love USA datanet unlimited minutes and no sign up charges. We both make few calls which tend to be long - no clock watching, no unexpected fees or bills. She doesn't mind the extra numbers and is very capable of programming her speed dial. If SBC is not transmitting her number, she could potentially have problems with all types of phone services. Thanks, Janet K. ------------------------------ 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 #233 ******************************