From editor@telecom-digest.org Mon May 10 22:24:51 2004 Received: (from ptownson@localhost) by massis.lcs.mit.edu (8.11.6p3/8.11.3) id i4B2OpC14322; Mon, 10 May 2004 22:24:51 -0400 (EDT) Date: Mon, 10 May 2004 22:24:51 -0400 (EDT) From: editor@telecom-digest.org Message-Id: <200405110224.i4B2OpC14322@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 #235 TELECOM Digest Mon, 10 May 2004 22:25:00 EDT Volume 23 : Issue 235 Inside This Issue: Editor: Patrick A. Townson Cellphone Tax Produces Little for Cellphones (Monty Solomon) Recordable DVDs New Target of Hollywood (Monty Solomon) EchoStar's DISH Network Satellite TV Conference Sold Out (Monty Solomon) Wi-Fi Phones May Help Cut Calling Costs (Monty Solomon) Web TV changes way programming is watched, sold (Monty Solomon) Re: Cable TV Franchise Fees (was Missouri Moves to Ban...) (Neal McLain) Re: Fires and Telecommunications (Lisa Hancock) Re: Caller ID Blocked to Long Distance Service - Please Help (Dink) Re: Caller ID Blocked to Long Distance Service - Please Help (John Levine) Re: Canada to Criminalize Watching Foreign TV and Radio (Jack Hamilton) Re: Canada to Criminalize Watching Foreign TV and Radio (cfarrar@spamcop) Re: AT&T Bill For *Non Existant* Line. What to Do?? (Clarence Dold) Re: Vonage Questions (Hank Karl) Weekend Woes - Packet8 VoIP Service Issues, With no Support (VOIP News) KaZaA Chiefs Tackle VoIP (VOIP News) Wi-Fi Phones Could be Next Trend in Thrift (VOIP News) Phone Line Busy Out Toggle Switch? (Tom Beckman) Re: Ditching Copper - Getting Fax Machines and VoIP to Play Nice (C Dold) All contents here are copyrighted by Patrick Townson and the individual writers/correspondents. Articles may be used in other journals or newsgroups, provided the writer's name and the Digest are included in the fair use quote. By using -any name or email address- included herein for -any- reason other than responding to an article herein, you agree to pay a hundred dollars to the recipients of the email. =========================== Addresses herein are not to be added to any mailing list, nor to be sold or given away without explicit written consent. Chain letters, viruses, porn, spam, and miscellaneous junk are definitely unwelcome. We must fight spam for the same reason we fight crime: not because we are naive enough to believe that we will ever stamp it out, but because we do not want the kind of world that results when no one stands against crime. Geoffrey Welsh =========================== See the bottom of this issue for subscription and archive details and the name of our lawyer; other stuff of interest. ---------------------------------------------------------------------- Date: Sun, 9 May 2004 23:33:41 -0400 From: Monty Solomon Subject: Cellphone Tax Produces Little for Cellphones By EDWARD WYATT New York State has collected $440 million since 1991 in special taxes on cellphones. But only about $30 million of that has gone to the program named on most cellphone bills as the purpose of the tax: enhanced 911 service, which can help police, fire and ambulance dispatchers locate a cellphone caller in need of emergency help. Most of the money goes far afield. Fifty cents of the $1.20-a-month tax paid by nearly every cellphone user goes not to the 911 system but to the state's general fund, the all-purpose budgetary pot that finances whatever the governor and the Legislature want. Twenty-four cents a month goes to the state police, which built and operates a statewide 911 system but has also used the money to pay for things like dry cleaning and travel. About 34 cents goes for "homeland security," including the budgets of other state agencies, like Corrections and Parks and Recreation. Last week, the Pataki administration awarded the contract for a proposed $1 billion wireless radio network that will also be paid for using the money. That leaves only about 12 cents of the monthly fee for the still-developing cellular 911 system, whose advocates complain that the state has misled its taxpayers and placed politics ahead of public safety. Poor planning, they say, is at the root of the problem. They point out that even though the state collected $132 million in the last year alone from the 911 surcharge on cellphones, it had to sell bonds to raise an additional $100 million so that counties could afford to buy the necessary equipment for their own enhanced wireless 911 systems. And despite years of work, only a few counties are currently able to locate cellphone callers who dial 911. http://www.nytimes.com/2004/05/10/nyregion/10phone.html [TELECOM Digest Editor's Note: Something many people do not realize is that telco (none of them) can lawfully cut you off, or disconnect your service for your refusal to pay telecom 'taxes'. As long as you pay the tariffed charge for the telco service (but taking care to notify telco of your refusal to pay the 'taxes') telco has to continue providing your service. Telco can, and frequently does report to the taxing agency that 'John Doe, account number X phone number Y refuses to pay the tax accessed' but that's *all* they can do is report it. We found this out during the Viet Nam War -- err, police action -- when many millions of people were withholding taxes to show their displeasure. Now, if a class action suit was started on behalf of 'all taxpayers' which required the various governments to spend the tax money *exactly* on the stated purposes of the taxation (at which point the plaintiff class would resume paying of taxes) it might end much of this foolish squandering of money for other than stated purpose. Consider the various state and multi-state lotteries for example. Has there yet been a state which did not insist the 'only reason' for the lottery was to improve (take your pick) the schools, the highways, whatever? Yet look at the dreadful condition of those things as the money gets sucked off into everything else. And the best example of how this works was the worthless promise by the various states in the infamous tobacco settlement: all the money collected will go to help cure tobacco addiction, related illneses, and fund education programs for same. What a bunch of bologna that turned out to be! So the tobacco companies have gone as a group (formed a class) to the judge overseeing the tobacco settlement saying that a deal was made and the deal should be kept. If we are to fund such efforts under the settlement, they (the states) have to keep their part of the bargain also; otherwise it would appear to just be additional taxes against our products going in the back door without approval to give the states more money which winds up getting stolen from our (legitimate and lawful) customers. Where it will all end up, I do not know; but I do think it is about time to clamp a lid on all the wasteful spending of money originally intended for E-911 service, etc. Oh, of course the IRS and other agencies would bluff and threaten, but I know for a fact during Vietnam they did not put millions of people in jail for refusing to pay telephone tax. PAT] ------------------------------ Date: Mon, 10 May 2004 08:49:46 -0400 From: Monty Solomon Subject: Recordable DVDs New Target of Hollywood By Liza Porteus WASHINGTON - Some lawmakers are introducing a bill that Hollywood is not happy about - one that would allow consumers to make personal copies of digital entertainment like DVDs to be played on whatever device they want. Rep. Rick Boucher, D-Va., author of the Digital Media Consumers' Rights Act (search), says consumers should not always have to worry about being slapped with a lawsuit every time they make a copy of their favorite videos. http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,119414,00.html ------------------------------ Date: Mon, 10 May 2004 08:55:42 -0400 From: Monty Solomon Subject: EchoStar's DISH Network Satellite TV Conference Sold Out EchoStar's DISH Network Satellite TV Conference Sold Out; 2,200 Retailers to Gather in Dallas for DISH Network's Three-Day ''Team Summit 2004'' ENGLEWOOD, Colo.--(BUSINESS WIRE)--May 10, 2004--EchoStar Communications Corporation (Nasdaq:DISH) announced today that its 2004 Team Summit satellite TV retailer conference is sold out, with 2,200 DISH Network(TM) retailers from across the nation gathering in Dallas, Texas, May 20 - 22. Special attractions include Jay Leno, entertainer and host of the Tonight Show with Jay Leno, motivational speaker Mike Krzyzewski, the three-time champion basketball coach of Duke University's Blue Devils, and Grammy Award winning country music star Vince Gill. The seventh annual Team Summit conference features EchoStar CEO and Chairman Charlie Ergen sharing his vision on the future of satellite TV. Keynote speaker Joseph P. Clayton, President and CEO of SIRIUS Satellite Radio (NASDAQ:SIRI), will reveal rollout plans for the EchoStar-SIRIUS entertainment alliance. Also, a panel of industry executives will provide a roadmap to the future of high definition TV. The three-day conference, which educates retailers about DISH Network satellite TV equipment and services, will enhance the ability of DISH Network retailers to serve their communities in offering a true alternative to rising cable TV rates. - http://finance.lycos.com/home/news/story.asp?story=41301768 ------------------------------ Date: Mon, 10 May 2004 09:02:33 -0400 From: Monty Solomon Subject: Wi-Fi Phones May Help Cut Calling Costs By ELLEN SIMON AP Business Writer NEW YORK (AP) -- Now that some Wi-Fi "hot spots" have grown into broader neighborhood "hot zones," the next wave is waiting: Phones and gear that send conversations over wireless Internet networks _ for free or at a fraction of the cost of traditional calls. Mobile phone maker Motorola Inc. plans to introduce a device that would seamlessly switch calls from cellular networks to cheaper Wi-Fi networks wherever they're available. Discount carrier IDT Corp. is testing consumer Wi-Fi phone service in Newark, N.J. If successful, Wi-Fi calling would be one more factor decreasing calling costs and shrinking revenue at traditional carriers. - http://finance.lycos.com/home/news/story.asp?story=41304158 ------------------------------ Date: Mon, 10 May 2004 12:49:46 -0400 From: Monty Solomon Subject: Web TV Changes Way Programming is Watched, Sold By LEE GOMES The Wall Street Journal via Associated Press Meet Hari Sreenivasan, journalism graduate, television anchor and media disintermediator. Mr. Sreenivasan is the host of ABC News Live, a news channel available only on the Internet. It's one of many early examples of the next phase of the Internet's evolution: as a competitor -- or, perhaps, a complement -- to the way people watch TV over satellite and cable. The movie and TV industries initially viewed the Internet through the prism of Napster -- simply as a means through which their content could be stolen. Lately, though, they have begun to realize that the Web gives them all manner of new ways to sell programming that has already aired. Who would say "no" to that sort of opportunity? Thus, a growing number of big content companies are putting programming from "regular" TV out on the Web. Walt Disney, which also owns ABC and ESPN, has been especially aggressive in this regard. So has the BBC, which already has most of its radio broadcasting online. It announced last week that it would be putting much of its TV up, too -- though initially as a very limited test inside the United Kingdom. Sports is another growing source of Internet TV. You can pay $14.95 a month and watch Major League Baseball games at your desk -- or even pay-per-view cricket, courtesy of Ireland's Setanta.com. Don't go rushing over to your PC and expect to see a high-definition picture with Dolby surround sound. Video on a personal computer, while better than the matchbook-sized images of a few years ago, is still confined to a relatively small portion of the screen, and it offers quality levels that would get booed out of most living rooms. http://www.signonsandiego.com/news/business/20040510-0634-wsj-portals.html ------------------------------ Date: Mon, 10 May 2004 14:48:24 -0500 From: Neal McLain Reply-To: nmclain@annsgarden.com Subject: Re: Cable TV Franchise Fees (was Missouri Moves to Ban...) In the recent discussion about regulatory-fee-recovery charges, nobody has mentioned the charges that cable TV companies add to subscriber bills in order to recover the franchise fees they pay to local franchising authorities (LFAs). Federal regulations allow cable companies to pass franchise fees through to subscribers, and to identify them as such. Most cable companies do so. Federal regs set the maximum franchise fee at 5%. At first glance, one might assume that it's calculated like a tax: an extra 5% tacked onto the advertised monthly-service charge for cable service. Not so: it's based on "gross revenues," a figure that includes: (1) The charge for everything that's related to providing cable service to a specific customer: installation charges, monthly service charges, equipment charges (converter boxes, inside wiring, remotes), miscellaneous charges such as returned-check fees. [1] (2) "Non-subscriber revenue" (revenue from locally-inserted advertising and from commissions received from home- shopping networks), allocated to each subscriber for each tier. Keep this in mind as you watch services like ESPN or CNN: the revenue that the cable company derives from locally-inserted advertising is subject to the same 5% franchise fee. But the fee is passed through to subscribers, not to the advertisers. LFAs are, of course, in an absolute snit over this practice; however, the cable companies' rationale is fairly straightforward: federal regs allow them to pass *all* franchise fees through to subscribers, and if the LFAs insist on imposing franchise fees on non-sub revenue, then the cable companies are merely exercising their federal right to pass it along. If the LFAs don't like it, they are free to stop imposing franchise fees on non-sub revenue. The cable companies' right to do this has been upheld by the FCC and by the Fifth Circuit Court of Appeals. [2] (3) The amount collected to pay the franchise fee. Take the total from (1) and (2) above, and add 5%. Then add 5% of that 5%. Then add 5% of that 5%. Then add ... etc. Or, as a close approximation, take the total of (1) and (2) and add 5.26%. This situation results from a complaint filed by two Texas cities (Dallas and Laredo) against certain cable operators who had been treating the franchise fee like a tax, adding only 5%. The FCC ruled in favor of the cable companies, but the Fifth Circuit Court of Appeals upheld the cities' position, holding that Congress' use of the term "gross revenues" should include *all* revenues received by the cable operator, including revenue received to pay the franchise fee. [3] So here's how it works. Assume the advertised monthly-service charge is $30.00, and that your cable company allocates $1.00 of its non-sub revenue to you. Your bill would be calculated as follows: Monthly service ............... 30.00 Non-sub revenue ............... 1.00 ------- Subtotal ...................... 31.00 Franchise fee 5.25% of 31.00 .. 1.63 ------- TOTAL ........................ 32.63 Plus state and local taxes. Of course, you wouldn't see it broken down like this on your bill: at most, you'd see the monthly service charge, the total franchise fee, taxes, and the final total. As this illustration shows, the "franchise fee" portion of your cable bill will likely exceed 5% of the advertised monthly-service charge by at least another percentage point. Cobb County, Georgia estimates that the actual franchise fee works out to "between 6.3 and 6.7 [percent] of your total cable bill." [4] I find it interesting to compare the two decisions handed down by the Fifth Circuit. One favors the cable industry and the other favors the LFAs, but both result in higher cable bills. [1] 47 CFR 76.922-23 . . [2] Texas Coalition of Cities, et al. v. FCC. . [3] City Of Dallas, Texas; City of Laredo, Texas v. FCC. . [4] Cobb County Cable TV Franchise Authority Further information: http://www.kagan.com/archive/kagan/2003/04/01/20030401cable.shtml http://www.detnews.com/2004/editorial/0404/21/a08-128654.htm http://www.beaconhill.org/Editorials/Cableedit.html http://www.sbe24.org/archive/c24aug97.html#eleven Neal McLain nmclain@annsgarden.com ------------------------------ From: hancock4@bbs.cpcn.com (Lisa Hancock) Subject: Re: Fires and Telecommunications Date: 10 May 2004 13:52:43 -0700 Organization: http://groups.google.com TELECOM Digest Editor wrote about the May, 1988 fire at Illinois Bell in Hinsdale, Illinois. Some questions: 1) Was it confirmed officially that the building was unattended and a fire detector signal was initially ignored? If so, why was the response to the initial alarm so bad? 2) Were the primary and secondary causes of the fire established in detail? That is, were they sure it was lightning, and if so, what did the lightning touch off? I would think buildings such as that would be very well protected from lightning by 1988. 3) What was in the batteries that made them so toxic? 4) What kind of switche(s) were in the building (ie xbar, ESS?) 5) 1988 was after divesture, the company was not part of the Bell System anymore. Was there any analysis done to see if divesture resulted in the local company cutting back, such as eliminating 24/7 coverage of a critical building? Was the question of why no attendance ever answered? What is today's practice? 6) What about internal protection to prevent a fire from spreading? Large or critical buildings usually have fire doors and floors designed to limit spread of a flame. (Asbestos may be dangerous to breath, but in older buildings it did the job of fire protection and heat insulation.) [TELECOM Digest Editor's Note: Much of my reporting then was a compila- ation of the news reports during May from the Chicago Sun Times and the Chicago Tribune. (1) it was confirmed officially by Illinois Bell that the building was always unoccupied over weekends; not even a security guard or a data entry clerk (whose salary could have been pro-rated between departments in order to have at least one person there who would have been 'sort of busy' part of the time as they periodically walked the floors between doing data entry tasks and watching television, etc). Charles Eibel, then VP of Operations for Illinois Bell said it would have cost too much. Of course we know now that such a person's salary would have been amortized for years in the past and many years in the future even if all the person had done in the way of 'work' was a handful of punch cards over the weekend and mostly watched TV, compared to what happened that Sunday night. (2) All company facilities in those days (maybe still?) were monitored remotely from a location in Springfield, Illinois, a couple hundred miles away. Their excuse was 'the alarms out of Hinsdale had been falsing all day for various reasons', so they saw no reason to look further when the fire alarm first went off two hundred miles to the north. When several attempts to reset the fire alarm remotely from Springfield (there's that 'money saving' mentality again) failed, the alarm person in Springfield decided to call the 'weekend duty supervisor' for the entire Chicago area at home, and ask that person, "when you get a few minutes would you mind driving over to Hinsdale and see what is going on there?" (3) Lightning caused a spark in the cables somewhere; much like the Manchester Guardian fire a month ago in the UK. In the Hinsdale case however, that particular Mother's Day had been a hell of a bad mother, with heavy rains, extremely high wind, generally vicious weather conditions much lightning, many dark overcast (almost pitch black) skies the entire day. The very sort of a day, indeed, that alarm signals at some distant point would be 'falsing' about all the time. (4) They had a variety of central office equipment in the building but the damage caused by the firemen squirting water on everything (remember, when firemen arrive an inferno like that, typically they walk right in and start chopping out windows and doors, spraying water everywhere) was so severe that the amount of oxidation which started building up and the age of the oldest equipment there turned everything into a giant party line when they first turned the equipment back on, which was why the decision was made the switch had to be abandoned as junk. (I am reminded of a certain seventeen year old boy, left unamed here, who was employed by University of Chicago on hot Sunday afternoon in August, 1959 to work in the switchboard room on the afternoon shift. He sashayed into work with a large size McDonald's soft drink, and despite having been warned to **NEVER** take a soft drink **anywhere** around the switchboard proceeded to do so and on the first busy period of grabbing for a pen or paper knocked over the large container of ice-cold coke and the board went pzzzzz, flashed off and on and that was it. The Illinois Bell tech who came out 30 minutes later on an emergency basis sat there for over an hour picking at those switches and wires, but never got rid of the cross talk on that position, even though he did get the lights to quit flashing off and on.) So it was in Hinsdalem thirty years later; they could do nothing to get the equipment back in working order without cross talk and false supervisions. It was a terrible mess. So was the UofC switchboard position. (4) I dunno what the batteries had in them; they were big giant things also, already burning by the time the firemen reached them. PAT] ------------------------------ From: Dink Subject: Re: Caller ID Blocked to Long Distance Service - Please Help Organization: Frijoles Refritos Date: Mon, 10 May 2004 02:37:08 GMT On 7 May 2004 10:33:33 -0700, janetk@ieee.org (janet k) wrote: > 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. > Janet K. > [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] Get her a cell phone and have her old number transferred to it under the new number portability rules and tell SBC and USA Datanet both to go pound sand. Or keep SBC, drop USA Datanet and use prepaid cards from Wal-Mart or Albertson's or any number of other places for LD calling. The use of the prepaid cards is almost the same ... call a toll-free number, press 1 for English, enter a PIN, hear your card balance read to you, then dial 1-AC-nnn-xxxx. ------------------------------ Date: 10 May 2004 00:16:36 -0000 From: John Levine Subject: Re: Caller ID Blocked to Long Distance Service - Please Help Organization: I.E.C.C., Trumansburg NY USA > 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. Do you know what her monthly bill is? If it's $30/mo or more, which it is if she makes 20 calls a month, she should sign up for SBC's unlimited plan which is $30, billed on her home phone bill. She may qualify for the $20 unlimited plan if she has CLID, voice mail and some other odds and ends. See SBC's web site for details. > She can't even use this -- the 800 won't let her through. When she calls the 800 access number, exactly what happens? Does she get the guy saying to enter the account number, the gal saying to enter the number to call, or something else? If it's something else, can you describe what the something else is? Also, is she calling 800-313-1533, 877-832-8263, or another number? ------------------------------ From: Jack Hamilton Subject: Re: Canada to Criminalize Watching Foreign TV and Radio Programming Date: Sun, 9 May 2004 22:11:37 -0400 Organization: http://newsguy.com > [TELECOM Digest Editor's Note: 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] I crossed the border on a bus last week (I took Amtrak's Coast Starlight up to Seattle and had a connecting bus to Vancouver; having taken VIA Rail most of the way across the country, I'm posting from Montreal). When I got on the bus, the driver checked my passport (he didn't examine it closely). At the border, we all got off the bus, went inside, and stood in line. The douaniere asked where I was going and how long I would be there, looked at my passport, and waved me through. Pretty easy for me, but not for two people whose entry was refused -- not something I would want to have happen at 3am in the middle of nowhere. I suspect that coming back into the country will be more difficult. On the telecom side, I switched from AT&T Wireless to Verizon Wireless back in February (ATTWS service has deteriorated very badly). Before starting travel, I changed to VZW's North America's Choice plan, which adds much of Canada to my "home" area. I had service in all the large cities (Vancouver, Edmonton, Winnipeg, Toronto), and in some of the smaller ones (Jasper). The rural areas (and there's a *lot* of rural area in Canada) did not, in general, have service, even in analog mode. If I hadn't switched plans, calls would have been around US$1 per minute. ------------------------------ Date: Mon, 10 May 2004 18:45:31 -0400 From: cfarrar@spamcop.net Subject: Re: Canada to Criminalize Watching Foreign TV and Radio Pat, With regards to your inquiry in Digest #233. If you were to travel with your little Sirius or XM radio, nothing would happen to you. The problem lies with CDN broadcasters. A few years ago Bell Canada Enterprises launched "Bell ExpressVu" as a Direct To Home (DTH) satelite TV service, similar to Dish Network. A competing system, Star Choice, also exists. Since the launch of thses two systems, Bell has been pressuring the federal government to wage war on all other satelite services. They've even tried to get the old type of satelite dishes (the 2 meter+ size) banned. Most of the problems have to deal with the broadcast rights. Canadian cable tv carries US programming. Dealing with Rogers here in Mississauga, I get ABC, CBS, NBC, CNN, CNN Headline News, MSNBC et al. The problem is that not all the desired US stations are carried, or to get a particular US network I have to pay for several CDN channels that I have no desire to watch. I'd much prefer to get the Cartoon Network rather than Teletoon, the SciFi channel rather than Space, USA network, Turner Classic Movie, etc rather than the Aborigional Channel or some French language station. The problem is the US stataions I want aren't licenced for broadcast here or don't hold the Canadian transmission rights so if I want to receive them I either need a US based address to pay for a legitimate feed from Dish Network or a "hacked" satellite system where I get it for free. For instance "The Movie Netwok (TMN)" pays HBO a lot of money for the Canadian broadcast rights to "The Sopranos" or "Six Feet Under", they wouldn't be too happy if I could plug into HBO and watch it there. Space pays for the Canadian rights to the new Battlestar Galactica miniseries or the Frank Herbert "Dune" miniseries. Sirius and XM radios are available in the US on Ford and GM cars respectively. In Canada, Ford and GM can't offer vehicles with these radios We're stuck with standard radio (AM & FM albeit with DBS), though I understand XM is close to completing a deal to creat XM Canada to meet Canadian broadcast requirement (X% of Canadian content per hour) The reverse also happens wtih regards to illegal reception of signals. Ex-patroit and "snowbird" Canadians are know to take Bell ExpressVu satellite receivers down to their winter homes in Florida, South Carolina, and Nevada so they can received CBC and other "home" programming. However. Bell isn't licenced for use in the US and the FCC could just as easily start seizing their receivers. As for the newspapers blocked at the border, I quite clearly remember that happening during the Paul Bernado trial. There was a publication ban in place in Canada to protect the victim's family. US newspapers, which are beyond the judge's jurisdiction, decided to publish information about the trial. All copies of the Detroit Free Press that carried the article had the pages torn out at the border before they could be sold in Windsor. ------------------------------ From: dold@ATXTXBillX.usenet.us.com Subject: Re: AT&T Bill For *Non Existant* Line. What to Do?? Date: Mon, 10 May 2004 21:39:34 UTC Organization: a2i network Dr. Joel M. Hoffman wrote: > Is this likely to be just a clerical error on AT&T's part? Is it > willful deception? Has AT&T done this to anyone else? > More importantly, which regulatory office should receive a copy of the > letter I'm going to write to AT&T? Surely it must be illegal to bill > for a non-existant number. That would be an odd one, if there were never any outbound calls with an ANI of that number. If there were ever an outbound call from that number, then AT&T would dutifully start billing on it. If you answered a call ringing in on that number, and then did a flash to pick up a second dial tone, I wonder if the outbound ANI would be the second number. Clarence A Dold - Hidden Valley (Lake County) CA USA 38.8-122.5 [TELECOM Digest Editor's Note: No, it would not. Because the phone only shows one number (main line). Other numbers are just aliased on to it. In other words if you call my ring-ring line, teh switch is told 'this is really number X, ring X instead but give it that cutesy ring instead. PAT] ------------------------------ From: Hank Karl Subject: Re: Vonage Questions Date: Mon, 10 May 2004 12:04:35 -0400 Organization: NETPLEX Internet Services - http://www.ntplx.net/ Try the www.testyourvoip.com site first to see if your Internet connection will support VoIP. 4Gbs shouldn't have a problem. Nor should 4Mbs. But VoIP raw bandwidth is not an adequate measure of quality for VoIP, you need to know something about the packet loss rate, delay variation (ie jitter) and delay. Hank On Thu, 6 May 2004 11:34:28 -0400, John Jones wrote: > 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: VOIP News Date: Mon, 10 May 2004 11:08:19 -0400 Subject: Weekend Woes - Packet8 VoIP Service Issues, With No Support Reply-To: VoIPnews@yahoogroups.com http://www.broadbandreports.com/shownews/43618 Weekend Woes Users of the Packet8 VoIP service have reported sporadic service related issues this weekend. We have previously discussed similar issues with Packet8 service on multiple occasions. The connectivity problems have been occurring during times when no customer support is available. Packet8 customer service telephone support is only offered Monday through Friday from 8 am until 5 pm Pacific Time as per their web site , this is a growing concern for many of their customers. Article plus reader comments (not shown above) found at: http://www.broadbandreports.com/shownews/43618 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: Mon, 10 May 2004 11:24:42 -0400 Subject: KaZaA Chiefs Tackle VoIP Reply-To: VoIPnews@yahoogroups.com http://australianit.news.com.au/articles/0,7204,9524843%5E15322%5E%5Enbv%5E15306,00.html Simon Hayes KAZAA creators Niklas Zennstrom and Janus Friis are planning paid voice-over internet protocol (VoIP) services that will integrate with local telephony networks. Eight-month-old Skype which has five million registered users, 30,000 of whom it hosts daily is moving to take on veterans such as Vonage, Packet8 and VoicePulse to provide local dial. Skype is free at present but can only connect to other Skype users on PC or pocket PC. Mr Zennstrom said the paid service would allow access to standard telephony. Full story at: http://australianit.news.com.au/articles/0,7204,9524843%5E15322%5E%5Enbv%5E15306,00.html ------------------------------ From: VOIP News Date: Mon, 10 May 2004 11:55:36 -0400 Subject: Wi-Fi Phones Could be Next Trend in Thrift Reply-To: VoIPnews@yahoogroups.com http://www.mlive.com/newsflash/lateststories/index.ssf?/base/business-2/1084124643311630.xml By ELLEN SIMON The Associated Press NEW YORK (AP) Now that some Wi-Fi "hot spots" have grown into broader neighborhood "hot zones," the next wave is waiting: Phones and gear that send conversations over wireless Internet networks for free or at a fraction of the cost of traditional calls. Mobile phone maker Motorola Inc. plans to introduce a device that would seamlessly switch calls from cellular networks to cheaper Wi-Fi networks wherever they're available. Discount carrier IDT Corp. is testing consumer Wi-Fi phone service in Newark, N.J. If successful, Wi-Fi calling would be one more factor decreasing calling costs and shrinking revenue at traditional carriers. "The potential is enormous as an alternative to conventional telephony," said John Jackson, a wireless-technology analyst at The Yankee Group. Full story at: http://www.mlive.com/newsflash/lateststories/index.ssf?/base/business-2/1084124643311630.xml ------------------------------ From: tom@heartmath.com (Tom Beckman) Subject: Phone Line Busy Out Toggle Switch? Date: 10 May 2004 15:25:28 -0700 Organization: http://groups.google.com I'm planning on having several phone lines in a hunt group. I'd like to be able to busy out lines when not in use so that calls will roll over to other lines. I looked around for a little box with a toggle switch that would be placed between the phone and the wall jack that would switch between on hook and off hook states. Does anyone know if such a device exists? Thanks. Tom [TELECOM Digest Editor's Note: When I had my bank of voice recorder machines back in the 1970's, Illinois Bell had me set up this way. When it was time to change the daily three minute message, I flipped this switch which busied out all lines. Calls in progress were allowed to finish but no new calls would be answered; the caller would get a busy signal. When I finished making my new recording through one master unit which then spread to all the 'slave' machines, I had to flip the switch back to allow call-ins to resume. PAT] ------------------------------ From: dold@DitchingXC.usenet.us.com Subject: Re: Ditching Copper - Getting Fax Machines and VoIP to Play Nice Date: Mon, 10 May 2004 22:31:13 UTC Organization: a2i network CharlesH wrote: > Wait a minute ... if you have VoIP, you have broadband of some sort. > And a TiVo can be configured to use a broadband connection to "call home" > rather than use dialup. So why is TiVo an issue here? DirecTivo won't "call" on broadband the way a Standalone Tivo will. Clarence A Dold - Hidden Valley (Lake County) CA USA 38.8-122.5 ------------------------------ 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 #235 ******************************