From editor@telecom-digest.org Mon May 24 14:51:56 2004 Received: (from ptownson@localhost) by massis.lcs.mit.edu (8.11.6p3/8.11.3) id i4OIpuR13225; Mon, 24 May 2004 14:51:56 -0400 (EDT) Date: Mon, 24 May 2004 14:51:56 -0400 (EDT) From: editor@telecom-digest.org Message-Id: <200405241851.i4OIpuR13225@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 #255 TELECOM Digest Mon, 24 May 2004 14:51:00 EDT Volume 23 : Issue 255 Inside This Issue: Editor: Patrick A. Townson Should Regulators Treat Internet Phone Service Like a Phone? (VOIP News) Sharing DSL Wirelessly w/o Hardwiring Any Computers (Daveman750) WCPE and WFMT May Lose Satellite Carriage (Neal McLain) Saga Continues (was Re: Verizon Wireless Detail Missing) (Gordon Hlavenka) An Opportunity to Become A Wireless Professional (singhsagarsk) VOIP Tutorials - Choice Links For Learning VOIP (sitekeeper) Re: The Efax Fax Police are After Me!!! (Frank@nospam.biz) Re: The Efax Fax Police are After Me!!! (Fred Atkinson) Re: The Efax Fax Police are After Me!!! (Gordon S. Hlavenka) Re: The Efax Fax Police are After Me!!! (SELLCOM Tech support) Re: Vonage Questions (charlie3) Re: Taking my Cell Phone to Switzerland? (Gene S. Berkowitz) Re: Taking my Cell Phone to Switzerland? (Michael D. Sullivan) Re: Western Union Public Telegraph Offices (Frank@nospam.biz) Re: Test-Driving a Cellular GPS Service (Frank@nospam.biz) Re: Question About Verizon Home Voicemail (Dave Hauss) Re: 802.16(Wi-Max) (charlie3) Re: Jeff Pulver Statement on New York Public Service Commission (Al Gillis) Re: 5.8GHz 2 Line Phones (SELLCOM Tech support) The Fight Against Spam, Part 3 (Monty Solomon) Nortel Meridian Contractors Wanted (Bob Hoffman) All contents here are copyrighted by Patrick Townson and the individual writers/correspondents. Articles may be used in other journals or newsgroups, provided the writer's name and the Digest are included in the fair use quote. By using -any name or email address- included herein for -any- reason other than responding to an article herein, you agree to pay a hundred dollars to the recipients of the email. =========================== Addresses herein are not to be added to any mailing list, nor to be sold or given away without explicit written consent. Chain letters, viruses, porn, spam, and miscellaneous junk are definitely unwelcome. We must fight spam for the same reason we fight crime: not because we are naive enough to believe that we will ever stamp it out, but because we do not want the kind of world that results when no one stands against crime. Geoffrey Welsh =========================== See the bottom of this issue for subscription and archive details and the name of our lawyer; other stuff of interest. ---------------------------------------------------------------------- From: VOIP News Date: Mon, 24 May 2004 10:42:56 -0400 Subject: Should Regulators Treat Internet Phone Service Like a Phone? Reply-To: VoIPnews@yahoogroups.com http://www.mlive.com/newsflash/business/index.ssf?/newsflash/get_story.ssf?/cgi-free/getstory_ssf.cgi?f0024_BC_WSJ--InternetTelephon&&news&newsflash-financial Should regulators treat Internet phone service like a phone or the internet? By MARK WIGFIELD The Associated Press The Wall Street Journal Internet phone service could be the next big thing in telecommunications, promising more competition, new high-tech features and free or low-cost calling to anywhere in the world. But first, regulators have to decide: Is it more Internet, or more telephone? The distinction could be critical to the fledgling service. Because while the telecommunications industry has a long history of heavy government intervention, Internet services have been only lightly regulated so far. Moreover, supporters of Internet calling say that subjecting the newcomer to the same kinds of strict rules that entrenched telephone companies operate under could strangle the infant in its cradle. State regulators and their backers argue that taking a laissez-faire approach to Internet calling threatens to weaken long-established consumer protections for telecommunications that exist only because of the regulators' stick. They want to ensure that services like 911 emergency calls and subsidies for rural service survive. The Federal Communications Commission, however, has signaled a clear interest in minimizing regulation of Internet telephony, known as voice over Internet protocol, or VOIP. In February, in response to a request from a tiny Melville, N.Y.-based VOIP provider, pulver.com Inc., the agency issued a ruling that said pulver's Free World Dialup and other similar VOIP services are to be considered interstate information services subject to FCC jurisdiction, not telecommunications services subject to much stricter state and federal regulation. The FCC's reasoning: Services like Free World Dialup use only broadband networks; unlike some other VOIP services, their calls never touch a traditional phone network. FCC Chairman Michael Powell further emphasized the agency's antiregulatory stance regarding these kinds of VOIP services by saying the agency will assert "significant authority to act if conflicts arise between state and federal law as a result of the (pulver) ruling." Full story at: http://www.mlive.com/newsflash/business/index.ssf?/newsflash/get_story.ssf?/cgi-free/getstory_ssf.cgi?f0024_BC_WSJ--InternetTelephon&&news&newsflash-financial 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: dsimcha@yahoo.com (Daveman750) Subject: Sharing DSL Wirelessly w/o Hardwiring Any Computers Date: 23 May 2004 18:38:53 -0700 Organization: http://groups.google.com Hi, I would like to share DSL between 2 desktop computers. Is it possible, since I don't have a phone jack near either, to share DSL wirelessly by using 2 wireless adapters, one for each computer, and placing a wireless router near the phone jack across my house (well within range)? In other words, I would like all my computers to access my DSL wirelessly and to have no "main" computer. If so, how exactly would that work? Thanks. ------------------------------ Date: Sun, 23 May 2004 21:38:04 -0500 From: Neal McLain Reply-To: nmclain@annsgarden.com Subject: WCPE and WFMT may lose satellite carriage. As I noted in my June 25, 2003 essay ("WFMT, Cable FM, and Classical Music" ), the company formerly known as United Video (now the UVTV distribution arm of Gemstar-TV Guide International, Inc.) relays WGN Superstation and two classical-music FM stations (WCPE Wake Forest and WFMT Chicago) via satellite, on Galaxy 5, Transponder 7: WGN Superstation video on the main channel. WGN Superstation audio on subcarriers. WCPE stereo audio on subcarriers at 5.58 and 6.12 MHz. WFMT stereo audio on subcarriers at 6.30 and 6.48 MHz. YUSA monaural audio a subcarrier at 6.80 MHz. On March 2, 2004, EchoStar (Dish Network) agreed to acquire several of Gemstar-TV Guide's assets, including the UVTV Distribution division ("EchoStar And Gemstar-TV Guide Sign License And Distribution, Asset Purchase, And Settlement Agreements" ). This acquisition closed on April 6, 2004 ("Gemstar-TV Guide Completes Previously Announced Sale of Assets to EchoStar" ). WGN-Superstation's owner (Tribune Company) has apparently decided to discontinue its uplink arrangement with UVTV. It's apparently building its own uplink facility, and plans to begin uplinking WGN Superstation as of the end of June. As far as I know, neither UVTV nor Tribune intends to continue uplinking any of those radio signals after that date. If that happens, neither WFMT nor WCPE will be available via satellite. WCPE is trying to find a berth on some other G5 transponder, or, failing that, on some other satellite. According to a message I received from Deborah Proctor, WCPE's station manager/chief engineer: > It appears that WGN is making a move to half-analog, half- > digital, and will need ALL of the transponder bandwidth. > Therefore, WCPE, WFMT, and Yesterday USA are out at the > end of June. > I've not talked with WFMT, but Y-USA and WCPE are very > worried. We serve a great deal of traffic via that here- > to-fore tried and true site. > I am under the impression that WFMT will take this as the > end and pursue it no more. WCPE will be left to fight the > battle until the last listener is served. I have not been able to get any information about what WFMT intends to do. Maybe Deborah Proctor is right: WFMT may just let the matter die. Neal McLain nmclain@annsgarden.com ------------------------------ Date: Mon, 24 May 2004 00:16:23 -0500 From: Gordon S. Hlavenka Reply-To: nospam@crashelectronics.com Organization: Crash Electronics Subject: Saga Continues (was Re: Verizon Wireless "Detail Missing" New) The story so far: On my February Verizon Wireless bill, I was informed that my detail billing would be discontinued unless I called a certain 800 number by June 30. After June 30 I could order detail billing for $1.99/month. I did nothing. My March bill included detail billing, plus a charge of $5.00 for said detail. I called the 800 number and pushed all the right buttons, then called CS and got a credit for the $5.00. The April bill showed that credit, plus a $2.58 charge for "Detail billing -- partial month". I waited with breathless anticipation to learn what adventures might befall my May bill. Well, the May bill has arrived and here's the poop: The May bill includes another $5.00 credit for "Detail billing" under the "Adjustments" section. Last month, the credit showed as a negative charge under "Services". However, this bill does NOT include the call detail -- AND it includes $2.99/month for "Roadside Assistance". Oy. So I called them back. They don't know why there's no detail included; the computer says it should be there. They are sending me a duplicate bill and waiving the $6.00 fee. I will not be surprised if I discover the duplicate does not have call details either. WRT the Roadside Assistance charge: This service was given to me as a free promotion when I renewed in February. However the promotion was only for three months -- those months have now expired so I'm being charged. The Roadside Assistance never appeared on my bill until now because it was free. That's their story and they're sticking to it. Now the Roadside Assistance is (theoretically) canceled and the charge therefor has been (theoretically) credited to my account. I think I've been credited twice for the $5.00 Detailed Billing charge that I should only have been credited once for; this tends to make me believe the root problem is incompetence -- see http://www.jargon.net/jargonfile/h/HanlonsRazor.html I now await the duplicate May bill (with or without detail) and am giddy with impatience to learn what thrills will be packaged in my June bill. William Robison wonders, > Is this the point where you send a check for what you believe is > the correct balance, along with a note that you are cancelling > your service with them as they will not honor the contract? I think I will wait until I've seen my June bill, then summarize the whole process for our friends at http://www.citizensutilityboard.org/ with a copy sent to Verizon. For a number of reasons, I'd prefer to keep the Verizon service for now. Gordon S. Hlavenka http://www.crashelectronics.com "If we imagined he could _find_ the car, we could pretend it might be fixed." - Calvin ------------------------------ From: singhsagarsk Date: Mon, 24 May 2004 13:44:33 -0000 Subject: An Opportunity to Become a Wireless Professional Reply-To: telecom-news@yahoogroups.com India is emerging as one of the most important and exiting wireless markets in the world. The next two years will be decisive as the wireless market in India reaches its take off point. Another 70 million wireless subscribers are expected to be added by 2006, pushing up the total base to over 100 million. No other world market has seen this pace of development. United Technologies (A Division Of United Telecoms Limited, www.utlindia.com) offers you an opportunity to become a Telecom Professional. The course is backed up by a real time experience in our parent Company United Telecoms Limited. It's like Learning telecom from a telecom Company. Telecom Course Details (Wireless) Course Duration: 2 Months Batch Starts on: 31st May 2004. (Evening and weekend batches batches are also available for working professionals.) Target Audience: M.Tech, B.E, Diploma, MCA, Msc and Bsc (in Elecronics & Computer science) Course Contents Comprehensive Study on RF and Data communication Fundamentals Comprehensive design work on CELL PLANNING & overview of 1st and 2nd Generation technologies Descriptive study on the selected standard i.e. CDMA 2000 1x Code generation, Channel allocation, Forward (Uplink) and Reverse (Down)Link analysis, Call Processing, Handoffs, Power Control Hands-on experience in RF devices & CDMA Equipments (On site) Expertise in Network Planning using RF Tools CONTACT ADDRESS: UNITED TECHNOLOGIES No. 32, CMH ROAD (Above the Bata Show Room) INDIRANAGAR. Bangalore 38 Phone No's: 25212393 / 25254678 / 9886285226 Email: sanish@utltraining.com Visit us at: www.utltraining.com / www.utlindia.com ------------------------------ From: sitekeeper@intersyncsolutions.com (sitekeeper) Subject: VOIP Tutorials - Choice Links For Learning VOIP Date: 23 May 2004 12:21:31 -0700 Organization: http://groups.google.com Free Access -- Resources for Learning VOIP Network Technologies. www.intersyncsolutions.com Great for: -students learning networking -professionals seeking information on networking technologies -businesses seeking to apply networking technologies Practical. Fresh Content - updated daily! Check it out! :-) ------------------------------ From: Frank@nospam.biz Subject: Re: The Efax Fax Police are After Me!!! Date: Sun, 23 May 2004 05:28:14 -0700 Organization: Cox Communications Carl Navarro wrote: > Well it finally happened. I had two people send me 11+ pages of faxes > and I just got a message of overuse on my Efax free account! > They think I'm going to pony up $12.95 for montly service to keep my > number. Wow, I wonder if they read the part about I was looking for a > fax when I found them? > So, any suggestions? I'm not paying real money per month for a > service I use one or two times a month. And to think, all I wanted to > do was save a step in having to scan a document into a file. > Carl Navarro There's no free lunch. ------------------------------ From: Fred Atkinson Subject: Re: The Efax Fax Police are After Me!!! Date: Sun, 23 May 2004 12:40:07 GMT Organization: EarthLink Inc. -- http://www.EarthLink.net Well, Then don't sign up for a pay account. The worst they can do is shut down your free account. It's not like it is something that you are paying for. Police? Did you ask to see their badges or police ID? Did they have them? (yes, of course I am injecting a little bit of humor here, I don't mean to be negative. Put on a smiley face). I have an Efax account myself. I rarely get anything on it. But, it is there if I need it. If I were a traveling on business, it would be a great way to receive faxes regardless of where I was. When I was on a training trip in Denver, my office in Washington hit a major snag. Due to my paricular expertise, I was the only person who had a chance of getting it resolved (and it would've been a major disaster if it was not quickly addressed). As I was running across the countryside from radio site to radio site and not near a fax machine, it was a while before I got somewhere I could receive a fax with the data I needed. I couldn't begin making phone calls to appropriate people to begin a resolution process without it. Efax would've been great back then. Of course, that was at a time when not that many people had heard of the Internet and Efax probably wasn't yet around. By the way, does anyone know of an online fax service that allows you to paste text into a form, put a telephone number into a text box in that form, press submit, and have that fax go through? It is just that I send faxes so rarely (and since I have the free Efax account, I can't send faxes over that number), that I'd rather pay by the fax rather than by the month. Ciau for now. Fred On Sat, 22 May 2004 22:13:34 GMT, Carl Navarro wrote: > Well it finally happened. I had two people send me 11+ pages of faxes > and I just got a message of overuse on my Efax free account! > They think I'm going to pony up $12.95 for montly service to keep my > number. Wow, I wonder if they read the part about I was looking for a > fax when I found them? > So, any suggestions? I'm not paying real money per month for a > service I use one or two times a month. And to think, all I wanted to > do was save a step in having to scan a document into a file. > Carl Navarro ------------------------------ Date: Sun, 23 May 2004 23:31:15 -0500 From: Gordon S. Hlavenka Reply-To: nospam@crashelectronics.com Organization: Crash Electronics Subject: Re: The Efax Fax Police are After Me!!! Carl Navarro wrote: > Well it finally happened. I had two people send me 11+ pages of faxes > and I just got a message of overuse on my Efax free account! I wouldn't worry about it. I've gotten this warning twice so far, each time the warning was followed by another message telling me the account had been closed -- yet my efax number continues to work just fine, months later. I mostly just get junk, which is the reason I signed up for it in the first place; why buy paper for junk faxes? Gordon S. Hlavenka http://www.crashelectronics.com "If we imagined he could _find_ the car, we could pretend it might be fixed." - Calvin ------------------------------ From: SELLCOM Tech support Subject: Re: The Efax Fax Police are After Me!!! Organization: www.sellcom.com Reply-To: support@sellcom.com Date: Mon, 24 May 2004 04:02:46 GMT Carl Navarro posted on that vast internet thingie: > Well it finally happened. I had two people send me 11+ pages of faxes > and I just got a message of overuse on my Efax free account! > They think I'm going to pony up $12.95 for montly service to keep my > number. Wow, I wonder if they read the part about I was looking for a > fax when I found them? > So, any suggestions? I'm not paying real money per month for a I hope I am not going too far in left field here but I found this awesome little program that creates PDF www.pdf995.com and it costs $9.95 (I bought the guy's whole thing for $19.95). For that you can print to this pdf printer and then it even opens an email for you to send it AND the pdf reader so you can be sure you are sending what you think you are. I do that instead of FAXing for just about everything these days. (I am in no way connected to them except as a happy customer. 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: charlie@cdsdetroit.com (charlie3) Subject: Re: Vonage Questions Date: 23 May 2004 06:12:59 -0700 Organization: http://groups.google.com I just tried the voip link test and got average results from my comcast cable connection. I have years of experience with internet voice chat. The principle one today is www.paltalk.com . It is designed to work adequately with decent dialup and mostly it does. May be a lot of the troubles with viop is the provider trying to use more bandwidth than really needed for a phone quality call. I'd rather have a reliable connection than stereo quality sound that skips and misses. May be the voip companies should allow the subscribers to choose what sound quality they want. ------------------------------ From: Gene S. Berkowitz Subject: Re: Taking my Cell Phone to Switzerland? Date: Mon, 24 May 2004 01:30:46 -0400 In article , johnl@iecc.com says: > I'm going to a conference in Geneva in July, and it'd be nice to have a > phone. What's the best way to do it? > I have a Cingular tri-band phone, with one of the band being GSM. > Cingular says they have roaming agreements with most of the GSM carriers > in Europe, so if I put my GSM SIM card into a phone that works on Euro > frequencies, it'll work there, albeit at rather high roaming rates. > Cingular will sell me a Nokia 3100 "world" phone that works on GSM 1800, > but 360 days out of the year I'm in North America where my current phone > is just what I want and fits the car kit in my truck. > Can I easily rent a phone when I get there, either an empty one into which > I plug my SIM card, or one with its own card and a number I can use? Or > should I rent one here before I go? Or something else? > Regards, > John Levine johnl@iecc.com Primary Perpetrator of "The Internet for Dummies", > Information Superhighwayman wanna-be, http://iecc.com/johnl, Mayor > "I dropped the toothpaste", said Tom, crestfallenly. In 2000 I rented a tri-band from Omnipoint (now Voicestream) for a trip to Europe. Renting it here was convenient, as I could make sure it was fully charged, I was able to put all my contact numbers into it, and I could give out the number to the people I was meeting ahead of time. --Gene ------------------------------ From: Michael D. Sullivan Subject: Re: Taking my Cell Phone to Switzerland? Date: Sun, 23 May 2004 17:02:00 GMT In article , johnl@iecc.com says: > I'm going to a conference in Geneva in July, and it'd be nice to have a > phone. What's the best way to do it? > I have a Cingular tri-band phone, with one of the band being GSM. > Cingular says they have roaming agreements with most of the GSM carriers > in Europe, so if I put my GSM SIM card into a phone that works on Euro > frequencies, it'll work there, albeit at rather high roaming rates. > Cingular will sell me a Nokia 3100 "world" phone that works on GSM 1800, > but 360 days out of the year I'm in North America where my current phone > is just what I want and fits the car kit in my truck. > Can I easily rent a phone when I get there, either an empty one into which > I plug my SIM card, or one with its own card and a number I can use? Or > should I rent one here before I go? Or something else? In preparation for a vacation in Italy, just bought a world phone on eBay, and an Italian SIM card from www.cellularabroad.com. The latter will also sell or rent world GSM phones. They have SIM cards from many different countries. You would be best off with a SIM card from the country that you will be in, because local calls will be cheap and international calls may be less expensive than if using another country's SIM card, since you would not be roaming. This solution will be much less expensive than using your Cingular SIM card, which would probably cost you a few bucks a minute to use, even for local calls. And an in-country SIM card will also give you a local cellular number in the country, which you can give out to other conference attendees seeking to reach you in Geneva, give it to restaurants as the callback for reservations, etc. I was surprised at how inexpensive world phones are on eBay; lots of Sony Ericsson units being unloaded. Search for "unlocked GSM tri-band". Michael D. Sullivan Bethesda, MD, USA Delete nospam from my address and it won't work. ------------------------------ From: Frank@nospam.biz Subject: Re: Western Union Public Telegraph Offices Date: Mon, 24 May 2004 02:21:25 -0700 Organization: Cox Communications TELECOM Digest Editor wrote: > Here is another historical look at Western Union, a company which was > known throughout the USA during the first half of the 20th Century. > During the period 1900 through about 1969, when Western Union was at its > height, a very common feature in every town in America was the public > telegraph office. I don't recall much use of telegrams after nationwide direct distance dialing (DDD) was pretty much in place, which was the late 1950s. I suspect by 1965 WU was gasping for breath. [TELECOM Digest Editor's Note: An item in Business Week Magazine for August 27, 1960 entitled "Electronics Puts Young Blood in Old Company" is quoted in part here: > "Electronics Puts Young Blood in Old Company" > "When Walter P. Marshall (cover) stepped into the president's job at > Western Union in December, 1948, it looked as if his tenure might be > short and unhappy. Western Union, once the backbone of fast and > dependable long-distance communications in the United States, was, > quite plainly, a deathly sick old company. It was saddled with high > labor costs, old equipment, crushing debt, and local operations that > often cost more to run than they returned in gross revenue. > "Some Western Union executives were waiting for a declaration of > bankruptcy; many doubted that the company would survive to celebrate > its 100th anniversary in 1951. > "-Rejuvenation- But in the ensuing 10 years, Western Union not only > has pulled through, but it has thoroughly rejuvenated itself. Instead > of a winded oldster that could only look back at the days when its > competition was the Pony Express, it now resembles an electronics > adolescent with a bright and profitable future. The company's new > strength already is evident: Last year its revenues and earnings set > an all-time high. > "Western Union can be expected to keep on growing. In the next five > years, management hopes to spend $350-million on expansion. Next > year, the company plans to spend $105-million for plant and equipment > on top of $45-million this year. Completion of a transcontinental > microwave network will increase the system's circuit capacity 10 > times, and will add enormously to the range of services it can offer. > It will be able to provide increased telegraphic service, leased voice > channels, facsimile, closed-circuit television, and perhaps most > important of all, high-speed data processing channels that can > handle digital information at computer speeds. This next weekend, the Memorial Day holiday, I am going to reprint this entire article from Business Week magazine to show just how wrong WUTCO executives were about the company in 1960. And you know, just as in 1960 the business community was saying Western Union would rise again, I strongly suspect one of these days we are going to read about AT&T filing bankruptcy. Sounds unreal, doesn't it? PAT] ------------------------------ From: Frank@nospam.biz Subject: Re: Test-Driving a Cellular GPS Service Date: Mon, 24 May 2004 02:23:45 -0700 Organization: Cox Communications Monty Solomon wrote: > By WALTER S. MOSSBERG > Navigation systems based on the government's Global Positioning System > satellites have become increasingly popular. But they require > specialized gear -- either expensive modules permanently installed in > a car, or dedicated devices you must remember to carry. But what if > you could get GPS navigation in a gadget that's with you all day > anyway -- your cellphone? Now, you can. General Motors has had that disaster they call OnStar for several years now. It is worthless as a navigation device and very poor as a locator service. The only merging of GPS and wireless that makes any sense is as a locator rather than a navigator. ------------------------------ From: dahauss@unlimitedsounds.com (Dave Hauss) Subject: Re: Question About Verizon Home Voicemail Date: 24 May 2004 05:25:55 -0700 Organization: http://groups.google.com Yes I have it doing that now but its a pain to get a call every time there there is voicemail. I wish Verizon would add the feature like my BROADVOICE voicemail has where it will send an email with info such as caller ID and other info and I had it going to my cell phones text messaging. Temporary FL@L&ER wrote in message news:: > Unless I am mistaken, on 19 May 2004 11:41:56 -0700, > dahauss@unlimitedsounds.com (Dave Hauss) wrote: >> I have Verizon home voicemail and am trying to find out if there is >> any possible way I can have it sent a text message to my cell phone >> when a voicemail comes in. Right now, the only thing verizon told me >> it can do is ring a number when a voicemail comes in. I don't want it >> to do that. Any ideas? > If you have the enhanced home voice mail, you can have it dial your > cellphone -- don't think there is any way for it to do a speech-to-text > conversion. All it will do is call whatever number you program it to, > then it will *replay* the message over your cell. That's what you > have, not what you want, right? > Use the usual techniques if you wish to reply via email. > Molon Labe! ------------------------------ From: charlie@cdsdetroit.com (charlie3) Subject: Re: 802.16(Wi-Max) Date: 23 May 2004 13:50:58 -0700 Organization: http://groups.google.com I have some of the same questions you have. I've been searching for answers online same as you have. Besides the ones you raise, what about line of site restrictions. That is the major one that has limited widespread use of land based wireless broadband in urban areas. As you mention there is also supposed to be some unlicensed frequencies available as there is with WIFI. This should mean sooner or later there will be some consumer class equipment. Will this equipment perform better than WIFI? What's most interesting is I can't find the answers to these questions either. The test results blackout is so complete it is as though there has been no testing. Maybe WIMAX is bombing technically, not working as expected. Maybe the big players are dragging their feet because they can't find a way to control the technology as they might like. May be it is both. The reality is there is no WIMAX and my bet is there won't be for the foreseeable future, years to come, not because it can't be done but because the major companies don't want it to be done, yet. It might have been better to have the standards set by a noncommercial group who want the best system rather than the most profits. These are strange words for a person like me who is a self avowed moneygrubbing bloodsucking capitalist pig with no objections to people making money. In this case however the government controls these frequencies and has a responsibility to see if they are used for the public benefit. If you find quality information about WIMAX performance in the real world please pass it along, I'm interested too. ------------------------------ From: Al Gillis Subject: Re: Jeff Pulver Statement on New York Public Services Commission Date: Sun, 23 May 2004 19:44:51 -0700 Organization: http://extra.newsguy.com wrote in message news:telecom23.252.7@telecom-digest.org: >> [TELECOM Digest Editor's Note: The public servants do not like it when >> some kind of dam appears which plugs up their constant flow of money >> for their various petty projects. Did anyone ever notice how the more >> 'peoples-republic-like' our major cities and more populous states >> become, the more oppressive they also become on things like taxes and >> government regulation in general? California is one good example, New >> York and Chicago are two others. > California is a geographically very large state. Most of the > population is contained in well less than 50% of the physical area. > Some of the relatively empty areas are desert, but there are extensive > mountain and forest areas that are very rural. Of course, these folks > views are drowned out by the socialists that run the place. Years ago, just after a California election, my uncle, who lived in the town of Susanville in the north-east of that state, told me he was worried that California had no state senators from the northern part of the state. He said he was worried that with all the representation from the southern part they'd probably all vote to pave Northern California for use as a parking lot for the southern part! [TELECOM Digest Editor's Note: My favorite take-off on this theme is an old comedy show now appearing on TV Land a few times each day called 'Green Acres' which takes place in a mythical town called 'Hooterville'. One day the main character in the show, Oliver Wendall Douglas, an attorney formerly in residence in New York City discovers that Hooterville has no representation in Congress, just loads of public servants who tax and regulate things in the little town as much as they can. PAT] ------------------------------ From: SELLCOM Tech support Subject: Re: 5.8GHz 2 Line Phones Organization: www.sellcom.com Reply-To: support@sellcom.com Date: Mon, 24 May 2004 03:53:48 GMT Pete Romfh posted on that vast internet thingie: > I've looked around a lot and haven't seen any either. With the number of > 802.11b sites in homes you'd think 5.8Ghz would be a logical option. We have a lot of folks going with the TMC ET4000 4 line wired phone system and then adding single line 5.8GHz Motorolas with it. It has great support for adding cordless phones to the system. It has a module that adds an analog port to the system so that a single line cordless can access all 4 lines incoming and outgoing. (That is what we are currently using at SELLCOM and I like it.) 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. ------------------------------ Date: Mon, 24 May 2004 12:06:18 -0400 From: Monty Solomon Subject: The Fight Against Spam, Part 3 The Fight Against Spam, Part 3 by Francois Joseph de Kermadec Editor's note: In part one, F.J. focused on laying the foundation for an anti-spam strategy and he covered how to block most of your unwanted mail. Then in part two, he fine-tuned this strategy, plus he took a closer look at the technologies inside of Mail.app. Now in part three, the conclusion of this series, F.J. covers rules and additional tools and techniques you can use to avoid becoming buried in spam. http://www.macdevcenter.com/pub/a/mac/2004/05/21/spam_pt3.html ------------------------------ From: "Bob Hoffman" Subject: Nortel Meridian Contractors Date: Sun, 24 May 2004 11:34:42 Organization: www.family-bbs.net [FamilyNet International] I am looking for a company in the Dallas Area that will provide contractors on an as needed basis to do moves adds and changes on an as needed basis. Thanks in advance. FamilyNet <> Internet Gated Mail http://www.fmlynet.org ------------------------------ 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 #255 ******************************