From editor@telecom-digest.org Wed May 26 23:59:30 2004 Received: (from ptownson@localhost) by massis.lcs.mit.edu (8.11.6p3/8.11.3) id i4R3xU714175; Wed, 26 May 2004 23:59:30 -0400 (EDT) Date: Wed, 26 May 2004 23:59:30 -0400 (EDT) From: editor@telecom-digest.org Message-Id: <200405270359.i4R3xU714175@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 #261 TELECOM Digest Wed, 26 May 2004 23:58:00 EDT Volume 23 : Issue 261 Inside This Issue: Editor: Patrick A. Townson VOIP Regulation ... A Free VoIP "Walkie-talkie" (underscore) Re: Qwest DSL Service and Modem (George Mitchell) Re: Verizon DSL Newsgroup Provider (SELLCOM Tech support) Re: The Strike Goes On (Lisa Hancock) Re: Western Union Public Telegraph Offices (Lisa Hancock) Re: My Posting About Norvergence (Scott Dorsey) Re: My Posting About Norvergence (ll7f16t02@sneakemail.com) Have You Signed up for Directory Assistance Yet? (TELECOM Digest Editor) 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: Justin Subject: VOIP Regulation ... A Free VoIP "Walkie-talkie" Organization: Comcast Online Date: Wed, 26 May 2004 20:41:02 GMT So I was just reading through some google posts in this group ... particularly this one (link below), regarding VoIP regulation ... and the poster mentioned the fact that someone could write an "Internet walkie-talkie" that would not require a central server or entity which could be regulated ... it would just stream voice over IP packets between two IP's, and that's that. Incidentally, I did just that (for that reason, among others) ... and I did call it "WalkieTalkie" ... after looking around to make sure I didn't see any other software using the name. It's free software ... you can get it here: http://home.comcast.net/~justin_brady/walkietalkie/index.html I'm working on a linux version, right now it's just Windows and Mac OS < X This is the original post which caught my eye: http://groups.google.com/groups?hl=en&lr=&ie=UTF-8&threadm=telecom23.178.2%4 0telecom-digest.org&rnum=10&prev=/groups%3Fq%3Dvoip%26hl%3Den%26lr%3D%26ie%3 DUTF-8%26selm%3Dtelecom23.178.2%2540telecom-digest.org%26rnum%3D10 Justin [TELECOM Digest Editor's Note: Well Justin, thank you very much for this contribution to the ongoing discussions here about VOIP. I hope if people choose to try out your free software they will be pleased with it. My assumption is if two or more users install your software they can use it to talk to each other, sort of like, well, a Walkie Talkie CB radio. PAT] ------------------------------ From: George Mitchell Subject: Re: Qwest DSL Service and Modem Date: Wed, 26 May 2004 11:56:39 -0700 Organization: Posted via Supernews, http://www.supernews.com Niy wrote: > Recently Qwest has a promoting package, 256k/256k, MSN, $31.99 every > month, sounds not too bad. But later I found I either have to rent > their modem,3$/month, or buy so called Actiontec modem from them, and > charge is unreasonable, compared to other brand on the market. And > technical support say I can not use other modem+router. > Does anyone here use Qwest DSL service with other modem? I subscribed to DSL from Qwest in the Portland area at the beginning of 1999. They gave me a free Cisco 675 DSL modem AND a free 3Com 3C509 PCI ethernet card. I got my actual internet bits from a Portland ISP, Easystreet Online. I had a very reliable 766Kbps down and 256Kbps up. All of a sudden this spring, Qwest offered an upgrade to 1.5Mbps down and 768Kbps up for the same monthly rate, if I would purchase the Actiontec DSL modem. I would not have been aware of this upgrade if Easystreet hadn't told me about it and offered the same upgrade on their end. I said yes. I wouldn't be surprised if Qwest won't offer you the Cisco 675 at this point, since it's to their advantage to minimize the number of different pieces of equipment they have to support. But the 675 certainly did the job reliably. The new Actiontec also appears to be reliable. I've been pleased since day one with the service I've received both from Qwest and Easystreet. However, the day of changeover was somewhat painful. For Qwest, some software-triggered process changed over the configuration of my loop at midnight on the scheduled day. Easystreet did not realize this until I called them later in the morning, at which point it took 90 minutes to "reprovision the line." I feel this could have been coordinated better. George Mitchell (obfuscated email address) I have no other connection with Qwest or Easystreet besides being a happy customer. ------------------------------ From: SELLCOM Tech support Subject: Re: Verizon DSL Newsgroup Provider Organization: www.sellcom.com Reply-To: support@sellcom.com Date: Thu, 27 May 2004 01:10:19 GMT gnj2@ridgenet.net (gene) posted on that vast internet thingie: > I'm planning on switching to Verizon DSL for my ISP. Talked to their > technical information person to ask who Verizon gets their Newsgroup > feed from. Her answer:"What's a newsgroup?" Is there someone using > Verizon DSL here who can answer this for me. Try news.verizon.net 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: hancock4@bbs.cpcn.com (Lisa Hancock) Subject: Re: The Strike Goes On Date: 26 May 2004 13:06:28 -0700 Organization: http://groups.google.com TELECOM Digest Editor noted in response to Steven J Sobol : > [TELECOM Digest Editor's Note: . You can join the union, but only > be forced to pay the portion of the dues which apply to the > administration of the union, and withhold the (majority of) the dues > which the union officials use for whatever political causes they are > promoting. I've seen that, and the dues the "fee payers" pay are almost as much as full union dues. I used to dislike unions, feeling in the 1970s they got excessively powerful and demanding inefficient featherbedding, like a fireman on a diesel train where there is no fire to tend. But times changed and in the 1990s corporations began to merge and merge and become rather powerful. I think the pendulum has swung the other way to an extent and there is a legitimate need for unions for workers. For example, companies treat their salaried (non-hourly) workers as professionals when it suits them (no overtime pay for working considerably extra), but as hourly when it suits them (docking for sick days). A company can't have it both ways. White collar employees are under increasing pressure for very high productivity and under close computerized scrutiny. For example, the working condition in call service centers might be good _physically_ (ie comfortable chair, air conditioned office), but very demanding psychologically (very high quotas, constant pressure). [TELECOM Digest Editor's Note: Well, the workers can't have it both ways, either. Did it occur to you that much of the union excesses of the 1970-80's was partially responsible for the condition things are in today, with all the outsourcing of labor to India and such places? PAT] ------------------------------ From: hancock4@bbs.cpcn.com (Lisa Hancock) Subject: Re: Western Union Public Telegraph Offices Date: 26 May 2004 13:22:59 -0700 Organization: http://groups.google.com TELECOM Digest Editor noted in respose to hancock4@bbs.cpcn.com (Lisa Hancock): > [TELECOM Digest Editor's Note: ...You sent the mailgram by phone (or > in one of the dwindling number of public offices) and it was > transmitted to a teletype machine at the post office of record for > the requested zip code. At the receiving location, postal clerks > attended to the teletype machine, folding and inserting the message > into a window envelope, and the local postal carrier delivered it to > you. Even with the postal service's spotty record for delivery on a > timely basis, they are usually able to offer next day delivery > within the same zip code. At least they were then, in the 1960's. I > dunno any longer. Mailgram service was very popular with businesses to get out important information en masse cheaply yet quickly. As mentioned, a factory doing a worker recall-from-layoff could use it. I never got a telegram in my life and only saw but one (to my sister -- congrats for her marriage), but I have received a number of Mailgrams. Around 1982, I saw a business that had its own online terminal to directly send Mailgrams. When Compuserve came out, it accepted Mailgrams to be forwarded. I would say cheap* fax machines and desktop word processing eliminated the need for Mailgrams. *Fax machines have been around since at least WW II, but they were big and expensive. In the 1980s they got down to the desktop size and affordable for widespread placement. Xerox marketed one called the Telecopier, with an acoustical coupler for the phone. > The Jewish people had long since moved out, going to Rogers Park and > Skokie; I've been to Skokie. I didn't think Skokie had good bagels. I was at the train/bus station (former North Shore Dempster) in 1982. Were you working there at that time? The CTA has changed the line names to color codes which confuse me. > Lisa, you mentioned that you had meant to say 427 South Lasalle Street, > the main, downtown office of WUTCO. I missed seeing the former LaSalle St train station, it's replacement is small and sterile. Likewise with the Northwestern Station headhouse, though the track sheds are still there. But it's been awhile since I've been to Chicago. > When AT&T is bankrupt and gone (how long that will be, I won't > venture a guess) We just sold the little AT&T stock we had through a buyback program the company offered. We don't want anything more to do with them after being overcharged too many times. Whatever heritage to pre-1983 has been utterly stamped out. I had hoped that Verizon would hold the torch, but they're not turning out much better. It used to be that when certain companies advertised something at a given price, you knew you could depend on them and not discover a 'bait 'n switch'. But now it seems the telcos, big and small, can ONLY advertise sleazy and misleading come-ons. (Banks today aren't any better). Regretfully, consumers are lazy and won't fight ridiculous charges on their telecom bills. [TELECOM Digest Editor's Note: Do you realize in the twenty years since divestiture became reality, at least 75 percent of the current workforce at AT&T has only come on board since that time? Most of the have no idea what the old days were like. Of course that is true of this Digest also. Most of our readers here have come on board since that time and don't remember the olden days of 'one system, one way of doing things, the Bell System way', either. Skokie is still a mostly Jewish town; it has been since the late 1940's when its old name, 'Niles Center' was changed to Skokie. The influx of Jews from the west side of Chicago started around that time. Unlike Evanston, which shares a long border of several miles with the City of Chicago, Skokie only touches Chicago in one litle obscure place for about four blocks on the far northwest side of the city. Mostly the town of Lincolnwood sits in the middle which suits the Skokieites just fine. The old Skokie train station (which served the North Shore line and later the Chicago Transit Authority rapid transit) was taken over by Greyhound for busses and since has become a national historic landmark and further since, (in keeping with the 'no destruction of historic landmarks' provision of the government) has been moved away to elsewhere on the property, with the bus station moving into a small section of the newer, more modern rapid transit facility. Coincidentally, all Skokie telephone are 847-672, 673, 674, 675 as in ORChard, since many long years ago the area was replete with apple orchards, and there is still the Old Orchard Shopping Mall there. The old LaSalle Street (train) Station, just like the Northwestern Station and Grand Central Station are either gone entirely or greatly reduced from their former grandiose selves. Chicago used to have railroad stations (and political conventions) in its former, glory days, but no longer. We also had the North Shore line station, the Illinois Central Station, Union Station and the Randolph Street station. Randolph Street Station and Union Station are still around. Union was greatly renovated and Randolph is still as tacky as always, at least the last time I saw it, five years ago. That whole town still leaves me with a very bad taste in my mouth. I cannot imagine having lived there for forty years or what I saw in it. PAT] ------------------------------ From: kludge@panix.com (Scott Dorsey) Subject: Re: My Posting About Norvergence Date: 26 May 2004 15:29:40 -0400 Organization: Former users of Netcom shell (1989-2000) Steve Lopes wrote: > This is why I asked you to remove it. Norvergence is harassing me again. If > you can remove it would save me a lot of aggravation. If you cannot, they > have already threaten to sue both you and I. I understand your position > though. Pat cannot. It is archived in thousands of places. Nobody can do anything about that. Norvergence can sue and sue and it is not going to change the basic structure of the web. This may be unfortunate for everyone involved but it's not going to change any more than the state legislature can alter pi. --scott "C'est un Nagra. C'est suisse, et tres, tres precis." [TELECOM Digest Editor's Note: The Illinois state legislature at one point did try to make a formal declaration of pi; they said it would be 3.1416, no more, no less. I think it failed to pass. PAT] ------------------------------ From: ll7f16t02@sneakemail.com Subject: Re: My Posting About Norvergence Date: Wed, 26 May 2004 15:37:27 -0500 Organization: Vorturdgance Steve Lopes wrote: >> Failure to remove the aforementioned internet posting within >> (15) fifteen days from the date of this email will result in legal >> action by Norvergence, Inc. This is a problem, because Mr. Gattuso is obviously a moron who doesn't know the difference between a website under your control, websites over which you have no control whatsoever, and USENET. Perhaps if you point out that posting on usenet is like shouting into a room full of people who have tape recorders. Once it's done, it's history, and you can't change history. It's not in your power, Pat's power, the court's power, or the power of some Norvergence scammer. You can (and apparently have) agreed not to badmouth whatever fraudulent scheme Norvergence is running. Presumably you have abided by that. You have presumably removed the posting from all websites over which you exercise control (I'd guess that number would be zero). If you have agreed to remove the posting from websites and archives over which you have no control, you might have a problem, but it seems unlikely that such a provision would be enforceable, since no reasonable person would expect you to have the ability to do so. I don't know anything about Norvergence myself, except what I have read here in comp.dcomp.telecom. Which predominantly talked about their sleazy business practices. Between that and the fact that they're a technical company whose Director of Corporate Affairs apparently has no clue whatsoever as to how Internet services work, I would certainly have reservations about buying their services. ------------------------------ Date: Wed, 26 May 2004 22:51:15 EDT From: TELECOM Digest Editor Subject: Have You Signed up for Directory Assistance Yet? I mentioned here the other day that we now have an alternative REAL TIME Directory Assistance service for Digest readers. No Pin codes are needed. You just go to our sign up page and enter the phone numbers you wish to have enrolled. Then whenever you dial directory assistance on a toll-free 800 number, it uses ANI to capture the number you are using, and you are billed 65 cents for each call to DA; you get one or two inquiries per call. 65 cents is about half or two thirds of what you would pay for DA otherwise. You guys in particular who administer phone systems might find this a good deal, but it can be done for your cellular phone or your landline phone as well. People who have tried it said they set up the single digit '4' to be a speed dial on their cell phone. There is no obligation or contract of any sort other than to pay 65 cents per call, billed either monthly or quarterly to whatever credit card you choose, and if you don't like the service, just quit using it. PAT ------------------------------ TELECOM Digest is an electronic journal devoted mostly but not exclusively to telecommunications topics. It is circulated anywhere there is email, in addition to various telecom forums on a variety of networks such as Compuserve and America On Line, Yahoo Groups, and other forums. It is also gatewayed to Usenet where it appears as the moderated newsgroup 'comp.dcom.telecom'. TELECOM Digest is a not-for-profit, mostly non-commercial educational service offered to the Internet by Patrick Townson. All the contents of the Digest are compilation-copyrighted. You may reprint articles in some other media on an occasional basis, but please attribute my work and that of the original author. Contact information: Patrick Townson/TELECOM Digest Post Office Box 50 Independence, KS 67301 Phone: 620-402-0134 Fax 1: 775-255-9970 Fax 2: 530-309-7234 Fax 3: 208-692-5145 Email: editor@telecom-digest.org Subscribe: telecom-subscribe@telecom-digest.org Unsubscribe:telecom-unsubscribe@telecom-digest.org This Digest is the oldest continuing e-journal about telecomm- unications on the Internet, having been founded in August, 1981 and published continuously since then. Our archives are available for your review/research. We believe we are the oldest e-zine/mailing list on the internet in any category! URL information: http://telecom-digest.org Anonymous FTP: mirror.lcs.mit.edu/telecom-archives/archives/ (or use our mirror site: ftp.epix.net/pub/telecom-archives) Email <==> FTP: telecom-archives@telecom-digest.org Send a simple, one line note to that automated address for a help file on how to use the automatic retrieval system for archives files. You can get desired files in email. 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 #261 ******************************