From editor@telecom-digest.org Sun May 30 10:18:12 2004 Received: (from ptownson@localhost) by massis.lcs.mit.edu (8.11.6p3/8.11.3) id i4UEIC922794; Sun, 30 May 2004 10:18:12 -0400 (EDT) Date: Sun, 30 May 2004 10:18:12 -0400 (EDT) From: editor@telecom-digest.org Message-Id: <200405301418.i4UEIC922794@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 #268 TELECOM Digest Sun, 30 May 2004 10:17:00 EDT Volume 23 : Issue 268 Inside This Issue: Editor: Patrick A. Townson Touching the Voip: a New Age For Phone Calls [UK] (VOIP News) Re: Consumer Advocates Tell FCC That VoIP Telephone Customers (Jack Decker) Re: Consumer Advocates Tell FCC That VoIP Telephone Customers (CharlesH) Re: Consumer Advocates Tell FCC That VoIP Telephone Customers (David) Re: Taking my Cell Phone to Switzerland? (Joseph) Re: Taking my Cell Phone to Switzerland? (Steven J Sobol) Broadvoice IP Phone Service (Killer Madness) Re: Comcast Sues San Jose in Franchise Dispute (Neal McLain) Re: Why Would I Want a Local T1? (Daniel J McDonald) Re: Buffalo Spammer Headed for Prison (David Wolff) Re: The Strike Goes On (Michael Chance) EPIC Alert 11.10 (Monty Solomon) FCC Leads Telephone Access Talks - Sources (Monty Solomon) EFFector 17.19: Action Alert - Sink the PIRATE Act (Monty Solomon) 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: Sat, 29 May 2004 21:17:33 -0400 Subject: Touching the Voip: a New Age For Phone Calls [UK] Reply-To: VoIPnews@yahoogroups.com http://news.independent.co.uk/business/analysis_and_features/story.jsp?story=526261 Broadband users can talk to each other for nothing, says Clayton Hirst, but the landline isn't dead yet BT was rocked by a scam in the early 1990s. Fraudsters discovered that by jamming a bent paper clip in the slot of a public payphone, they could make a free call. In the few months before it cottoned on to the swindle, BT was conned out of thousands of pounds. Today, people don't need to tamper with a phone for a free call. They can, instead, talk for as long as they want free of charge thanks to a technology called voice over IP (Voip). Using a broadband internet connection, computer users can talk for free to other Voip subscribers, though they are charged for making calls to traditional fixed-line numbers. Until a few weeks ago, Voip was mainly the preserve of people with the necessary technical know-how. Making a call wasn't easy and it often took longer to set up the computer than it did to make a Voip call itself. But all that is changing. On Tuesday, a new company was unveiled offering Voip to the mass market. Called Gossip-tel, it came hard on the heels of a similar launch by Skype, founded by the people behind music website Kazaa. The more established players -- including BT, Thus, Wanadoo and Cable & Wireless -- are waiting in the wings with their own Voip offerings for domestic and business customers. [.....] More established firms, such as Level 3 of the US, are also eyeing the UK as a springboard to launch Voip in the rest of Europe. "This could be big. It is the number one product for us," says Jeff Tench, Level 3's European senior vice-president of voice services. "We are looking at growing this organically and through acquisition as we have a significant amount of cash. BT is not going to want voice over IP to happen. For them it is a threat." Full story at: http://news.independent.co.uk/business/analysis_and_features/story.jsp?story=526261 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/ ------------------------------ Date: Sat, 29 May 2004 17:57:48 -0400 From: Jack Decker Subject: Re: Consumer Advocates Tell FCC That VoIP Telephone Customers Pat, please conceal my e-mail address. On 29 May 2004 03:32:08 -0000, John Levine wrote: > Don't be silly. The vast majority of VoIP phones are plugged in one > place and stay there. For the sort-of-911 on my Vonage phone, I tell > them where the phone is, and they program their system to call the > local 911 center if I dial 911. Yeah, now and then I take the phone > with me on trips, but the other 99% of the time it's right where 911 > thinks it is. I suppose it would be nice if there was a note > displayed to the 911 operator to verify the phone's location if > possible, but that's a tiny detail. John, I'm not being "silly" at all. Just because you (and probably a large number of VoIP users) don't move the VoIP adapter around much, that doesn't mean that no one does. The BroadbandReports.com VoIP Forum has had numerous posts from people who have taken their VoIP adapter with them on trips, and some people appear to have taken a VoIP adapter out of the country permanently (for example, someone will obtain service and then sent the adapter to parents/siblings/other relatives back in the "old country"). It always strikes me as odd that people who might want the Internet to remain at least somewhat anonymous nevertheless seem to think that there is a way to positively locate a VoIP device. I'm not saying you can't do it so it will work 75% or maybe even 90% of the time, but will a 10% failure rate (where emergency calls are sent to the wrong address) be acceptable to the public safety agencies that have to respond to 911 calls? Basically, there are two ways to do 911. One is the way you do it, where the user supplies the address data, and the VoIP company (or some third party used by the VoIP company) attempts to route the call to the 911 center based on that address. The problem there is that the VoIP provider may not have facilities in the same state, let alone the same LATA as the 911 center. *Current* technology requires E911 calls to come in on dedicated trunk lines from the customer's serving Central Office. Obviously, this is impossible in the case of a VoIP provider, unless you expect them to obtain direct wireline trunks to every 911 center in the country. Now, what I am hoping will happen is that the 911 centers will be flexible enough to accept calls via a broadband connection (which, by the way, would give them an alternate way to receive calls should there ever be a "Great Hinsdale Fire" situation in their serving C.O.). But note that this is not what the self-serving idiots at NASUCA want. If you read the full report that was linked (indirectly) from the press release, you may have seen this: Concerning VoIP, NASUCA makes the following recommendations: The Commission should extend enhanced 911 (E911) requirements to VoIP services. Protecting the lives, health and property of VoIP users outweighs any potential risk to the rapid deployment of VoIP providers that might occur by requiring E911 capability. Enhanced 911 provided over VoIP should conform with 911 network systems that are already in place, rather than vice versa. State and local authorities should not have to bear additional financial burdens to adapt the existing 911 systems to a new and untested IP technology for delivering 911 calls with callback and location information. VoIP providers must collect and remit local 911 surcharges to ensure continued funding for 911. Now that is all well and good but they might as well mandate that from now on, all automobiles must be capable of flying. I believe they know full well that no VoIP company could afford to stay in business if they had to obtain direct trunking to every 911 center. You could make automobiles fly, but few people could afford them. In theory, you could make VoIP use the "911 network systems that are already in place", but you will kill off probably 95% of the VoIP providers out there (unless some do what I think they will do -- more on that in a moment). *MAYBE* AT&T could conform to this requirement, but I doubt that VoicePulse, Vonage, Packet8, BroadVoice et. al. ever could. But even so, you still have the problem of what happens if the customer moves their VoIP device and doesn't tell their VoIP provider? The call would still get routed to the wrong 911 center. And there is one other problem with user-supplied data - the user, for whatever reason, might deliberately supply the wrong data. For example, an abusive person might deliberately supply incorrect address information so that if their spouse calls to report being battered, assistance would be deliberately mis-routed. Of course, Tony P. (and not a just few others) think that there's another way to do it ... On Sat, 29 May 2004 05:04:06 GMT, Tony P. wrote: > E-911 is completely possible. The people just can't see the forest for > the trees. > If they can build GPS into a cell phone, they sure as hell can build it > into a VOIP router and then send that info to a server that does a > database dip, finds out the jurisdiction and send it to the PSAP. > But stupidity rules, as usual. It's not a problem of not seeing the forest for the trees, it's a problem of not seeing the GPS satellites for the basement walls. Believe me, this idea (of using GPS) has been kicked around a lot on the aforementioned VoIP Forum, and it always seems to come back to one problem -- to work reliably, GPS needs to be able to see at least some of the GPS satellites. You say that they can build GPS into a cell phone, but how well does GPS work in places like subways or basements? But people might not notice that so much because chances are that if the GPS doesn't work, the phone won't work so well either. Also, I'm not sure that cell phones totally use GPS -- I think in some cases they triangulate their positions by measuring signal strengths relative to the cellular company towers that they can "hear." But a VoIP device would not be able to access a cell company's signals for location purposes. VoIP devices are used in completely different types of locations than cell phones. There are a lot of people who set up a "communications closet" in their basement -- basically a shelf where they have their cable modem, router, VoIP devices and anything else that can be run remotely from elsewhere in the house (Linux users often put a server or two down there!). Note that today's crop of VoIP adapters can work just fine in total darkness, several feet underground and surrounded by eight inches or so of poured concrete. How well do you think they are going to see a GPS satellite from there? You could place a VoIP adapter in a Faraday cage and it would work just fine for phone service, but it isn't going to receive any GPS signals! And please remember, folks, this is an INTERNET device. Those of you who still think that Internet users should have at least a modicum of privacy might want to think about the implications of having a device on your local network that might (if all the conditions are right) be capable of blabbing your precise location to anyone capable of hacking into it. Now, what I think is going to happen if the FCC comes up with some ridiculous requirements is that VoIP will simply move offshore. Vonage, for example, could simply close up shop in New Jersey, move to Canada, and run their operation from there (and continue to serve their Canadian customers, along with any U.S. Residents that could figure out how to obtain a Canadian mail forwarding address). You will see companies popping up in the Caribbean, or perhaps England, or anyplace where they're not going to have a problem terminating traffic to the United States at a reasonable wholesale rate. After all, look at how many years the U.S. has hosted "call back" services that have been used by people in international locations to get around high phone rates and ridiculous tariffs in their home countries. It should only be expected that if we impose onerous regulations on VoIP, turnabout will be fair play. Now I am going to offer an opinion that may offend a few of you, but I don't really care. It seems to me that NASUCA is comprised of a bunch of agencies that are comprised of people who are making their living by supposedly representing telephone "consumers." I believe that they fear VoIP for the same reason that some Public Utility Commission employees fear it, and that is because they see that it has the potential to totally replace wireline telephony, leaving them with nothing to regulate. Therefore, they want to either get VoIP squarely underneath the same onerous regulatory burden as the current telephone companies, or they want to kill it outright -- and they don't really care which, since either outcome would pretty much assure their continued employment, at least for the near future. I believe that these people, therefore, do NOT have the best interest of consumers at heart. They purport to represent consumers because that is their job, but if ever there is a conflict between a) doing what is best for consumers, or b) doing what they feel is necessary to preserve their jobs, they will pick b) every single time. Some of what they propose is not unreasonable, but some of it is very bad for the continued existence of VoIP, and you really should read their full comments before deciding who they are really representing here. You can find those by going to http://www.nasuca.org/ and clicking on "NASUCA's VOIP Comments", or use this direct link to the .doc file: http://www.nasuca.org/filings/VOIP%20Comments%205-28-04.doc (Note: If you cannot read a Microsoft Word file, you may be able to convert it using an online document conversion service. Here are a few that I'm aware of, although I have not attempted to use them on this particular document. If anyone knows of a better free conversion service, I'd like to know about it too:) http://www.gohtm.com/convert_pdf.asp http://wheel.compose.cs.cmu.edu:8001/cgi-bin/browse/objweb http://www.easysw.com/htmldoc/pdf-o-matic.php Please remember that the cellular telephone industry was around for two or three decades before they were expected to comply with E911, and they still haven't completely got it right. VoIP is a new technology and I'm not saying we can't come up with some way to make sure that most VoIP calls to 911 get routed to the correct 911 center most of the time. But, that's going to require technology that may not yet have been developed, and it may also require the 911 centers to actually invest in a little new technology. NASUCA just wants everything their way, and they don't care if it restricts customer choice or forces VoIP companies out of business. All I can say is, they do not represent me nor my views. ------------------------------ From: hoch@exemplary.invalid (CharlesH) Subject: Re: Consumer Advocates Tell FCC That VoIP Telephone Customers Date: 29 May 2004 20:56:50 GMT Organization: http://newsguy.com In article , Tony P. wrote: > E-911 is completely possible. The people just can't see the forest for > the trees. > If they can build GPS into a cell phone, they sure as hell can build it > into a VOIP router and then send that info to a server that does a > database dip, finds out the jurisdiction and send it to the PSAP. Actually, it would be quite hard to put GPS into a VOIP router. Normal GPS receivers don't work indoors; they need to see the GPS satellites. The phones with GPS which do work indoors do so by working in close coordination with a physically nearby cell site, so they can get a location fix with the much weaker indoor signal and access to fewer satellites. And by knowing which cell site the phone is talking to, the location of the phone has been restricted to the few square miles covered by the cell site, making the location fix a lot easier. ------------------------------ From: David Reply-To: FlyLikeAnEagle@United.Com Subject: Re: Consumer Advocates Tell FCC That VoIP Telephone Customers Date: Sun, 30 May 2004 05:09:43 GMT E911 has a certain infrastructure that could support phone portability. In practice, the data exchange practices used by the various telecom groups involved don't lend well to allowing the end customer to tell "the phone company" where their phone is located. Most of this is due to local regulatory practices (IMO) and a not so standard way of transferring the information throughout the system. It seems E911 is something most telco's would like to ignore if they could. The VoIP groups would probably like to stay in that camp if they can. David ------------------------------ From: Joseph Subject: Re: Taking my Cell Phone to Switzerland? Date: Sat, 29 May 2004 20:16:32 -0700 Organization: Posted via Supernews, http://www.supernews.com Reply-To: JoeOfSeattle@yahoo.NONOcom On 29 May 2004 03:26:22 -0000, John Levine wrote: > But the Cingular rep told me that they couldn't turn on int'l roaming > without knoing what phone I plan to use. This sounds wrong based on > everything I know about GSM, but I guess I'll just have to wait until > the Moto phone shows up to find out. They may want the IMEI of the phone, but after you've given them the IMEI it won't make any difference what SIM you put in there if the handset is unlocked. You can change SIM cards as often as you like or is convenient for you. > If I have to call Cingular and give them the IMEI every time I move > the SIM to the other phone, this makes their system considerably less > useful. There's no real reason why cingular has to know the IMEI. It may be a "control" thing or it may just be cingular's ignorance on how GSM works. Considering that prior to the amalgam of cingular when the original GSM operations of Pac Bell Wireless and Bell South DCS which likely had their own real customer care rather than out of SBC in San Antonio who haven't had GSM that long so they may really not be well-versed in what GSM can and cannot do. They'd probably be surprised at the things you can do yourself with GSM star/hash (*#) codes that can be commonly found on the net! (conditional and unconditional diverting/caller ID modfications/ring duration before transfer to voicemail etc.) remove NONO from .NONOcom to reply ------------------------------ From: Steven J Sobol Subject: Re: Taking my Cell Phone to Switzerland? Date: Sun, 30 May 2004 00:07:30 -0500 John Levine wrote: >> I would seriously recommned *not* to rent a phone. Prices for phone >> rental are high and you can actually buy you a second-hand compatible >> phone to use with the service cheaper than renting a phone. > So I discovered. Renting a phone costs $50/wk, so I just bought a > used Moto GSM 900/1800/1900 for $48 on eBay, which should show up next > week. There's probably more than one "world phone" model made by Motorola. The one that I can think of is the L7089; perhaps that's the one you have. I believe there are some other manufacturers that make 900/1800/1900 phones -- perhaps SonyEricsson or Siemens do. But I use CDMA, so I couldn't quote chapter and verse on this point. JustThe.net Internet & New Media Services, Apple Valley, CA PGP: 0xE3AE35ED Steven J. Sobol, Geek In Charge / 888.480.4NET (4638) / sjsobol@JustThe.net Domain Names, $9.95/yr, 24x7 service: http://DomainNames.JustThe.net/ "someone once called me a sofa, but i didn't feel compelled to rush out and buy slip covers." -adam brower * Hiroshima '45, Chernobyl '86, Windows 98/2000/2003 ------------------------------ From: Killer Madness" Subject: Broadvoice IP Phone Service Date: Sat, 29 May 2004 22:53:35 -0400 I have been using Broadvoice for telephone service. I've had it three weeks and it's been pretty damn good. Although caller ID name is not coming through yet (the number is) I am told it's in the works and will be ready this summer. For $10/month for all the state calls I can make is worth it. Having a single line from Verizon and not making ANY calls on it would cost me $19. And if I were to make any calls on it, my god, they would charge me a small fortune. I will be gladly dumping Verizon very soon. It's easy for me to do since I do always have a cell phone for any backup situations. If my home electric goes out (which it barely does) I do have a cell phone. I am 33 years old and all my life I think the electric in any of the homes I've lived in the longest it has gone out was about 2 hours and that was storm related. So I don't need anyone telling me I won't have phone service for 2 hours of 33 years and this is why they wouldn't go for an IP phone service. Maybe where you live electricity is bad, but here in NJ it's too valuable to go out and the electric company loses millions every minute it's out. So they really try to keep it on ALL the time. My Internet service is very stable. I've had that for about 8 years and that's been out about a day in all the time since I've had it. Broadvoice does not have 911 service as of yet, but will during this summer also. Just my 2 cents for a new company I've tried and seems ok for now. ------------------------------ Date: Sat, 29 May 2004 17:41:04 -0500 From: Neal McLain Reply-To: nmclain@annsgarden.com Subject: Re: Comcast Sues San Jose in Franchise Dispute On June 1, 2003, John Higdon wrote [22:489]: > Why Comcast, which operates a 30-year-old cable infrastructure in > San Jose, is nit-picking about issues in its franchise agreement is > beyond me. They don't even have a product to offer; there is > nothing to discuss. On June 1, 2003, I wrote [22.490]: > Well, the city government apparently thinks there's a lot to > discuss. Otherwise, why would this issue have come up in the first > place. The whole point of the "nit-picking" is that Comcast wants > to extend its franchise so that it can build a whole new network and > completely abandon that "30-year old infrastructure." On June 2, 2003, Higdon wrote [22:492]: > Uh huh. We have been hearing this for decades from the half-dozen > companies who have bought the system and then continue to milk the > revenue out of the sixties technology. Comcast is just the latest > in long line of empty promise providers. On June 3, 2003, I wrote [22:495]: > Well, I don't think either of us can predict the future. So here's > a suggestion: mark your calendar for June 4, 2004, and post an > update then on Comcast's progress. June 4, 2004 approaches. I look forward to John's progress report. Neal McLain nmclain@annsgarden.com ------------------------------ Subject: Re: Why Would I Want a Local T1? Organization: io.com From: djmcdona@fnord.io.com (Daniel J McDonald) Date: Sat, 29 May 2004 18:53:25 -0500 In article , xasdfg123456@yahoo.com wrote: > TELECOM Digest Editor noted in response to a question: >> [TELECOM Digest Editor's Note: Because everyone in your building would >> share the same T1. Some people, for various reasons, do not like to >> share, either because they need the bandwidth or they have security >> concerns, or maybe they are just greedy. Shared facilities are always >> cheaper, if that's your only concern. PAT] > Thank you for your reply. I am trying to figure out why my office was > setup with a local T1 for phone connectivity. At ~$650/month + call > charges it is a costly expense for our small office of 20 people. > From what little documentation the previous admin here left, I see 12 > trunks in operation: six lines for our Panasonic DBS and six other > lines for other purposes (faxs, modems). Is this something that our > local carrier would not be able to provide for us? Not all of these > are necessary anymore. It just seems like it would be much less > expensive (like hundreds) to use the lines already in the building. Normally, B1 lines (analog trunk lines) are about $75/month, so 12 trunks would run about $900. That makes $650 for a DS1 carrier sound a lot better. Also, if you switched to B1 lines, your equipment would need to be changed out to support FXO cards instead of DS1, and that might take up more slots that you have available. But I agree that a complete audit of your phone bill, and probably a couple of competative bids, it probably worth your while. Daniel J McDonald CCIE # 2495, CNX Visit my website: http://www.austinnetworkdesign.com ------------------------------ From: dwolffxx@panix.com (David Wolff) Subject: Re: Buffalo Spammer Headed for Prison Date: Sun, 30 May 2004 00:08:20 UTC Organization: Public Access Networks Corp. In article , Marcus Jervis wrote: > 'Buffalo Spammer' Is Sentenced To Prison for Junk-Mail Barrage > BUFFALO, N.Y. -- A man who sent 850 million junk e-mails through > accounts he opened with stolen identities was sentenced to prison > Thursday after telling the judge the case against him was overblown > and had no victims. > "I obviously regret this whole involvement," Howard Carmack began > before being sentenced to three-and-a-half to seven years in prison on > charges including forgery, identity theft and falsifying business > records. Can we petition the court to *raise* his sentence? I'd like to request he be decapitated; he deserves a more sever(e) sentence. Death to spammers -- David (Remove "xx" to reply.) ------------------------------ From: Michael Chance Subject: Re: The Strike Goes On Organization: SBC http://yahoo.sbc.com Date: Sun, 30 May 2004 00:34:00 GMT In article , kd1s@nospamplease.verizon.reallynospam.net says... >> [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] > But how does that account for those of us who have never been part of > a union, yet feel the effects of the outsourcing movement? Simple. Due to union-negotiated contracts, it's almost impossible to layoff union members except by attrition, and then only the lowest wage categories get eliminated (the higher ones remain, as a whole chain of folks are promoted to replace the retiring worker, leaving the lowest job in the change as the one to be attrited). Consequently, when companies with large numbers of union members look to contain expenses through payroll reductions, they look to the non-union, "employment at will" employees that are the first to go. If those positions still are required, then offshoring becomes a viable option. An interesting analysis for what may be happening with this and other similar union contract negotiations was made by columnist Rich Lowery back in January. You can read his column at: http://www.townhall.com/columnists/richlowry/rl20040101.shtml Michael Chance ------------------------------ Date: Sat, 29 May 2004 22:38:43 -0400 From: Monty Solomon Subject: EPIC Alert 11.10 ======================================================================= E P I C A l e r t ======================================================================= Volume 11.10 May 29, 2004 ----------------------------------------------------------------------- Published by the Electronic Privacy Information Center (EPIC) Washington, D.C. http://www.epic.org/alert/EPIC_Alert_11.10.html ====================================================================== Table of Contents ====================================================================== [1] Freedom 2.0 Examines Distributed Democracy [2] Senator Leahy Receives EPIC Champion of Freedom Award [3] Italian Official Offers European Perspective on Privacy [4] Vint Cerf Discusses Privacy and the Internet [5] Oversight Groups Issue Reports on Government Data Mining [6] News in Brief [7] EPIC Bookstore: The Public Voice WSIS Sourcebook [8] Upcoming Conferences and Events http://www.epic.org/alert/EPIC_Alert_11.10.html ------------------------------ Date: Sat, 29 May 2004 23:49:26 -0400 From: Monty Solomon Subject: FCC Leads Telephone Access Talks - Sources By Jeremy Pelofsky and Justin Hyde WASHINGTON, May 28 (Reuters) - U.S. regulators are this weekend leading high-stakes talks among telephone companies aimed at reaching deals for leasing the networks of dominant local telephone carriers, sources familiar with the talks said on Friday. A federal appeals court threw out Federal Communications Commission (FCC) rules that had required the dominant local carriers to lease access to rivals at government-set rates, and that decision is set to take effect June 15. Dominant local carriers BellSouth Corp.(NYSE:BLS), Qwest Communications International Inc.(NYSE:Q), SBC Communications Inc. (NYSE:SBC) and Verizon Communications (NYSE:VZ) have been locked in talks with AT&T Corp.(NYSE:T) and MCI Inc.(PK:MCIA), two long-distance carriers trying to expand their local service. So far, the talks have failed to produce any major deals. A few agreements have been reached between the Bells and smaller local carriers, but the two sides have been reluctant to compromise, trading accusations of stonewalling. - http://finance.lycos.com/home/news/story.asp?story=41719443 ------------------------------ Date: Sat, 29 May 2004 16:30:19 -0400 From: Monty Solomon Subject: EFFector 17.19: Action Alert - Sink the PIRATE Act EFFector Vol. 17, No. 19 May 27, 2004 donna@eff.org A Publication of the Electronic Frontier Foundation ISSN 1062-9424 In the 291st Issue of EFFector: * Action Alert: Sink the PIRATE Act * FBI's "National Security Letters" Threaten Online Speech and Privacy * MiniLinks (13): Clear Channel Finds Another Way to Abuse Artists: Patents * Staff Calendar: 05.28.04 - Annalee Newitz speaks at BayCon 2004, San Jose, CA; 05.29.04 - Kevin Bankston speaks at the 13th Digital Be-In, San Francisco, CA * Administrivia http://www.eff.org/effector/17/19.php ------------------------------ 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. ************************ DIRECTORY ASSISTANCE JUST 65 CENTS ONE OR TWO INQUIRIES CHARGED TO YOUR CREDIT CARD! REAL TIME, UP TO DATE! SPONSORED BY TELECOM DIGEST AND EASY411.COM SIGN UP AT http://www.easy411.com/telecomdigest ! ************************ --------------------------------------------------------------- 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 #268