From editor@telecom-digest.org Sun May 30 23:48:44 2004 Received: (from ptownson@localhost) by massis.lcs.mit.edu (8.11.6p3/8.11.3) id i4V3mhm27482; Sun, 30 May 2004 23:48:44 -0400 (EDT) Date: Sun, 30 May 2004 23:48:44 -0400 (EDT) From: editor@telecom-digest.org Message-Id: <200405310348.i4V3mhm27482@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 #269 TELECOM Digest Sun, 30 May 2004 23:49:00 EDT Volume 23 : Issue 269 Inside This Issue: Editor: Patrick A. Townson A New 911? [was Consumer Advocates Tell FCC ... ] (AES/newspost) Wake-Me-Up From AT&T (Norm) Invitation to IPSI-2004 Montenegro and IPSI-2004 Stockholm (IPSI-2004) New Way to Clear up Static on Voip? (Eli Riles) Re: The Efax Fax Police are After Me!!! (Gordon S. Hlavenka) Re: Consumer Advocates Tell FCC That VOIP Telephone (Charles B. Wilber) Now Playing "Hacker Hunter" (Jon Londono) Re: Consumer Advocates Tell FCC That VoIP Telephone Customers (John Levine) Re: Consumer Advocates Tell FCC That VoIP Telephone Customers (R Greenberg) Re: Buffalo Spammer Headed for Prison (SELLCOM Tech support) Re: Buffalo Spammer Headed for Prison (Howard S. Wharton) 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: AES/newspost Subject: A New 911? [Was Consumer Advocates Tell FCC ... ] Date: Sun, 30 May 2004 17:21:07 -0700 In article , Jack Decker wrote: <-----much material snipped-----> > 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. Interesting comments, interesting problem (as per the old saying, "May you live in interesting times"). Would it make any sense in the (somewhat) long run to envision a world (or at least a U.S.) in which * Telephony in the current sense becomes converted totally to the Internet, and becomes just a minor part of the TCP/IP data that flows from everywhere to everywhere, from anyone's temporary broadband connection at home, office, or the local Starbucks to anyone else's broadband connection, wherever they are and however they make that broadband connection. (Sure seems to me that's going to happen, and rapidly, in any case.) * But, suppose the current local telco physical plant -- that is, the copper wires that come from current local telco offices to physical locations, like your home or office -- also remain in existence and in operation, but they no longer do any telephony or switching or person to person or point to point communications in the existing sense. * Rather, this plant, and its future extensions, are converted more or less totally into simple but vital safety, alarm, monitoring and signalling applications. In other words, * You continue to have (in most cases) *one pair* (maybe more) running (unshared) from your residence, office, etc, to the nearest local former telco office -- but the purpose of that wire is no longer telephony, or communications. * Rather, although these pairs may be (and in the near term mostly will be) the same pairs that already exist, they'll no longer be used or maintained by "the phone company" but by a new company or agency whose total business is to be a connection point and to provide a hard-wired link signalling link between your physical location and a variety of public safety and other local agencies and businesses. * One of the primary services on this pair in fact could be a "new 911" that's directly connected to emergency call buttons you have at various places around the house -- along with the emergency button that your elderly parent has on their wrist or pinned to their clothing, and maybe a link to the cordless phones on the VOIP box that's in your house (which has a physical connection to the pair so long as it is in your house). Punch the button, the local office sees the signal, and transmits the info about this (but does NOT make any kind of two-way connection) to the appropriate local agency. (Actually for 911, but not other services, maybe it does make a voice link.) * The local office of this new agency is of course connected in reliable fashion (though smart switches, and with appropriate battery backup) to the appropriate local police or public safety departments. * This "new 911" can in fact be an "extended 911" that's also hard-wired to the intelligent smoke and temperature detectors around your residence, while the local agency office is of course appropriately wired to the local fire department. Temp rises, smoke alarms go off, and the local agency lets the fire department know. * Your local power utility, working with and through this new local agency, can now read your electric and gas meters over this line -- meaning a simpler design for the smart meters, which no longer need to cope with the phone system -- and, incidentally, no way for the power company to get into your VOIP system or possibly your personal wifi system. * Through suitable arrangements set up jointly between you, this new local agency, and various commercial home security companies, these companies can offer you varied home security services and products with the signalling done over these wires. * Various broadcast notification services outward from govt agencies to residences might be set up this way -- hardwired analogies to fire sirens, or the "phone trees" that some communities maintain for things like fires, floods, or biochem attacks (and that of course failed to work in the recent Palo Alto mountain lion idiocy) * One of the attractive features of this system is of course that it can be self-powered, like the current phone system, so that it continues to work -- and the low-powered attached gadgets in your home continue to work -- even during power outages. * Since it's defined entirely by wires, not by switching, the central office knows for sure the geographical locations where any inputs are coming from -- with very little intelligence in the local office's computers, an alarm signal from your smoke detector can be passed on to to the right fire department despite municipal or "area code" boundaries. * Seems to me a system like this could be much less subject to polst-event overload failures if something big or widespread happens. So, how does this get paid for? Well, a) It won't cost that much. For most of the existing physical locations in an existing community, the telco wires are already in existence (and pretty long lived). Building them into new green-field residential subdivisions or apartment buildings will have minimal cost at the margin, especially since they can piggy back on the conduits and installation work for the fiber or coax or whatever will go into those locations. (Or, the signals can piggyback on the electrical power infrastructure -- or the wires can be aggregated close to groups of residences and transmitted in by a dedicated radio link.) b) The "local offices" envisioned here will of course just be not much more than a small but reliable unmanned "Unix box" (running of course anything but Windows) c) Make the fire detection part of the service effective enough and the savings on your fire insurance premiums will more than pay for it (or you'll find that without it, you can't get fire insurance). What's not to like about this? a) False alarm problems on the automated fire and security services? No more problem than at present, and can be coped with by various measures. b) What else? ------------------------------ From: Norm Subject: Wake-Me-Up From AT&T Date: Sun, 30 May 2004 11:44:01 -0400 Organization: Posted via Supernews, http://www.supernews.com The other morning I got a literal wakeup call from someone at AT&T long-distance about an overdue bill. After getting assurance, and because my credit-card# had recently changed, I provided the information -- then realized I *assumed* he was talking about the same phone number I was using. Nope, it was another phone number that I'd dropped AT&T as the long-distance telco on. Now I wanted to know wny there was a long-distance charge where AT&T wasn't the carrier. "Because your telco of choice couldn't handle the traffic and you're billed for the overflow and wouldn't you rather have AT&T? Why pay two long-distance telcos?" Really now! When I finally got to AT&T billing she sounded amazed -- "They actually told you that?" Oh, me. This is not your mothers telco. "The web has got me caught. I'd rather have the blues than what I've got." ------------------------------ Date: Sun, 30 May 2004 22:36:46 +0200 From: IPSI-2004 Subject: Invitation to IPSI-2004 Montenegro and IPSI-2004 Stockholm, vip/code Dear Potential Speaker: This is an invitation for you to attend two IPSI BgD multidisciplinary and interdisciplinary conferences, one in Venice, and one in Prague, as follows: IPSI-2004 VENICE Venice, Italy (arrival: 10.11.2004. departure: 14.11.2004.) Deadlines: 15 June 2004 (abstract) + 1 August 2004 (full paper). IPSI-2004 PRAGUE Prague, Czeck Republic (arrival: 11.12.2004. departure: 14.12.2004.). Deadlines: 15 July 2004 (abstract) + 1 September 2004 (full papers) If you like to obtain more information on both conferences, please reply to this email. All IPSI BgD conferences are non-profit! They bring together the elite of the world science (so far, 7 times a Nobel Laureate was talking at the opening ceremony), and they take place in the leading hotels of the world. Topics of interest include, but are not limited to: Internet, Computer Science and Engineering, Management and Business Administration, Education, e-Medicine, Electrical Engineering, Bioengineering, Environment Protection, and e-Economy. Sincerely Yours, Prof. V. Milutinovic, Chairman PS -- If you plan to submit an abstract/paper, let us know immediately. If you are not able to attend now, but you like to be informed about the future IPSI BgD conferences, please let us know. If you do not like to receive future invitations, let us know, as well! ------------------------------ From: voipguy4321@yahoo.com (Eli Riles) Subject: New Way to Clear up Static on VOIP ? Date: 30 May 2004 15:08:28 -0700 Organization: http://groups.google.com I saw these guys at Networld Interop a couple weeks ago and it appears that they have a very unique way to clear up static on a converged network without messing with routers or the topology of the network? Has anybody else heard of them or used this product? www.netequalizer.com Thanks Eli ------------------------------ Date: Sun, 30 May 2004 22:16:17 -0500 From: Gordon S. Hlavenka Reply-To: nospam@crashelectronics.com Organization: Crash Electronics Subject: Re: The Efax Fax Police are After Me!!! Earlier I wrote: > 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. Update: I just got my third such notice, and my eFax number now connects to a recording saying, "This number is not in use." So it took them 18 months, but apparently they've finally canned me. Interestingly, my SBC/Yahoo DSL homepage includes a link for a free eFax account; I clicked it and read _everything_, it says nothing about any limit on incoming faxes. So I'm using that one instead. Gordon S. Hlavenka http://www.crashelectronics.com "If we imagined he could _find_ the car, we could pretend it might be fixed." - Calvin ------------------------------ Date: 30 May 2004 11:46:13 EDT From: Charles.B.Wilber@Dartmouth.EDU (Charles B. Wilber) Subject: Re: Consumer Advocates Tell FCC that VOIP ... Historical precedent does not come down on the side of Mr. Decker's argument if you consider auto emissions standards. Automobiles have been around for 100 years or so. Nevertheless, any new auto technology must meet current emissions standards before it can be sold in the U.S. This is true of domestically manufactured vehicles as well as imported vehicles. The mere fact that a new technology is involved (hydrogen fuel, pelletized fossil fuel, methane, vegetable-based fuels, etc.) does not exempt the vehicles from emissions standards, safety standards or any other standards to which motor vehicles traveling on our public roads must adhere. We do not see introduction of new auto engine technology being "expedited" by allowing manufacturers to disregard existing emissions standards. There is no "hands off" policy for hydrogen powered vehicles or for the new class of very fuel efficient diesel engines. They must conform to existing standards just like any other vehicle driven on our public thoroughfares. Only those vehicles which existed prior to the emissions standards are granted immunity or "grandfathered" by our laws. Arguments that "unreasonable" emissions standards would stunt the growth of new engine technology or prevent economically disadvantaged people from being able to afford them do not exempt them from those standards. Opinions expressed herein are solely mine and not necessarily those of my employer or anyone else. Charlie Wilber --- Jack Decker wrote: 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. --- end of quote --- ------------------------------ From: jcl20@msn.com (Jon Londono) Subject: Now Playing "Hacker Hunter Date: 30 May 2004 09:23:00 -0700 Organization: http://groups.google.com Sci-Fi Horror presented in streaming video. 35 min. A roller-coaster ride spanning 900 years complete with surround sound and digital special effects. You'll need broadband and the RealOne Player to view. Movie trailer available at website. http://www.g-films.com ------------------------------ Date: 30 May 2004 16:24:48 -0000 From: John Levine Subject: Re: Consumer Advocates Tell FCC That VoIP Telephone Customers Organization: I.E.C.C., Trumansburg NY USA >> Don't be silly. The vast majority of VoIP phones are plugged in one >> place and stay there. ... > 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. Sigh. Had you actually read the message you were responding to, you would have noticed that I said that the vast majority of VoIP phones stay still, not that they all do. The ones that move would, I hope, have enough sense either to update their location when they do, or else not to register a location. There are a few wireline phone users who use radio phone patches and other stuff that let them make calls other than from the phone's nominal location, but nobody claims that we should therefore throw out all of E911. > 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. Had you actually read the message you were responding to, you would have noticed that I didn't say that. And I didn't mean it, either. > 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. ... Aha, now we get to the nub of the problem. VoIP is a service that only appears competitive with real telephones when it is coddled with special tax exemptions and it doesn't have to offer the reliability and service of real telephones. If VoIP had to compete head to head with real telephones, it would shrivel and die. I've rarely seen a VoIP advocate admit this so honestly. Thanks. By the way, it's not true. Cable providers can and do offer competently engineered VoIP service that's just as good as POTS, including E911, and still slightly cheaper than wireline, particularly if you use all of the features and bundled LD they include. > 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). Right, and they will thrive with the 2% of their customers that don't mind losing their local U.S. numbers. (In case you forgot, Vonage and other VoIP providers all depend on U.S. CLECs to provide connections to the U.S. local network.) Sheesh. Regards, John Levine, johnl@iecc.com, Primary Perpetrator of "The Internet for Dummies", Information Superhighwayman wanna-be, http://www.johnlevine.com, Mayor "A book is a sneeze." - E.B. White, on the writing of Charlotte's Web ------------------------------ From: richgr@panix.com (Rich Greenberg) Subject: Re: Consumer Advocates Tell FCC That VoIP Telephone Customers Date: 30 May 2004 13:07:20 -0400 Organization: Organized? Me? In article , Jack Decker wrote: > "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:) This is less of a problem than you might think. Most of the newer crop of M$ Windows systems come standard with Wordpad, which is essentially a subset of word. Rich Greenberg N6LRT Marietta, GA, USA richgr atsign panix.com + 1 770 321 6507 Eastern time zone. I speak for myself & my dogs only. VM'er since CP-67 Canines:Val, Red & Shasta (RIP),Red, husky Owner:Chinook-L Atlanta Siberian Husky Rescue. www.panix.com/~richgr/ Asst Owner:Sibernet-L ------------------------------ From: SELLCOM Tech support Subject: Re: Buffalo Spammer Headed for Prison Organization: www.sellcom.com Reply-To: support@sellcom.com Date: Sun, 30 May 2004 17:23:17 GMT dwolffxx@panix.com (David Wolff) posted on that vast internet thingie: > Can we petition the court to *raise* his sentence? I'd like to request > he be decapitated; he deserves a more sever(e) sentence. We can only hope that the spammer's new room mates (no pun intended?) "Big Bubba" and his associates were in their former occupations computer literate and victims of spam. 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: Howard S. Wharton Subject: Re: Buffalo Spammer Headed for Prison Date: Sun, 30 May 2004 16:12:23 -0400 Organization: The University at Buffalo Mr. Carmack got what he deserved. His family also blamed the Attorney General for unfairly picking on him and that he is innocent. Even through that FBI found stolen ID's and credit card numbers on his machine at his mother's house. He was given 3 1/2 to 7 years and could be out after serving the minimum. This case almost was close to home. Back in March, my wife had jury duty and was picked for this case, but was not selected. Howard S. Wharton Fire Safety Technician Occupational and Environmental Safety Services State University of New York at Buffalo ------------------------------ 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 #269 ******************************