From editor@telecom-digest.org Mon Jul 12 03:20:16 2004 Received: (from ptownson@localhost) by massis.lcs.mit.edu (8.11.6p3/8.11.3) id i6C7KFF24216; Mon, 12 Jul 2004 03:20:16 -0400 (EDT) Date: Mon, 12 Jul 2004 03:20:16 -0400 (EDT) From: editor@telecom-digest.org Message-Id: <200407120720.i6C7KFF24216@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 #328 TELECOM Digest Mon, 12 Jul 2004 03:19:00 EDT Volume 23 : Issue 328 Inside This Issue: Editor: Patrick A. Townson Rivals Line Up For Internet Phone Service Race (VOIP News) Re: Tap Into Neighbors' WiFi? Why Not, Some Say (Craig Macbride) Re: How Much Does Bill Gates Know About His Software? (Daniel McDonald) Re: How Much Does Bill Gates Know About His Software? (clearmesupercom) Norvergence - Getting Out of a Matrix Contract (Mark Yamasaki) Re: US FCC Wants Radio, TV to Keep Tapes of Shows (Rich Greenberg) Re: Death Penalty Applies to Top Posters? (Rich Greenberg) Re: Death Penalty Applies to Top Posters? (John David Galt) Re: Death Penalty Applies to Top Posters? (Joseph) Re: Death Penalty Applies to Top Posters? (Jim Hopkins) 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: Sun, 11 Jul 2004 12:22:46 -0400 Subject: Rivals Line Up For Internet Phone Service Race Reply-To: VoIPnews@yahoogroups.com http://www.fortwayne.com/mld/journalgazette/business/9131050.htm telecommunications By Urvaksh Karkaria The Journal Gazette As Gulliver stirs, the Lilliputians in the nascent Internet phone service business are bracing for a not-so-even showdown. Verizon Communications plans to invest about $3 billion over the next two years to beef up its broadband service, which will include launching nationwide phone service using Voice over Internet Protocol, or VoIP. New York-based Verizon could be viewed as the powerful sea captain from the novel "Gulliver's Travels" as the company lumbers into the high-speed Internet phone business, attempting to fend off the cable competitors and Lilliputian startups snipping at its market share. "We're in the final stages of testing this," Verizon spokeswoman Bobbi Henson said. A national rollout of the service is expected to begin later this summer, but Henson remained mum on which cities might get the service first or when it would trickle down to the northeast Indiana market. This is Verizon's 'competitive counterpunch,' said Richard Heidemann Jr., telecommunications analyst with National City's Private Client Group in Cleveland. Full story at: http://www.fortwayne.com/mld/journalgazette/business/9131050.htm 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/ ------------------------------ Subject: Re: Tap Into Neighbors' WiFi? Why Not, Some Say From: craig@f8d.com (Craig Macbride) Organization: Nyx Net, The Spirit of the Night Date: 11 Jul 2004 01:51:31 -0600 William Warren writes: > Think about it: the only thing the business owner gets by turning off > SSID broadcast, restricting MAC addresses, and enabling WEP is a lot > of headaches and maintenance and complaints from his employees. That depends on how much it might be abused. A single laptop could use the whole of the business's broadband bandwidth. Does the business owner want that possibility? If they are paying for bandwidth on their net connection, they might care about it being used up for that reason too. >> [TELECOM Digest Editor's Note: If no other laws exist against this >> sort of behavior (using someone else's WiFi without permission) do >> you think FCC regulations against intercepting radio signals not >> intended for yourself and using them to your benefit would apply? PAT] I really doubt it. If someone's system is set up to publish its ID, not encrypt the transmission, and gives out IP addresses to any machine it sees via DHCP, it's rather analogous to having a "Welcome" sign on your unlocked door and a robot which greets visitors as they come to the door. How can anyone possibly outlaw a situation in which the system is not only allowing access but is giving out IP addresses to all comers, especially when this is indistinguishable from what deliberately free wireless systems do? A much stickier legal area might be the situation if someone has their wireless network wide open but captures all traffic across it. How about if they just run a transparent web proxy? > (1) Please don't raise the "security" banner: it's a red herring to > me. Anyone who has substantial money to gain by eavesdropping on a > corporate network will find other ways in, and that's what strong > end-to-end encryption is for anyway. The only "security" to be gained > by guarding a WiFi network is job security for the IT guys. It's not a red herring in many places. Many businesses hook up their wireless AP to the inside of their network, so that their wireless laptops can share files, etc, with the rest of the internal network. Their firewalls are thus totally bypassed and some outsider connecting up can possibly cause enormous damage as a result. It's not just eavesdropping that can then be done for no cost, but quite possibly damage too. Even if the outsider doesn't intend damage, a worm-infected machine could infect the whole of the network inadvertently, having connected up to the "inside" of the network. Craig Macbride http://www.f8d.com I don't want to achieve immortality through my work... I want to achieve it through not dying. - Woody Allen ------------------------------ Subject: Re: How Much Does Bill Gates Know About His Software These Days? Organization: io.com From: djmcdona@fnord.io.com (Daniel J McDonald) Date: Sun, 11 Jul 2004 21:10:48 -0500 In article , Paul Vader wrote: >> [TELECOM Digest Editor's Note: My memory is a little hazy on this, but >> about 1977-79 when Apple introduced its ][ and ][+ computers, didn't >> they cut some deal with Microsoft to use Microsoft BASIC but rename >> *their* version of it Applesoft BASIC? The code and the command set > Applesoft basic is definitely Microsoft basic with a few tweaks, yes. * Although, I remember losing a computer competition once, around 1982, because I was used to Microsoft Basic Version 9 on an Ohio Scientific platform, and we competed on Apples. I used a construct like A=A+(I=7) and Applesoft BASIC resolved that to a positive number, where the version of BASIC I was used to made that negative. Daniel J McDonald CCIE # 2495, CNX Visit my website: http://www.austinnetworkdesign.com [TELECOM Digest Editor's Note: I used to play silly little games like that when I had my first computer, which was an OSI (Ohio Scientific) C-1-P which was definitly not in vogue once Tandy came out with their model 1. A friend of mine came over one night with his Tandy model 1 and challenged me to a game: let's see whose is fastest. The contest we decided on was each of us write a program to begin with 1 and increment as we decided, searching for 'perfect numbers'. We each put our programs together then on signal we started our programs and went out for beer and pizza only to come back a couple hours later to see 'who was fastest'. Definition: a 'perfect number' is any number with no factors other than itself and '1'. '1' is perfect, as is '3' and '7'. What is the next one and the one after that, and maybe a few more? We had to write our programs so that the screen showed the 'control' number (or number presently being evaluated) the last perfect number found, etc, in the corner of the screen while in the background the computers did their number crunching, etc. We got back from eating a couple hours later with a couple pitchers of beer apiece in us and a couple of huge pizzas under our belt, and immediatly went to check out our computers (my OSI-C1P and his Tandy). I dunno for sure about his Tandy but my OSI had all of 8K ram and BASIC in ROM. This was 1976-77, around then. My machine had evaluated several million numbers; I was *way* ahead of him, by a million or two million control numbers. "Wow," he said, "that OSI really does crunch pretty fast." After looking at his code and showing him mine I said "its not the machine, it is how the code is written. To fetch new numbers for evaluation, you do not say 'number = number +1 you say number +2.' You only need to evaluate odd numbers, there never is an *even* perfect number; even numbers are always divisible by 2, and whatever else, so why bother to look any further, just move along, start odd and increment by 2, always staying odd. Furthermore, in your evaluation loop you not have to increment from 3 up to the number being evaluated looking for factors; you do not even have to increment from 3 up to halfway; just from 3 to the square root of the number being evaluated; if you have not found a factor by then, you are not gonna find one. The square root of a number becomes a progressively smaller per- centage or fractional part of the number under evaluation as the numbers get larger. So when I check (let's say) some nine digit number for its 'perfectability' I only need to check some miniscule number of possibilities, five hundred or so, then move along. That's why I am a hundred and something million ahead of you in my evaluations; its not the chipset in the OSI." By the way, at one point in those foolish times I found FIVE perfect numbers not including '1' or '3' or '7'. Does anyone know the next five such, or even the next three such? PAT] ------------------------------ From: clearmesupercommodore@mail.com Subject: Re: How Much Does Bill Gates Know About His Software These Days? Date: Sun, 11 Jul 2004 00:17:02 -0700 On Thu, 08 Jul 2004 18:54:06 -0500, Dave Garland wrote: > It was a dark and stormy night when pv+usenet@pobox.com (Paul Vader) > wrote: >> You're right of course -- it was the first DOS basic. I'll be danged >> if I can come up with a name other than just "Microsoft Basic" - did >> the original one have any other name? * > Nope. Sometimes it was referred to as MBASIC, to distinguish it from > other flavors (like CBASIC, which IIRC compiled to intermediate > p-code) that were sometimes available on the same machines. > [TELECOM Digest Editor's Note: My memory is a little hazy on this, but > about 1977-79 when Apple introduced its ][ and ][+ computers, didn't > they cut some deal with Microsoft to use Microsoft BASIC but rename > *their* version of it Applesoft BASIC? The code and the command set > and stuff was all identical to the Microsoft version, only the name > was different, Applesoft instead of Microsoft. PAT] Pat: I think that a number of6502 and other 8-bit machines did this, bought the Basic and put it into Rom. Then calling it by the manufactures name, examples: Commodore Basic (Commodore 64/128) Apple Basic And I believe others did this also. Jeremy <> ------------------------------ From: Mark Yamasaki Subject: Norvergence -- Getting out of a Matrix Contract Date: Sat, 10 Jul 2004 16:48:15 -0700 Dear Mr. Townson, I work for a small freight forwarding company here in California. We were approached by Norvergence about a month ago. To make a long story short, since you probably have heard too much on this already, I want to know how I can close up any relations / contracts with Norvergence and more importantly sever any obligations to its equipment leasing "banks". Here is our current situation 1.Contract signed. ( I know, big mistake) 2.Matrix box delivered but not installed. Other than that, any of the other services or equipment HAS NOT been delivered. -T1 -Cell Phones -Telephone Equipment We did get one small bill but I told accounting not to pay it. I have read many of your comments on the posts and it seems I need to at the very least: 1.Return the "Matrix" box (How do I since it was delivered by a "technician"?); 2.Do not pay any invoices that we receive; What else should I do to make sure this problem goes away for good? What other precautions should I take to make sure our existing DID and POTS lines remain intact? I would appreciate any advice or any referrals. Best regards, Mark Yamasaki [TELECOM Digest Editor's Note: First of all, today -- Monday -- get ahold of your telco and request a total freeze on all your lines and equipment from them without an express written order for changes from you. Follow this up with a written letter to your telco. Then I would suggest you continue your freeze on all accounts payable where Norvergence or their financing agents are concerned. I would also take your paperwork to your attorney and ask that person to nip this whole thing in the bud. Someone here the other day (I think person's name was Frankie Truth?) suggested deals made in the past ninety days could be rescinded without any hassles and I do not know about that, but your attorney might. I do know that there are some rules which pertain in bankruptcy about deals consumated in the past ninety days, and I also know in some states there are 'remorse' rules which apply when a solicitor comes to your door to make a sale; that is a certain number of days in which a contract can be cancelled simply because you wish to cancel. Better talk to your attorney regards 'buyer remorse' rules in your state; also what federal rules pertain to priority deals (deals in last 'X' number of days prior to bankruptcy). Put the Matrix box in some safe place (you do have the obligation to mitigate [or lessen] Norverg- ence's losses by returning their property) on request. But sit tight on your money, and in the unlikely event you are contacted then refer them to your attorney. Good luck! PAT] ------------------------------ From: richgr@panix.com (Rich Greenberg) Subject: Re: US FCC Wants Radio, TV to Keep Tapes of Shows Date: 10 Jul 2004 17:02:42 -0400 Organization: Organized? Me? In article , Tony P. wrote: > With what has happened with the consolidation of radio ownership in this > country they won't get too many tapes. > It's why I very rarely listen to the FM band anymore, it's the same > junk from station to station. It's either owned by Citadel or Clear > Channel and the same content is played ad nauseam 24 hours a day. > Hopefully congress will fix that little problem some day. Private enterprise already has. Try XM or Sirus. 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: richgr@panix.com (Rich Greenberg) Subject: Re: Death Penalty Applies to Top Posters? Date: 10 Jul 2004 17:07:51 -0400 Organization: Organized? Me? > [TELECOM Digest Editor's Note: A 'top poster' is someone who reprints > the entire message (to which he is replying) at the top then prints > his reply below that rather than putting his reply first and then > follows up with a few pertinent tidbits of the message being replied > to. Some people do not care for that posting procedure, having to > read the entire (original) message twice. Now, some people say it > is the other way around: The reply posted **on top** and then the > entire original message repeated below. Either way, a good rule of > thumb is **hold quoted text to a bare minimum.** I suggest keep at > least 50 percent or more of the text in your reply as your *original* > work and hold quoting to less than 50 percent, preferably 10 or 20 > percent if possible without losing the context, etc. PAT] No, you have it inverted Pat. Top posting is putting the new material at the top, followed by quoted material (and usually too much of that). Its harder to read because when reading from top to bottom as most of us do, the new material comes before the earlier material. But the worst lusers of all will quote many lines including sigs just to add a 1 line reply. Top or bottom, thats annoying. 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: John David Galt Subject: Re: Death Penalty Applies to Top Posters? Date: Sat, 10 Jul 2004 17:02:48 -0700 Organization: Diogenes the Cynic Hot-Tubbing Society > [TELECOM Digest Editor's Note: A 'top poster' is someone who reprints > the entire message (to which he is replying) at the top then prints > his reply below that rather than putting his reply first [snip] You have that exactly backwards. A top poster is someone who puts his reply above the quoted message he is replying to, rather than below as is standard on Usenet. This is discussed in the Jargon File at http://www.science.uva.nl/~mes/jargon/e/emailquotesandinclusionconventions.html The "death penalty" referred to is humor, explained at http://www.science.uva.nl/~mes/jargon/u/usenetdeathpenalty.html ------------------------------ From: Joseph Subject: Re: Death Penalty Applies to Top Posters? Date: Sat, 10 Jul 2004 18:01:27 -0700 Organization: Posted via Supernews, http://www.supernews.com Reply-To: JoeOfSeattle@yahoo.com On Fri, 09 Jul 2004 18:21:53 -0400, Jack Decker wrote: > Pardon me for being clueless, but what the heck is a "top-poster"? I > hope I'm not the only one who didn't get that. A top poster is someone who puts their reply at the very beginning rather than replying line-by-line or replying after the original quoted message. Top posters can be likened to playing a game of Jeopardy in that their email style is that they give the reply and then the original question follows. Top posters can be maddening especially when they have the ugly habit of posting their reply and then simply dumping the *entire* original and sometimes even several previous messages and replies after their reply. Top posting wouldn't be so bad if it wasn't for the fact that Microsoft with Outlook and Outlook Express has made it so easy for people to top post and *dump* that it becomes nearly impossible to get the gist of what they're referring to when they simply dump *everything* back at the original poster. remove NONO from .NONOcom to reply ------------------------------ From: Jim Hopkins Subject: Re: Death Penalty Applies to Top Posters? Organization: SBC http://yahoo.sbc.com Date: Sun, 11 Jul 2004 01:23:44 GMT > Now, some people say it is the other way around: The reply > posted **on top** and then the entire original message repeated below. You got it right the second time. Jim Hopkins [TELECOM Digest Editor's Note: Either way people choose to respond to the posts of others, I personaly think a courteous rule of thumb -- I mean, Usenet posters are courteous, considerate people are they not? -- is to follow what I think used to be called the 'fifty percent rule'; no more than fifty percent of the *total* text, not including header indicia (in other words the actual meat of the message) should be quoted text. Fifty percent or better should be *your* original or response text. And intersperse your reply comments with the original text in logical, orderly fashion. Trim everything you can without changing the context of the original message. And no HTML in text based messages. If people could only see how much of that HTML crap I throw out each day which gets sent here they would be amazed. It is not uncommon for me to get an 18 or 20-K single message which I trim down to 1-2 K of actual text for the Digest after the HTML is removed and other junk is removed. And my other complaint is the folks who cannot come up with the correct Re: subject line or who say "Re: (digest number)" with no other details obliging *me* to have to go pull that back issue in order to find the correct subject line in order to get it all to thread correctly. 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. ************************************************************************* * 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 #328 ******************************