From editor@telecom-digest.org Thu Jul 15 13:49:20 2004 Received: (from ptownson@localhost) by massis.lcs.mit.edu (8.11.6p3/8.11.3) id i6FHnKV06474; Thu, 15 Jul 2004 13:49:20 -0400 (EDT) Date: Thu, 15 Jul 2004 13:49:20 -0400 (EDT) From: editor@telecom-digest.org Message-Id: <200407151749.i6FHnKV06474@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 #333 TELECOM Digest Thu, 15 Jul 2004 13:49:00 EDT Volume 23 : Issue 333 Inside This Issue: Editor: Patrick A. Townson Newark Star-Ledger: Norvergence Service Could End Today (Isaiah Beard) Re: Getting out of Norvergence Contracts (Isaiah Beard) Re: Norvergence Question (Lisa Hancock) Re: Norvergence Question (William Van Hefner) Re: Long Distance; How to Figure Best Current Promotion (Joseph) Re: Long Distance; How to Figure Best Current Promotion (Lisa Hancock) How to Untangle a Curly Telephone Receiver Cord (Don Saklad) Re: Power of the Net in Next Election (Wesrock@aol.com) Re: Power of the Net in Next Election (Charles Cryderman) Re: Tap Into Neighbors' WiFi? Why Not, Some Say (Scott Dorsey) Frequency and Timeslot (Karthik) Diploma in Embedded Systems (Sagar Singh) Powell: FCC Forging Ahead on VOIP Rules (VOIP News) 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: Isaiah Beard Subject: Newark Star-Ledger: Norvergence Service Could End Today Date: Thu, 15 Jul 2004 11:14:55 -0400 BY HENRY C. JACKSON Star-Ledger Staff Customers of NorVergence could be without telephone and Internet services as early as 5 p.m. today after the company filed for Chapter 7 bankruptcy, which entails liquidation of the company. The Newark-based company, which resold telecommunications services, had been given until yesterday to show it had a plan in place to address mounting debts, including more than $15 million owed to Denver-based Qwest. NorVergence couldn't offer a plan for payment and instead appealed to Judge Rosemary Gambardella of U.S. Bankruptcy Court in Newark for more time to restructure. Remainder of article can be found at: http://www.nj.com/business/ledger/index.ssf?/base/business-0/1089878219230891.xml e-mail address fudged to thwart spammers. Transpose the c's and a's in my address in order to reply. ------------------------------ From: Isaiah Beard Subject: Re: Getting out of Norvergence Contracts Date: Thu, 15 Jul 2004 11:10:09 -0400 Organization: Posted via Forte APN, http://www.forteinc.com/apn/index.php Lisa Hancock wrote: > Playing devil's advocate here -- wasn't the customer not only > leasing a physical box, but also a service that was in essence > paid in advance? Unless someone posts the actual language of one of those contracts or reads to us from one, no one can really say. But the impression I got from the breakdown of charges from people in the past was the the box alone was leased, and service charges accrued monthly in addition to the leased box. > Also, was the box and service the collateral for the lease, or > was it the customer's own credit? In many cases, it's both. Much like when a car gets repossessed, if the value of the equipment has depreciated such that the resale value doesn't cover the balance of the lease or loan, you're on the hook for the remaining balance. Considering that the leases were made out for equipment that had a value WAAAAY below the amount of the lease from the outset, the lessee has a lot to be on the hook for. > I really think the issue hinges on the exit clauses, if any. What > happens, for example, if a customer goes out of business (or business > is greatly reduced) and no longer needs the service? Are they still > stuck with the full lease? Again, we won't know unless someone is willing to divulge the details of one of these contracts. > I would think a lease would also include performance clauses to > protect the customer. If you lease a new car and three months into > it the engine blows up, are you still responsible for the terms of > the lease? Well, auto leases tend to be backed by the manufacturer's warranty. If the engine blows up during the warranty period and it's through defect, then the car gets a new engine gratis, courtesy of the manufacturer. If the lessee dumped Nitrous into the engine and drag raced it, then the onus is on the lessee. It's an apples and oranges comparison here, because there really is no warranty against a company becoming insolvent. Further, I'm surprised that no one has yet pursued fraud charges against Norvergence. Norvergence, as far as anyone can tell, led customers (and possibly the banks, no one is sure) to believe that this "matrix" they were peddling was worth many thousands of dollars, when in fact it could be bought elsewhere for $500. And some have reported on here in the past that the box wasn't actually connected to *anything*, it just sat there while their services (none of which required a T1) were handled through other more pedestrian facilities. >> The customers have plenty of defenses against Norvergence > Why would they? The company went broke. Yes, but why? Norvergence was getting money UP FRONT for equipment that cost them a tiny fraction of the income they were receiving, ON TOP OF revenue for the services they were reselling. Where did all of this money go? If it was squandered illegally, you can bet a case can be had. > If you were to buy a new machine and the manufacturer goes broke, you > as the customer are stuck if you need warranty repairs -- the > manufacturer is gone and there is no one around to fix it for you. The difference is that these customers bought a machine that they were led to believe DID something for them, and cost a huge amount. When in fact, the machine sat idle in a number of cases, and even in the instances where it did do something, the machine was nearly worthless by comparison to the lease amount assigned to it. Proving you were defrauded can definitely help in his matter. >> I think that at some point in the proceedings the leasing companies >> HAD TO KNOW that Norvergence was selling the customers a pig in a >> poke. > But was it really doing that? YES! There's no denying it. If someone walked into your office promising grandiose things from this $15,000+ magic box that would revolutionize your office communications, and made such a good sell that you signed the papers, and then a week later someone dropped by, said "here's the big magic box!" and dropped a $40 linksys broadband router on your lap (and on top of that, NEVER HOOKED IT UP to anything), wouldn't you consider that a swindle? e-mail address fudged to thwart spammers. Transpose the c's and a's in my address in order to reply. ------------------------------ From: hancock4@bbs.cpcn.com (Lisa Hancock) Subject: Re: Norvergence Question Date: 15 Jul 2004 06:55:23 -0700 Organization: http://groups.google.com Billy Wickline wrote > My thought process is that if we never accept the technology, we > cannot rent it per the terms of the contract. Since we have not > received any of the technology, are we "safer" than most companies > already into the term? I am not a lawyer. I suspect never have received the equipment puts you in a somewhat better position. But if your bank already paid Norv. even if you hadn't received anything yet, your bank still wants to be repaid for its loan/lease to you. Unfortunately, in a bankruptcy, even customers such as yourself can get screwed. I would suggest you call your corporate lawyer ASAP and review your contract with them. > Should I tell the bank to stop automatic withdrawals from > NorVergence? Again, I'm not a lawyer, but I certainly would do that. > Can they legally charge me for equipment NEVER received or used? > Thanks for your time ... IMHO, if your contract is direct with Norv they can't charge you. But if your contract is with a bank that loaned you the money, it's another story. Allow me to present another example: When someone contracts to buy a house, they are actually buying the land and everything attached to that land (which would be the house and any other improvements). If the house should burn down prior to the actual sale, the buyer is still obligated to buy the property even though there's no house on it. That's why buyers should get fire insurance on it as soon as they sign the contract. Now for this topic, buying a future service is a slightly different issue than buying a physical entity. That's why I keep wondering what the exit or non-performance clauses were on the contracts. I find it really hard to believe that the customers took on a contract without any such clauses. ------------------------------ From: William Van Hefner Subject: Re: Norvergence Question Date: Thu, 15 Jul 2004 04:35:53 -0700 > Reply-To: > From: Billy Wickline > Subject: Norvergence Question > Date: Wed, 14 Jul 2004 10:02:33 -0700 > Hello, > I run the Accounting Department for a small business in San > Diego. I realize the forum has been flooded with questions on this > issue, but I have not seen this specific situation posted yet, and was > wondering if anyone could offer their input. > We signed the contract for ECD and whatnot on 6/23/04. Due to > vacations and whatnot, the matrix box was not going to be installed > until 7/7/04. Obviously, on the 5th we received a call stating that > all "Unlimited Calling Circuitry was on hold for an indeterminable > amount of time". Obviously, with the bankruptcy I don't feel like > waiting around to figure out how long. > Anyways, the equipment was never delivered, and from what I can tell > they did not begin pulling our long distance carriers. I have advised > the receiving people not to accept any shipments that look like they > could be telephones, or coming from NorVergence. My thought process is > that if we never accept the technology, we cannot rent it per the > terms of the contract. Since we have not received any of the > technology, are we "safer" than most companies already into the term? > Any thoughtful input would be much appreciated. Should I tell the bank > to stop automatic withdrawals from NorVergence? Can they legally > charge me for equipment NEVER received or used? Thanks for your > time ... > Billy Wickline > IT / Accounting Associate > AES Due Diligence, Inc. > 4909 Murphy Canyon Rd. Suite 301 > San Diego, CA 92123 > Phone: 858-569-0211 > Fax: 858-569-0275 As long as the box is not installed at your premises, you should be free and clear. The Norvergence agreement that I have seen states, "The Rental Agreement is non-binding until you are approved for Unlimited Calling Facilities/Hardware and a MATRIX device is mounted in your phone closet". Unfortunately, the majority of Norvergence customers (the ones who were unfortunate enough to have the "MATRIX" box actually installed) are most likely stuck with their leases, as the contract they signed states quite clearly that the lease is completely independent of any services provided. They were extremely careful in the wording of their contract. There is no wiggle room. A few other "gotchas" that I noticed in the Norvergence contract ... Norvergence claims that the installation cost of Qwest's T-1 circuit is $10,000.00! If a customer defaults, or wants out of the contract, Norvergence is owed $10K. Early termination of the contract also results in a $4,700.00 "Service Platform Fee". This is in addition to owing them 100% of the cost of service extended to the end of the contract. Of course, termination still leaves you on the hook for the entire "MATRIX" box lease, as well. Accounts are also deemed in default if not paid within 10 days OF INVOICE. To put it mildly, the odds of being able to physically receive and pay Norvergence's bill within 10 days of it being printed are pitifully low, unless you happened to live extremely close to where they mailed the bill from, and sent each payment in via Federal Express. My question is, who would be foolish enough to sign such a contract??? I had always suspected that Norvergence was a scam from the beginning, as many of the readers of this newsgroup probably did. Anyone with due diligence who took any time at all to check up on this company, or even just examine the contract closely, should have known that this was a deal that was just too good to be true. While I am generally very sympathetic towards telecom consumers, this happens to be a case where people just plain should have known better. If it sounds too good to be true, it probably is. As of today, the Norvergence case has been converted from Chapter 11 (reorganization) into a Chapter 7 (liquidation). Barring a last minute stay, Qwest will most likely shut-off all Norvergence customers later this afternoon, as will their wireless providers. So, there may be approximately 10,000 small/medium business customers later today with no dialtone, 800 service, long distance, internet access, or wireless service and no hope of getting any of these services (except wireless) restored for at least 3-4 weeks (average RBOC provisioning time). Good luck ever getting your same local phone numbers, cellphone numbers, IP addresses or toll-free numbers again, either. And have fun with your "MATRIX device". I'm sure that it will make a fascinating conversation piece some day, but it won't be much good for anything else anytime soon. Look for tons of them coming to an eBay auction near you. If you'd like to see an example of the Norvergence contract, you can browse through http://www.thedigest.com/docs/norvergence . I'd be more likely to sign my own death warrant than sign a contract like this. William Van Hefner Editor - http://www.thedigest.com ------------------------------ From: Joseph Subject: Re: Long Distance; How to Figure Best Current Promotion Offered Date: Thu, 15 Jul 2004 05:13:23 -0700 Organization: Posted via Supernews, http://www.supernews.com Reply-To: JoeOfSeattle@yahoo.com On 15 Jul 2004 00:06:32 -0400, Don Saklad wrote: > For your Cambridge Massachusetts residential wall wired telephone > line, what is the best current promotion offered for a long distance > carrier? You should go to a comparison site. A good site to go to for good comparisons is http://abtolls.com remove NONO from .NONOcom to reply ------------------------------ From: hancock4@bbs.cpcn.com (Lisa Hancock) Subject: Re: Long Distance; How to Figure Best Current Promotion Offered Date: 15 Jul 2004 08:01:48 -0700 Organization: http://groups.google.com Don Saklad wrote > For your Cambridge Massachusetts residential wall wired telephone > line, what is the best current promotion offered for a long distance > carrier? That is an impossible question to answer for several reasons: 1) Offerings vary by community; there are regional carriers and plans. 2) Promotions are temporary. Whatever is good today will expire in a few months and you'll have to find another plan to keep savings. 3) Plans vary. Some plans have a $5 monthly fee ABOVE usage. 4) Your mileage, er calling, varies. A plan good for you is terrible for your next door neighbor. ------------------------------ From: Don Saklad Subject: How to untangle a curly telephone receiver cord. Date: 15 Jul 2004 11:15:49 -0400 Organization: MIT Laboratory for Computer Science What is the trick to untangling a curly cord from the telephone receiver to the base? ... There is a particular movement that does untangles when a telephone receiver cord gets curled in upon itself. ------------------------------ From: Wesrock@aol.com Date: Thu, 15 Jul 2004 09:45:02 EDT Subject: Re: Power of the Net in Next Election In a message dated Wed, 14 Jul 2004 12:56:14 UTC Bill Ranck writes: > They have no legal standing to do so. I know they are asking to have > a law passed to enable them, but they would need a Constitutional > amendment to actually be able to do this. That certainly isn't going > to happen. I doubt that Congress will even consider the idea in a > serious way. As someone noted on another list, the Congress sets the dates for elections, not the Constitution, which says in Article II, Section 1: "The Congress may determine the time of chusing [sic] the Electors, and the Day on which they shall give their Votes; which Day shall be the same throughout the United States." Note that both the date of the election, and the date on which the Electoral College will meet, are designated by Congress. Wes Leatherock wesrock@aol.com ------------------------------ From: Charles Cryderman Subject: Re: Power of the Net in Next Election Date: Thu, 15 Jul 2004 09:35:20 -0400 Bill Ranck placed before us: > "For most practical purposes of a politician the net *is* just > another media outlet. It's a lot less controlable in some ways, but > with experience the pols will learn to use it for their own > agendas." I agree that politicians currently are to dense to figure out how to use the net for anything other then getting money and disseminating information. It is their supporters that are the concern. With the way the Lemmings from all groups reading things on the net and believing that what is posted is true. So much garbage and lies are being posted by the right and left. With the dummying down of the USA we should all be concerned. Case in point: > [TELECOM Digest Editor's Note: US Department of Homeland Security > officials are giving very strong consideration to either *postponing > or indefinitly cancelling the presidential election in November)" This is something that is being attributed to a "un-named source". Well anyone could be a "un-named" source. It could have been a janitor hoping to make some money from a over zealous report. But then we all know that reports are very scrupulous and never would pay for a story. This is exactly the kind of information that the net permits. Then Mr. Ranck replies: > "They have no legal standing to do so. I know they are asking to > have a law passed to enable them, but they would need a > Constitutional amendment to actually be able to do this. That > certainly isn't going to happen. I doubt that Congress will even > consider the idea in a serious way." Well Bill I got bad news for you. The Constitution has nothing in it about holding elections. There are laws made by Congress and which Congress has the power to change or void. But a Constitutional amendment is not necessary. The only thing the Constitution specifies is that the "electors" cast their votes. Nothing about the people voting. Pat again: > "Bush has come to the conclusion that al Qaeda terrorists are planning a > large scale attack 'intended to disrupt the democratic process'." Pat, the President isn't the only one that thinks this. Many experts do so as well. I, in fact have no doubt that Al Qaeda has been planning something ever since we started to blow them away in Afghanistan for this years election. They know good and well that the liberals do not have the courage to send young men to combat. Bill replying to Pat: > "While I don't think Bush would exactly welcome such an attack close > to the election, I do think something like that would almost > guarantee his re-election. Al Qaeda don't seem to be the brightest > bulbs on the tree, so they might actually believe that another upset > like in Spain would occur. They would be wrong to believe that." This is very true. Another attack on the USA would galvanize the Bush camp as well as many that have no interest in politics but would be angered by outside influence. Chip Cryderman [TELECOM Digest Editor's Note: Well, the 'possibility of cancelling the election' report and the 'Bush thinks that terrorists will ...' report did not originate with me. Presumably 'good' sources (one more or less right wing [US News and World Report] and one more or less left wing [CNN]) came up with those in this week's issue and Monday's reports. I guess those two are the unnnamed sources this Lemming was referring to. You might want to ask CNN (which followed up on the reports in US News and World Report) about their 'unnamed sources' who was most recently identified as Pastor Soires, a Baptist minister who advises President Bush. PAT] ------------------------------ From: kludge@panix.com (Scott Dorsey) Subject: Re: Tap Into Neighbors' WiFi? Why Not, Some Say Date: 15 Jul 2004 08:58:30 -0400 Organization: Former users of Netcom shell (1989-2000) Hammond of Texas wrote: > William Warren wrote: >> And, since you choose to self-annoint yourself the expert, just which >> network is yours? Please, email me off-list and supply the details of >> your annual budget, the number of IT staff, the number of stations, >> and the number of nodes. (Starbucks and your mother's house don't >> count, sorry). > I'll summarize by saying that my resume includes the titles CIO and > VP, which means that a big part of my job was convincing "real world > businessmen" like you that security was a very real concern and that > they ignored it at their peril. I've heard your mindless rationale > before, ad nauseum. It still defies logic, and bespeaks a dangerous > ignorance and/or a greed unique that of the compulsive gambler. As someone who is no CTO, but merely an admin running some mail servers, I can say that I have seen substantial amounts of spam traffic injected by bad guys, through open WiFi hubs. With the explosion in zombified Windows machines, though, it is getting hard to trace the original source of spam messages, so this may be increasing or decreasing in popularity. I can't tell. --scott "C'est un Nagra. C'est suisse, et tres, tres precis." ------------------------------ From: karthikveceee@softhome.net (Karthik) Subject: Frequency and Timeslot Date: 15 Jul 2004 07:14:37 -0700 Organization: http://groups.google.com We say that each Frequency Channel is separated by 200KHz. So this is the effective Bandwidth.So 1/200KHz = 5 Microsec. This channel is divided into 8 Timeslots. So this 5 Microseconds must be equally divided for getting 8 Timeslots in that particular Frequency Channel. But if you see that 8 Timeslots constitutes one Frequency Channel, then as far as calculations go: 1 Timeslot = 0.577ms. Which means 8 Timeslots = 4.16ms. Can you justify how 5 Microsec can be divided so that we get a total time of 4.16ms? ------------------------------ Date: Thu, 15 Jul 2004 06:22:48 PDT From: Sagar Singh Subject: Diploma in Embedded Systems Diploma in Embedded Systems in Bangalore The Embedded Technology Sector is currently amongst the fastest growing sectors within the IT segment, and is likely to remain so for a long time to come. As a consequence, there is a rising demand in this field for professionals who can deliver on the challenging requirements in this field. The embedded software has immense scope for those choosing a career in this line due to its wide application and because the technology companies have to increase their range of products for survival. As a result, software companies and the telecommunication and electronics industries are heavily diversifying into it. The global embedded and telecom market today is worth one trillion dollars and will continue to grow at an exponential pace. In India itself, there are over 2500 companies now working across these embedded systems software arena. Diploma in Embedded Systems (A Course Designed by the Industry to serve the industry) Total Duration: 96 Working Days (4 months)(Evening / weekend batches are also available) Batch Starts : 19th July 2004. Contact: sanish@utltraining.com to know more about the Embedded Systems cou rse and also register for a free seminar on Embedded Systems. Call: 91-80-25212393 / 25254678 Email: sanish@utltraining.com Address: No. 32 CMH ROAD, (Above the Bata Show Room) Indirangar, Bangalore Course OverviewPreliminary Level (46 days)Introduction to Embedded and Real-Time Systems Introduction to Embedded Systems Introduction to Real-time Systems Basic Electronics Review Discrete Electronic Elements Linear Integrated Circuits Digital Principles and Logic Design Digital Electronic Basics Digital Building Blocks and VHDL Digital Integrated Circuit MCS-51 Architecture and C Programming MCS-51 Micro controller Architecture, Memory Organization and=20 Hardware Details Addressing Modes and Instruction Set Introduction to c Language and Keil IDE Program Flow Control and Looping I/O Port and Timer/Counter Programming and Function, Macro Pointers, Array and Structure Data Structure, Stack, Queue Memory Management Issues Serial Communication and Interrupt, Servicing Hardware Interrupt in C Real Time Programming The Embedded C Extension to C and Optimization Interfacing Techniques and Schematic Generation Interfacing Requirement Analysis and Semiconductor Memories Flash Memory Technology ADCs and DACs Sensors and Transducers DC Motors, LCD and Keyboard Debugging With Hardware Assisted Tools, ICE, JTAG, etc. and Remote Debugging Debugging Fundamentals and Remote Debugging Hardware Assisted Debugging, JTAG, BDM, Nexus, ICE Communication Communication Fundamentals, Embedded Networking and Introduction to Serial Bus, UART, SPI, I2c CAN, Firewire/IEEE 1394 USB IEEE 802.3 Ethernet Interface with Comparison of DP8390 and CS8900 TCP/IP Protocol Suit Rabbit 3000 Architecture and Dynamic C TCP/IP Programming with Rabbit Board Wireless Communication and RF Fundamentals, IR IEEE 802.11 Wireless LAN Standards RTOS Fundamentals and CMX RTOS Introduction to Real Time Operating System Introduction to CMX, Scheduler and Task Manager Memory Management IPC, Timer and UART Management OS System calls Interrupt Handling Advance Programming (50 days) System Architecture and Design Overview Product Development Life CycleComputer Organization, Advanced C and GNU Too= ls Microprogramming and RISC Machines Clock, Data path and Control Unit Pipelining Memory Hierarchy and Parallel Processing Architectural Features for Efficient Programming and Non Portable Behavior = in C Language Introduction to Cygwin and Basic Commands GNU-X-Tools Utilities-as, ar, nm, ld etc. Compiler-gcc and Libraries Position Dependant and Independent Code, Linkers and Loaders, Memory Map and Linker Scripts Makefile Debugging with GDB Understanding File Formats LikeLF, Coff, PE etc.and analyzing them with GNU Utilities like readelf etc. PowerPC Architecture Overview and MPC850 Implementation PowerPC Architecture, MPC850 Overview and Memory Map Power PC Core Registers and Instruction MPC850 Exceptions Instruction and Data aches and Memory Management Unit System Interface unit and Memory Controller Communication processor Architecture and Register Serial Communication Controller and Serial Management Controller System Debugging and Testing Firmware Developments Firmware Architecture and Target System Specification (MPC850 Custom Board) Boot code Implementation Device Driver for UART Onboard Devices I/O Implementation Command Line Interface Design for Onboard Device I/O access In-System Programming with Flash Flash File System File/data Transfer protocols Debug Monitor Embedded Linux Introduction to Linux, Kernel Architecture and Boot Process Kernel Compilat= ion Data Structure and System Calls Linux Memory Management Linux Inter Process Communication, Semaphore, Pipes, Message, Queue, etc. File Systems Module Programming Cross Tools Building and Kernel Cross Compilation Root File System Creation Substituting Init and Running Application RT Linux Building RTLinux Image and Root File System Creation Architecture of RTLinux Task, Threads, POSIX Pthreads InterProcess Communication Predictable Device Driver Consideration All the best. Sagar ------------------------------ From: VOIP News Date: Thu, 15 Jul 2004 01:10:39 -0400 Subject: Powell: FCC Forging Ahead on VOIP Rules Reply-To: VoIPnews@yahoogroups.com http://www.infoworld.com/article/04/07/14/HNpowellvoip_1.html Tax issues among those waiting attention By Stephen Lawson, IDG News Service July 14, 2004 STANFORD, California - Bills to clarify the regulation of VOIP (voice over Internet Protocol) in the U.S. Senate and House of Representatives probably won't go up for consideration in Congress' current session, but the Federal Communications Commission (FCC) hopes to make progress on the issue by the end of this year, FCC Chairman Michael Powell told Silicon Valley entrepreneurs and venture capitalists on Tuesday evening. The question whether VOIP should be treated as a telephone service or an information service has implications for taxation as well as issues such as 911 emergency call services and wiretapping. Senator John Sununu, [cq] a New Hampshire Republican, has introduced a bill in the Senate that would exempt VOIP from most regulation. A House bill sponsored by Representative Charles "Chip" Pickering Jr., a Mississippi Republican, has a similar aim. An FCC public comment period on VOIP closed Wednesday. The agency expects to look at the comments and make some decisions on the issue by the end of this year, though some aspects of VOIP regulation, such as how much a carrier must pay to terminate a call, may not be settled for years, FCC policy chief Robert Pepper said in an interview Wednesday. Full story at: http://www.infoworld.com/article/04/07/14/HNpowellvoip_1.html 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/ ------------------------------ End of TELECOM Digest V23 #333 ******************************