From editor@telecom-digest.org Fri Jul 16 18:01:37 2004 Received: (from ptownson@localhost) by massis.lcs.mit.edu (8.11.6p3/8.11.3) id i6GM1bM20577; Fri, 16 Jul 2004 18:01:37 -0400 (EDT) Date: Fri, 16 Jul 2004 18:01:37 -0400 (EDT) From: editor@telecom-digest.org Message-Id: <200407162201.i6GM1bM20577@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 #336 TELECOM Digest Fri, 16 Jul 2004 18:01:00 EDT Volume 23 : Issue 336 Inside This Issue: Editor: Patrick A. Townson Government Oversight and Protecting VoIP (VOIP News) Fortune Magazine Article on Jeffrey Citron (VOIP News) IRS Denies VoIP Tax Plan Claims (VOIP News) Re: Power of the Net in Next Election (David Esan) Re: Power of the Net in Next Election (Wesrock@aol.com) Re: Power of the Net in Next Election (Linc Madison) Re: Power of the Net in Next Election (Paul A Lee) Re: Power of the Net in Next Election (Daniel W. Johnson) The Net and Politics (Charles Cryderman) Re: Getting Out of Norvergence Contracts (Londa Raymer) Share Day for July, 2004 (TELECOM Digest Editor) All contents here are copyrighted by Patrick Townson and the individual writers/correspondents. Articles may be used in other journals or newsgroups, provided the writer's name and the Digest are included in the fair use quote. By using -any name or email address- included herein for -any- reason other than responding to an article herein, you agree to pay a hundred dollars to the recipients of the email. =========================== Addresses herein are not to be added to any mailing list, nor to be sold or given away without explicit written consent. Chain letters, viruses, porn, spam, and miscellaneous junk are definitely unwelcome. We must fight spam for the same reason we fight crime: not because we are naive enough to believe that we will ever stamp it out, but because we do not want the kind of world that results when no one stands against crime. Geoffrey Welsh =========================== See the bottom of this issue for subscription and archive details and the name of our lawyer; other stuff of interest. ---------------------------------------------------------------------- From: VOIP News Date: Fri, 16 Jul 2004 10:10:58 -0400 Subject: Government Oversight and Protecting VoIP Reply-To: VoIPnews@yahoogroups.com http://www.technewsworld.com/story/35147.html INDUSTRY ANALYSIS: By Sonia Arrison TechNewsWorld Sununu's bill, called the VoIP Regulatory Freedom Act, would put an end to this state meddling, although it would still force VoIP firms that connect to the public phone network to "contribute, directly or indirectly," to universal service. Of course, state regulators aren't the only ones targeting VoIP. The Senate Commerce Committee will soon vote on a bill to bar states from meddling with Voice over Internet Protocol (VoIP), which allows the Internet to be used like a telephone. The bill by Sen. John Sununu (R-New Hampshire) is one of many reactions to a growing movement from states and other pro-regulatory types to control VoIP. [.....] Public Utility Commissions in a number of states, including California, New York and Minnesota, are working to milk the new service for as much as they can get, but in the process there is a serious risk they will strangle VoIP before it can create the telecommunications revolution everyone is expecting. Sununu's bill, called the VoIP Regulatory Freedom Act, would put an end to this state meddling, although it would still force VoIP firms that connect to the public phone network to "contribute, directly or indirectly," to universal service. Of course, state regulators aren't the only ones targeting VoIP. Full story at: http://www.technewsworld.com/story/35147.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/ ------------------------------ From: VOIP News Date: Fri, 16 Jul 2004 11:18:44 -0400 Subject: Fortune Magazine Article on Jeffrey Citron Reply-To: VoIPnews@yahoogroups.com http://www.fortune.com/fortune/smallbusiness/technology/articles/1,15114,594529,00.html DISRUPTIVE TECHNOLOGY Talk Gets Cheaper Jeffrey Citron's last venture got him banished from trading stocks. Now he's getting aggressive in a hot new industry -- routing phone calls over the Internet. By Julia Boorstin If Jeffrey Citron feels tarnished by his recent legal problems -- he did, after all, pay a staggering $22.5 million settlement to the SEC just last year -- he isn't letting on. He's brashly holding forth, seated at a makeshift conference table, which is covered by a cheap white tablecloth. The topic: his latest brainstorm-turned-business called Vonage. The 33-year-old Citron, who never went to college, is so wound up that h e jumps to the next idea before he finishes the last one. "Right?" he'll ask repeatedly, trying to confirm that his point is understood before he nails the next one. He's so energetic he'll simply stand up mid-sentence, unable to stay still. "My involvement in any company is very emotional," he says, hours before he flies in his private jet to congressional meetings about potential industry regulation. "I commit every bit of energy and resources I can afford." Surely he has ample reserves of both. Since 2002 he's invested more than $30 million of his own money -- collected from two earlier ventures that were acquired -- to start Vonage (pronounced VOH-nij), an upstart in the newly crowded field of Internet-based phone companies. This service allows residential and small-business users to make phone calls that are routed primarily over the Internet at cheaper rates than conventional phone service. Full story at: http://www.fortune.com/fortune/smallbusiness/technology/articles/1,15114,594529,00.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/ ------------------------------ From: VOIP News Date: Fri, 16 Jul 2004 11:49:16 -0400 Subject: IRS Denies VoIP Tax Plan Claims Reply-To: VoIPnews@yahoogroups.com http://www.internetnews.com/infra/article.php/3382131 By Roy Mark The Internal Revenue Service (IRS) and Treasury Department strongly denied Thursday they are considering an excise tax on Internet telephone calls or any other IP-based services. On July 1, the IRS published in the Federal Register a request for public comments on changes in the telecommunications industry since 1965, when the tax code was last updated to define telecommunications services. Based on those definitions, the IRS currently imposes a 3 percent excise tax on telecom services. The notice prompted a media account saying the IRS was planning on taxing Voice over Internet Protocol (VoIP) services. A week later, the story was referenced at a U.S. House hearing on possible VoIP regulations. "Nothing in the notice said anything about taxing VoIP, and that is not under consideration by Treasury and the IRS," Treasury spokesperson Terra Bradshaw told internetnews.com. "Any report to the contrary is simply incorrect." Full story at: http://www.internetnews.com/infra/article.php/3382131 ------------------------------ From: david_esan@hotmail.com (David Esan) Subject: Re: Power of the Net in Next Election Date: 16 Jul 2004 07:37:11 -0700 Organization: http://groups.google.com > [TELECOM Digest Editor's Note: Correct me if I am wrong: I believe > the term of office is 4 years but any given person can serve up to > two complete terms maximum. I believe this came about at the urging > of Republicans in 1950 when President Truman was in office, because > they (Republicans) were quite annoyed at President Roosevelt getting > *four* terms in office, even though he died about a year after getting > elected the fourth time. Since normally any changes voted into law > do not affect the incumbent but only his successors, Truman could > have theoretically been around for many more years. So the Republicans > got Eisenhower in office in 1952. He was an enormously popular > president and the Republicans were sorry (in 1960) when he wound up > having to leave office also because of those rules they (Republicans) > had passed several years before. > I do believe in 1968 when President Johnson was finishing his term in > office, the Democrats were going to run him for a second (complete) > term (recall, he finished the final year of Kennedy's term) but they > would not let him do that, since if he *had* won (instead of Nixon) > his two complete terms *plus the extra time left over from Kennedy* > would have run him past the statuatory length of time allowed in > office, under the new rules. PAT] Oy, are you wrong. The amendment states that a person can only be elected to the presidency twice. It then continues that a person who takes over for a president, and is president for more than 2 years before the election, is ineligible for a second election. In other words, one can serve a year (November 22, 1963 to January 1965), and be re-elected in November 1964 and November 1968. Johnson removed himself from the election after the strong showing of Eugene McCarthy in the New Hampshire primary. Johnson then watched the Democratic coalition fall apart, as Bobby Kennedy declared for the presidency, and threatened to split the party, and allow the Republicans to win the election. He declared that he would not run again, leaving the nomination open, and leading to the chaos of Chicago 1968, and the election of Nixon. ------------------------------ From: Wesrock@aol.com Date: Fri, 16 Jul 2004 11:13:10 EDT Subject: Re: Power of the Net in Next Election In a message dated Thu, 15 Jul 2004 18:14:10 UTC Bill Ranck writes: > Yes, *Congress* can set the date of the choosing, and of the voting of > the electors, not some appointed board or other group. I really can't > see Congress delegating that authority. Nor is there any basis for thinking the Congress would have the power to delegate such authority. > There is also the clause > which says the term of the President and Vice President is 4 years. > So that sort of limits how much even Congress could delay an election > if they don't want to start a real Constituional crisis. The 20th Amendment provides that the Presodent's term of office ends at noon on January 20. That is constitutional, not statutory, so Congress could not change it. (Incidentally, this change did apply to the incumbent, FDR, and so shortened his first time by the number of days between January 20 and March 4, the old date.) > [TELECOM Digest Editor's Note: Correct me if I am wrong: I believe > the term of office is 4 years but any given person can serve up to > two complete terms maximum. I believe this came about at the urging > of Republicans in 1950 when President Truman was in office, because > they (Republicans) were quite annoyed at President Roosevelt getting > *four* terms in office, even though he died about a year after getting > elected the fourth time. It had always been traditional for presidents to serve only two terms until FDR got elected four times. I don't recall any feeling that it was the Republicans specifically want the two-term limitations; many in both parties through two terms was enough. "Normally" presidents had served only two terms before FDR. The 22nd amendment (the two-term amendment) specifically says it does not apply to a president in office at the time. > I do believe in 1968 when President Johnson was finishing his term in > office, the Democrats were going to run him for a second (complete) > term (recall, he finished the final year of Kennedy's term) but they > would not let him do that, since if he *had* won (instead of Nixon) > his two complete terms *plus the extra time left over from Kennedy* > would have run him past the statuatory length of time allowed in > office, under the new rules. PAT] The 22nd Amendment specifically covers the situation, with two years of the previous term being the dividing line. The "extra time left over from Kennedy" was from Nov. 22, 1963 to January 20, 1965, less than two years, so he was entitled to run for two full terms. I don't know who the "they" are who would not have let him run for a second full term, since this is covered in the constitutional amendment, not statutory law. Johnson chose not to run for a second full term, probably mainly because the hostility of the opposition to the Vietnam war led him to think he would have great difficulty winning. Wes Leatherock wesrock@aol.com wleathus@yahoo.com ------------------------------ Subject: Re: Power of the Net in Next Election Date: Fri, 16 Jul 2004 10:35:25 -0700 From: Linc Madison Reply-To: lincmad@suespammers.org Organization: California resident; nospam; no unsolicited e-mail allowed In article , wrote: > Charles Cryderman wrote: >> 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. The selection of electors isn't the only thing on the ballot in November. There's also a little thing called Congress, so you might want to check Article I, Section 4. > [TELECOM Digest Editor's Note: Correct me if I am wrong: I believe > the term of office is 4 years but any given person can serve up to > two complete terms maximum. The actual limit is 2-1/2 terms. Specifically, no person can be elected three times, and any person who has served more than two years without being elected as President (i.e., a Vice President or other officer of the government who becomes President by succession) can be elected to only one additional term. Thus, since LBJ had served less than two years of JFK's term, he was eligible to run again in 1968. His decision not to run was based on his own lack of popularity at the time, not on any legal limit. On the other hand, Gerald Ford served more than two years of Nixon's second term; about 29 months, to be exact. Thus, Ford was eligible for only one full elected term. That part is in the 22nd Amendment, which was ratified in 1951. Technically, Truman could have run again, since the 22nd didn't apply retroactively ("this article shall not apply to any person holding the office of President when this article was proposed by the Congress"), but Truman abided by the clear desire of the people and did not run in 1952. Incidentally, the "unnamed source" for the story about the plan to postpone the elections was DeForest Soaries, the head of the Election Assistance Commission, which was created by Congress to ensure that we have a smooth election without the disruption and uncertainty we had in 2000. That's hardly what I call an "unnamed source," especially since Soaries' plan is that the EAC be given the authority to postpone the election. (I don't care that an "unnamed source" leaked Soaries' letter to Tom Ridge; the fact remains that the letter is authentic and signed, and the discussion is real.) Clearly, the United States needs to think about contingency plans in case we do have a terrorist attack on or near Election Day. Here's just one scenario: suppose it's late in the day on November 2nd. The polls have closed everywhere except the west coast. Suddenly we have a major terrorist attack in Los Angeles, with thousands dead and maybe thousands more injured or missing. What do we do? Clearly, the California election cannot be completed on schedule. However, the Constitution *does* say that the electors shall be chosen on the same day throughout the United States. Does that mean that the election in Maine has to be tossed out and subjected to a re-vote, since California will have to re-vote? For that matter, do we suspend the election if the attack happens five minutes before the polls close? What about 45 minutes? Two hours? What's the limit? Do we still count the original absentee ballots if we have a re-vote? How do we ensure that partisan interests don't influence the decision to suspend the election? That last bit is a key element: any plan for creating even a possibility of postponing the election on a national basis, must be completely non-partisan. I would say that every single political party or campaign that has even just one candidate on the ballot in one Congressional district, must have a seat in the discussions, and any decision to postpone the election should be made by a 2/3 majority (maybe even 3/4), with the Democrats and Republicans both having veto power. If the election is postponed with any narrower mandate than that, the suspicions of the people will be impossible to quell. Linc Madison * San Francisco, California * lincmad@suespammers.org * primary e-mail: Telecom at LincMad dot com All U.S. and California anti-spam laws apply, incl. CA BPC 17538.45(c) This text constitutes actual notice as required in BPC 17538.45(f)(3). DO NOT SEND UNSOLICITED E-MAIL TO THIS ADDRESS. You have been warned. [TELECOM Digest Editor's Note: I have heard many complaints over the years about the different time zones also causing problems for west coast voters. i.e. having the winner of the election announced before the polls had even closed on the west coast. A solution was proposed which would mostly alleviate that problem at least; change the hours the polls were open so that everyone would be voting 'at the same time'; in other words, voting is usually a 12 hour period, frequently 6 AM to 6 PM, local time. The idea presented was, use the central time zone as the 'base', having central open and close at 7:30 AM to 7:30 PM Central; Eastern would be 8:30 AM to 8:30 PM; Mountain would be 6:30 to 6:30; Pacific would be 5:30 to 5:30. All of these on local time. In other words, all at the same instant. Some would be inconvenienced by starting a bit later and closing a bit later, while others would start and close a bit earlier, all of them getting the same 12 hour window. Alaska and Hawaii would be an exception, with voting on *Monday night* for three or four hours, and again on Tuesday from sometime 6 or 7 AM through early afternoon. Pacific Territories would vote on *Monday* for a 12 hour period noon through midnight more or less. Since the media seems to prefer the east coast as their source of news in these things, they could do their reports when the polls in New York closed at 8:30 PM Eastern, after California had just closed, and possibly 30 minutes to an hour before the polls closed in Alaska and Hawaii. A nice, tidy way of doing it. PAT] ------------------------------ Organization: Rite Aid Corporation From: Paul A Lee Date: Fri, 16 Jul 2004 10:14:50 -0400 Subject: Re: Power of the Net in Next Election Reply-To: telecom-news@yahoogroups.com In TELECOM Digest V23 #334, our esteemed Editor noted (in part): > I believe the term of office is 4 years but any given person > can serve up to two complete terms maximum. ... From Amendment 22 of the U.S. Constitution: "No person shall be elected to the office of the President more than twice, and no person who has held the office of President, or acted as President, for more than two years of a term to which some other person was elected President shall be elected to the office of President more than once." > I do believe in 1968 when President Johnson was finishing his > term in office, the Democrats were going to run him for a > second (complete) term (recall, he finished the final year of > Kennedy's term) but they would not let him do that, since if > he *had* won (instead of Nixon) his two complete terms *plus > the extra time left over from Kennedy* would have run him > past the statuatory length of time allowed in office, under > the new rules. No, Johnson _would_ have been eligible to run for a second term, since he had only served about 14 months of the term to which Kennedy was elected. It was in 1968 that Johnson made his famous "I shall not seek, and I will not accept, the nomination of my party for another term ..." address. Rereading Amendment 22 got me to thinking: It looks like it would be quite possible for one person to serve more than two terms as President. Let's suppose Smith is elected as President and Jones as Vice President. Two years and one day into his term, Smith resigns, dies, or is otherwise removed from office. Jones succeeds Smith as President. According to Amendment 22, Jones is still eligible to be elected twice to the office of President, since he served less than two years of Smith's term. If Jones is elected twice, he will serve a total of 10 years minus 1 day as President. Take it one step farther: After serving as President for one day short of 10 years, Jones runs for Vice President again, on a ticket with Brown. I didn't find anything in a quick search of the Constitution that would prohibit that. Brown and Jones are elected. One week into his term as President, Brown keels over from a massive pulmonary embolism. Jones becomes President again, for another nearly four years. Nothing in the Constitution to prevent that, as far as I can see. There doesn't appear to be anything in the Constitution to prohibit one person from serving as President for quite some time, with a little conniving. Paul A Lee Sr Telecom Engineer Rite Aid Corporation HL-IS-COM (Telecomm) V: +1 717 730-8355 30 Hunter Lane, Camp Hill, PA 17011-2410 F: +1 717 975-3789 P.O. Box 3165, Harrisburg, PA 17105-3165 W: +1 717 805-6208 [TELECOM Digest Editor's Note: I don't think he is eligible to serve as Vice President under President Brown since there is always the possibility Brown *could* be impeached (after a week in office!), be murdered by the Secret Service, or otherwise become incapacitated as you suggest, and with the consitutional prohibition against one person serving as president more than 2.5 terms, it would be necessary for him to recuse or resign the position immediatly. PAT] ------------------------------ From: panoptes@iquest.net (Daniel W. Johnson) Subject: Re: Power of the Net in Next Election Date: 16 Jul 2004 01:12:36 -0700 Organization: http://groups.google.com > [TELECOM Digest Editor's Note: Correct me if I am wrong: Okay. > I believe the term of office is 4 years but any given person can > serve up to two complete terms maximum. Any given person can be elected to the office no more than twice. Or no more than once if they've filled the office for more than two years of someone else's term. http://www.archives.gov/national_archives_experience/charters/constitution_amendments_11-27.html > I believe this came about at the urging of Republicans in 1950 when > President Truman was in office, because they (Republicans) were > quite annoyed at President Roosevelt getting *four* terms in office, > even though he died about a year after getting elected the fourth > time. The twenty-second amendment passed Congress in 1947, although it did take four more years to be ratified. > Since normally any changes voted into law do not affect the > incumbent but only his successors, Truman could have theoretically > been around for many more years. The amendment had an explicit exception for the term in which it took effect, but not for any later elections. If it had taken a couple more years to be ratified and allowed Truman to run and be elected in 1952, he would have been able to finish out that term, but that would have been it. > So the Republicans got Eisenhower in office in 1952. He was an > enormously popular president and the Republicans were sorry (in > 1960) when he wound up having to leave office also because of those > rules they (Republicans) had passed several years before. Since Truman had served more than two years of Roosevelt's term and then been elected to the office once, he was ineligible. This is why the Democrats didn't nominate him in 1952. > I do believe in 1968 when President Johnson was finishing his term in > office, the Democrats were going to run him for a second (complete) > term (recall, he finished the final year of Kennedy's term) but they > would not let him do that, since if he *had* won (instead of Nixon) > his two complete terms *plus the extra time left over from Kennedy* > would have run him past the statuatory length of time allowed in > office, under the new rules. PAT] No. He had served less than two years of Kennedy's term, so there was nothing in the Constitution to keep him from actually being elected twice. [TELECOM Digest Editor's Note: And who sets up the rules for when the conventions are held? I had heard the party seeking office always had theirs first and the party in office always had theirs last. Is that correct? It is happening that way this time at least. And those poor people who live in the condominium across the street from Madison Square Garden are certainly getting pushed around by the Republicans. A memorandum given to the residents of the apartment building by the security officers for the convention have told them they have to stay in their apartments for the entire convention except being allowed to come and go from work and then *only* go outside with proper ID and that they will not be allowed to carry in any packages to their homes (i.e. groceries, etc) during the convention or for a couple days before it begins, nor have any visitors in their homes that week. See this week's Village Voice for the complete oppressive memorandum from the secret security police to residents. I wonder why the Republicans simply did not evict them all, drive them out of their homes for good and get it over with. PAT] ------------------------------ From: Charles Cryderman Subject: The Net and Politics Date: Fri, 16 Jul 2004 08:32:00 -0400 Pat, I commented about how the net is going to be used by the supporters of the President and Senator Kerry. How they will use it to provide garbage to the voters and that many Lemmings will believe what they read on the net as being true. Well I got a real life example for you. This is from the group Fact Check. They are going over every add on TV, radio and the net debunking the trash that is considered "political advertising. I recommend everyone to sign up for their e-mail alerts. You'd be surprise how many false ads are being presented to us and the gall of them. Fact Check does permit the sleaze advertisers to prove the claims, but you wouldn't be surprised at how poorly they are able to. Chip Cryderman See: http://www.factcheck.org/article.aspx?docid=218 Summary An Internet ad by the anti-Bush group MoveOn PAC paints Cheney as a fear-monger and Edwards as a candidate of compassion, trust and hope. It uses snippets from speeches by each of the candidates, artfully edited and enhanced with music and sound effects that play on emotions. Opinions will differ on whether this ad is misleading or not. Viewers not paying close attention could get the false idea that Cheney was predicting "the end of America" when in fact he was quoting an al Qaeda operative -- and scornfully at that. What we offer here is added context to show what was left out of the ad, and our observations on some of the persuasion techniques used by all political admakers to influence what viewers will think and feel about what they are seeing. Analysis MoveOn PAC announced July 13 it was asking its 2 million members to e-mail a new 60-second Internet ad to their friends, and to post it on websites. Painting a Picture MoveOn PAC's news release describes the ad's intent: MoveOn PAC: Using stark video images set to music and footage of the candidates themselves, the ad paints a picture of Edwards' commitment to an America that lifts people up and unites its citizenry in compassion and trust. Dick Cheney, on the other hand, is shown promoting a climate of fear . (Emphasis added) Is the picture accurate? How do the "stark images" and the added music comport with reality? Let's dissect some of the techniques being used here. Editing Cheney The raw material for this ad comes from two much longer speeches given by the two candidates. Edwards spoke at a campaign event at Largo, MD Feb 20 (when he was still running against Kerry for the nomination, by the way), and Cheney was speaking to the conservative Heritage Foundation way back on Oct 10, 2003. One dubious bit of editing comes at the end of the ad, where Cheney seems to be chanting "the beginning of the end of America, the beginning of the end of America." How's that for fear-mongering? However, Cheney did not repeat that phrase for emphasis as the ad does. He said it only once. The repetitive editing is a clever persuasion technique that turns the phrase into a mantra, subtly giving it more weight than Cheney did himself. More importantly, Cheney himself was not predicting the "beginning of the end of America" -- he was quoting an al Qaeda member. To be sure, the ad does flash the words "quoting al Qaeda" on screen, but anyone who misses that disclaimer would get the impression that the words were a gloomy prediction by Cheney. Here's the way Cheney really said it: Cheney: Since 9/11, we've learned much more about what these enemies intend for us. One member of al Qaeda said 9/11 was the "beginning of the end of America." And we know to a certainty that terrorists are doing everything they can to gain even deadlier means of striking us. From the training manuals we found in the caves of Afghanistan to the interrogations of terrorists that we've captured, we have learned of their ambitions to develop or acquire chemical, biological or nuclear weapons. And if terrorists ever do acquire that capability -- on their own or with help from a terror regime -- they will use it without the slightest constraint of reason or morality. Of course, reasonable people could still see that as a message of fear, and many do. On the other hand, Cheney's main point in that speech was that America had been made safer: Cheney: Today we do not face this prospect. There are terrorists in Iraq, yet there is no dictator to protect them, and we are dealing with them one by one. Terrorists have gathered in that country and there they will be defeated. We are fighting this evil in Iraq so we do not have to fight it on the streets of our own cities. No sense of that message was in the ad, of course. Editing Edwards The ad also edits Edwards' words to leave out any hint of negativity. Just before Edwards talks about "building America," for example, he paints a dark picture of present-day reality: Edwards: Just think about it for a minute. In a country of our wealth and our prosperity, to have children going to bed hungry, to have children who don't have the clothes to keep them warm, to have millions of Americans who work full-time, every single day, working for minimum wage to support their families and living in poverty -- it's wrong. This is what you and I are going to do about it together: We're going to build an America where we say no to kids going to bed hungry; no to the kids not having the clothes to keep them warm; and no forever to any American working full-time and living in poverty. Not in our America. Not in the America you and I will build together. We can do this. Music and Effects For those who might otherwise miss the point, the ad cues the viewer by placing the words "compassion," "trust" and "hope" on screen as Edwards speaks, and "FEAR" in pulsating capital letters as Cheney speaks. Behind Edwards' words the ad's soundtrack lays "subtle uplifting music" (as MoveOn PAC's news release describes it), and behind Cheney's words we hear the sound of an "ominous heartbeat." And as Cheney is made to chant "the beginning of the end of America" his image turns from full color to shades of red, signifying (we suppose) blood -- or at least something evil. We're neither disputing nor endorsing this ad's description of Edwards as a man with an inspirational message, and Cheney as man spreading fear. That's for voters to decide. What we are saying is that watching this ad is a far cry from watching what Edwards and Cheney said, directly and unedited. In the real world, the audiences heard the whole thing -- and without music, sound effects or graphics inserted by somebody telling them what they should think about what they were hearing. The same can be said for nearly all political advertising. Voters should know that its aim is to persuade, not necessarily to inform. And they should also be aware that even when words and images are accurate, they can be manipulated, edited and enhanced to create a desired impression. Sources Moveon PAC, "Voters Urged to Support Edwards' Message of Hope and Trust Over Cheney's Message of Fear," news release , 13 July 2004. Vice President Richard Cheney, " Remarks by the Vice President to the Heritage Foundation ," Washington, DC, 10 Oct 2003. U.S. Sen. John Edwards, Prince George's Community College, Largo, Maryland, 20 Feb 2004. ------------------------------ From: londa.raymer@raymerbook.com (Londa Raymer) Subject: Re: Getting out of Norvergence Contracts Date: 16 Jul 2004 13:18:50 -0700 Organization: http://groups.google.com nrackeertu@cliornuwta.mailexpire.com (N. Rakeertu) wrote in message news:: > hancock4@bbs.cpcn.com (Jeff nor Lisa) wrote in message: >>> The customers have plenty of defenses against Norvergence >> Why would they? The company went broke. Companies do that all the >> time and anyone who is owed money (customer or creditor) has to get in >> line at bankruptcy court and file a claim. > Because Norvergence didn't perform on its agreement to provide the > service for 5 years. So for instance if Norvergence had kept the > equipment rental agrements instead of unloading them to the finance > companies, the customers could argue that they didn't owe Norvergence > anything because Norvergence hadn't performed on the service part of > the deal. By assigning greatly inflated values to the equipment part > of the deal, and assigning the equipment stream of income to a third > party, Norvergence made it much harder for the customers to resist > payment to the third party assignees (because these assignees > supposedly take the assignment as purchasers for value with no actual > knowledge of customer defenses against Norvergence). That is why it is > so important for the customers to band together and take action on > their own behalf. It's almost certain that the financing companies > will try to enforce the leases even though Norvergence is BK, and it's > up to the customers to defend themselves (or continue to pay for > nearly worthless equipment and no phone service). > NR:>> What needs to happen here, in my view, is that the customers of > >> the various leasing companies ... need to band together and file > >> class action lawsuits against them. > JNL > It depends on the amount of individual losses. For some, the > time, effort, aggravation, and legal fees wouldn't be worth it. > Right. Individual losses, though substantial (most Norvergence > customers are probably looking at over $25,000 in payments over five > years, and some will owe much more than that) make it difficult to > justify a lawsuit, and it will be expensive to get the right amount of > discovery done to prove that the financing companies knew what was up, > at least at some point. That's why the customers need to find each > other and take action. If they don't, the financing companies will > just pick them off one at a time and it will be difficult to resist. > JNL > In the event that actual fraud (intentional deception) is found, > then the district attorney should be brought in. > Good point. It looks like Norvergence wasn't paying its telecom bills, > and I've read complaints from employees that they weren't being paid > their commissions due, so all that money from selling rental contracts > must have been going somewhere. I wonder where it all went? > N. Rackeertu > [TELECOM Digest Editor's Note: Norvergence customers can find each > other through a web site http://www.norvergence-cit-fraud.com set > up for them. PAT] The link doesn't work!!! [TELECOM Digest Editor's Note: So I found out from several readers today. I had *thought* maybe it was going to be a useful way for Norvergece customers to communicate with each other. Silly me! PAT] ------------------------------ From: TELECOM Digest Editor Subject: Share Day For July, 2004 Date: Fri, 16 Jul 2004 17:00:00 CDT Instead of changing the Digest over to an advrtising supported forum, I have always elected to keep it as a user supported forum, and for the most part keep it spam and virus free. I am *only* able to do this because of financial support from readers here, and if you would rather not see these messages every month, then please pitch in and help now and then! Consider it sort of like public radio, which goes on for days at a time trying to raise money ... and maybe I should adopt the same system. Turn over the entire Digest once or twice a year to fund raising (entire issues, etc) and stop doing it when the budget for the year has been raised. But for now, I will stick with the present system of devoting a few messages at the end of each month to raising money for the Digest publication expenses. Out of 400-500 messages per month, in a spam, virus free environment, two or three (only) devoted to fund raising. You know who you are; please provide some help here financially. Especially you Norvergence customers I have tried to help here in the past couple months or so. Maybe a gift of one month's worth of what you saved being warned about Norvergence. It would work great here. You can use Pay Pal to donate with a credit/debit card by going to our web site http://telecom-digest.org and at the bottom of the home page look for the PayPal 'donate' button. Or if you prefer, send a check or money order to Patrick Townson/TELECOM, Post Office Box 50, Independence, Kansas 67301-0050. The amount you send is entirely up to you. You know best how much you can afford and whether or not this Digest has any value for you. Thank you very much. Patrick Townson, Editor/Publisher TELECOM Digest ------------------------------ 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 #336 ****************************** ms