From editor@telecom-digest.org Sun Jul 18 01:36:38 2004 Received: (from ptownson@localhost) by massis.lcs.mit.edu (8.11.6p3/8.11.3) id i6I5acT03701; Sun, 18 Jul 2004 01:36:38 -0400 (EDT) Date: Sun, 18 Jul 2004 01:36:38 -0400 (EDT) From: editor@telecom-digest.org Message-Id: <200407180536.i6I5acT03701@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 #339 TELECOM Digest Sun, 18 Jul 2004 01:36:00 EDT Volume 23 : Issue 339 Inside This Issue: Editor: Patrick A. Townson Norvergence Fraud Forum (Bart) Re: Getting out of Norvergence Contracts (Lisa Hancock) Re: Problems With Vonage and Bellsouth/PPPoE (John McHarry) Re: Problems With Vonage and Bellsouth/PPPoE Semi-Resolved (Rich Thomas) Re: Problems With Vonage and Bellsouth/PPPoE (John R. Levine) Re: Power of the Net in Next Election (Henry) The Political Convention in 1904 - Teddy Roosevelt (Patrick Townson) 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: Bart Subject: Norvergence Fraud Forum Date: Sat, 17 Jul 2004 11:40:39 -0700 Organization: Posted via Supernews, http://www.supernews.com Reply-To: spam@icpage.com I've created this forum to provide a common place for Norvergence Customers to share their experience with others. You will find the board up and running as http://www.b87.com . This is a non-commercial board to help users of Norvergence find answers. Registration required to post or reply to keep the "vultures" away. If you have been victimized by Norvergence, past employee or have any information to share, please join us at http://www.b87.com. The sole purpose of this bulletin board is help the victims help themselves. Bart@b87.com [TELECOM Digest Editor's Note: Not wishing to be deceived twice in a two week period on the same issue -- Norvergence -- I *did* try this URL before publishing this message. It *is* a good board, and robo-moderated; that is, you have to register prior to *any* posting. There are four or five different 'departments' or categories there; one dealing with former employees, another dealing with the fraud aspects, etc. So you *can* trust http://www.b87.com I think. PAT] ------------------------------ From: hancock4@bbs.cpcn.com (Lisa Hancock) Subject: Re: Getting out of Norvergence Contracts Date: 17 Jul 2004 18:57:19 -0700 Organization: http://groups.google.com Isaiah Beard wrote [some excellent points] > It's an apples and oranges comparison here, because there really is no > warranty against a company becoming insolvent. If an automaker went bankrupt, its warranty would be worthless. Though other makers might buy it up with worthwhile assets through the court which is the case in many bankruptcies so end customers don't get screwed; however it is not a guarantee. > 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. I don't think the actual value of any box has any relevance. It's the total package that matters. At work, I can buy a bottle of water for $1, or go to the drinking fountain and get the same thing (IMHO) for free. I can go to a fancy restaurant and get a little spaghetti for $22 or a plain place and get a heaping plate for $4. There is no fraud in either case. Businesses DO go broke. Every customer and vendor takes a chance when dealing with any business, most hopefully will honor their committ- ments, but bankruptcies and sudden shutdowns do occur. Bad or foolish business decisions are not fraud. That's why in contracts such as this exit clauses are very important. Suppose they were still in business but the service quality was poor? > 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. It would have to be proven that the money was indeed squandered illegally. I have a funny feeling that the mgmt knew what they were doing and it will be hard to prove that case. We'll have to see. Unfortunately, since Reagan business oversight and SEC rules have declined. Presidents since Reagan haven't felt the need to restore it. Well, they did get Martha S. for "lying". > The difference is that these customers bought a machine that they were > led to believe DID something for them, and cost a huge amount. I bought a new car. Unlike the ads, I do not hot young folks fawning around me, nor am I driving alone on beautiful roads (unless the NJ Tpk in a jammup counts). If this box was totally air space, you might have a point. But as long as it actually performed a function, and apparently it did, the price isn't relevent, anymore than a Hollywood star paying $1,000 for a pair of beach flipflops available down the street for $1. > 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? I consider any contract without an exit clause to be a swindle. I consider anything grossly overpriced to be a swindle. But there is a big difference between my opinion and what constitutes legal fraud. Did I get swindled by the car ads? Are SUV owners swindled by ads showing the SUV on top of mountains? Like $1,000 beach shoes or $25 spagh dinners, if you got the product, you got what you asked for. IF the unit was NEVER HOOKED IT, you have a case since the unit had no function. But if the unit works, and you merely overpaid, that's your problem. I am sorry for Norv customers who got burned in this, but as business people, they should've known more of what they were getting into. The cost of the contract should have been compared to other bids. The exit clause options should've been clear. The lease terms should've been clear. Geez, the first question in anyone's mind should've been "if this doesn't work out, what happens to the lease?" and a contract with fine print should've been reviewed first by their attorney. If the company significantly mispresented the service quality, functions, and costs, then it is fraudulent. ------------------------------ From: John McHarry Subject: Re: Problems With Vonage and Bellsouth/PPPoE Date: Sat, 17 Jul 2004 21:24:03 GMT Organization: EarthLink Inc. -- http://www.EarthLink.net Richard Thomas wrote: > Has this been an issue for anyone else? > I have a home network that usually connects through Bellsouth DSL via > a Linux firewall and the PPPoE client.Everything usually runs snappy > and fine. > Two days ago, I obtained and installed the Vonage Motorola VT1000 > appliance. I disabled the PPPoE stuff and started DHCP and rewrote my > NAT/firewall rules and everything seemed kind-of OK. I used to have BS DSL. One useful thing I found out is that when you run PPPoE, the DSL interface they supply acts simply as a modem. If you run DHCP, the router function includes some firewalling you can neither see nor control. This breaks traceroute. What else it breaks, I know not, but I used it that way for a couple years with no problems other than the traceroute one. I would try going back to PPPoE and using the Linux box to NAT the Vonage device. You could also use ethereal or tcpdump to sniff out what is going on. ------------------------------ From: Richard Thomas Subject: Re: Problems With Vonage and Bellsouth/PPPoE Semi-Resolved Organization: BellSouth Internet Service Date: Sat, 17 Jul 2004 17:17:01 -0500 I found that by disabling the DMZ option, my connection started working reasonably again. Problem is, this means that I can only forward up to 10 ports incoming. Now, as it happens, this *is* enough for me at the moment (Port 22 is the main concern) but I still don't like the idea of being limited like that. Anyone have any more info? An animal so poor in spirit that he won't even fight on his own behalf is already an evolutionary dead end; the best he can do for his breed is crawl off and die, and not pass on his defective genes. --R.A.Heinlein ------------------------------ From: johnl@iecc.com (John R. Levine) Subject: Re: Problems With Vonage and Bellsouth/PPPoE Date: 17 Jul 2004 15:34:22 -0400 Organization: I.E.C.C., Trumansburg NY USA > Anyone know if I have a faulty appliance? Is this a known problem? > Should I just stick the appliance behind my firewall and if so, does > anyone have a link to a good guide on how best to do this? If your ISP uses PPPoE, I'm astonished that you could set up a connection using DHCP at all. Why didn't you follow the instructions on page 9 of the installation guide that tell you how to configure the Motorola box for PPPoE? Or alternatively, put it behind your router, and see the note on page 16 about the ports that it uses. ------------------------------ From: henry999@eircom.net (Henry) Subject: Re: Power of the Net in Next Election Date: Sat, 17 Jul 2004 23:53:45 +0300 Organization: Elisa Internet customer wrote: > "Normally" presidents had served only two terms before FDR. Not exactly. But let's look at the whole picture, both pre- and post-FDR. Of the 42 incumbents prior to the present one (counting Cleveland as two), the _most frequent_ reason for 'end of service' is that the president was voted out after one term! This happened in ten cases. Eight men died in office and one resigned. Three were constitutionally barred from continuing by the 22nd Amendment. That leaves 20 who _could have_ run again but for whatever reason did not. (Whether it was their choice or that of the power-brokers in their party is beyond the scope of this little summary.) Eight of those 20 men were vice-presidents who assumed office on the death of their predecessor. Four of those eight--interestingly, the first four chronologically--completed the term they 'inherited' and did not run for a term of their own. The next four chronologically completed the term they inherited and then ran for and won a term of their own, after which they stepped down. G.R. Ford, who was thrust into not only the presidency but the vice-presidency as well, is the only one of the mid-term replacements who was rejected by the voters when he sought a term of his own. That leaves 12 (before the advent of the 22nd Amendment) who were elected, served their time and left, Seven of these served for two terms. (Chronologically, they were five of the first seven presidents; the other two were Grant and Wilson {who was debilitated).) Of the five who served one full term and then stepped down, one was Cleveland, who had served a previous term and been kicked out by the voters. Cheers, Henry [TELECOM Digest Editor's Note: And out of the last 20 elections, since 1924, or 80 years, 10 of the winners have been Democrats and 8 have been Republicans. Over 90 years, or 22 elections, the score is about even. Grover Cleveland (first time around) was the first president to have telephone service in the White House, and Theodore Roosevelt's 12 year old son Teddy operated the White House switchboard while the 'girl' went to lunch. The switchboard in those days was right outside Roosevelt's office because he wished to be notified immediatly of an important message arriving by telephone. PAT] ------------------------------ From: TELECOM Digest Editor Subject: The Convention in 1904, One Hundred Years Ago Date: Sat, 17 Jul 2004 23:00:00 EDT For most of our nation's lifetime -- especially in the 1860 to 1968 time frame, presidential political conventions were held in Chicago. The reason was (take your pick) -1- the city of Chicago and state of Illinois politics were so corrupted, the national guys felt right at home and welcomed by their brothers of the cloth or -2- Chicago was the place where all the railroad trains terminated, and it was an ideal place for the national conventions before aircraft travel became common. The correct answer of course is -2-, Chicago was the center of our nation and very convenient for folks to get to. Usually the Republican and Democratic conventions would be a couple weeks apart. The earliest conventions were downtown at the Central Music Hall, which stood where Marshall Field's store is located at State and Randolph Streets. Beginning in the early years of the 20th century the conventions migrated south to 15th Street at the Chicago Colliseum, then in the 1930-40's to the old Chicago Stadium, on the west side, which became famous for the number of presidential candidates who were nominated, made speeches and were frequently elected. That one block of West Madison Street -- now a dreadful slum area -- is famous for that one fact: A dozen or so presidential candidates were nominated there, made speeches, etc. The original 'smoke filled room' where a certain candidate was handed the nomination once was the old (now gone) LaSalle Hotel, LaSalle and Madison Streets. After the Democrats had their riot in 1968, replete with televised coverage of the ugly events along Michigan Avenue downtown that Wednesday night, and the police presence downtown all day the next day Thursday gassing everyone walking around and using their batons indiscriminatly on everyone who tried to hide from the gas, all the politicians got scared and decided to not return to Chicago for about thirty years. I've got a hunch -- just a hunch -- that the Republican convention this time around will be as much of a 'riot' as the Democratic one in 1968 was. War protestors and people dissatisfied in general with Mr. Bush will hold their own 'convention' around Madison Square Garden just as happened in Chicago downtown that hot Wednesday night in August in 1968. And more than likely, police will write them all off as 'terrorists' just as Chicago police considered everyone an 'anti-war protestor' in 1968 as they cracked heads open assembly line style as they gassed them and dragged them off to Cook County Jail. Many thousands of gentle people whose crime was they disagreed with those in power. Like Chicago that year, where the convention was held <-- one place and the protestors were beaten up several miles away --> so as to keep the conventioneer's virgin eyes clean of the scene, in New York, the 'designated and authorized spot' for protestors will be miles away, so that Bush and the other delegates don't have to observe them or grasp the fact that there are many Americans who do not agree with them. They'll be known as the 'terrorists' this time around. But in 1904, a hundred years ago, things were different when Theodore Roosevelt was nominated at Chicago Colliseum. On the stage sat the band, the song leader, the master of ceremonies and of course, Mr. Roosevelt. There were precisely *two* pieces of music which every one stood to sing as the participants walked onto the stage: (1) "Onward Christian Soldiers" as everyone entered, and (2) "Battle Hymn of the Republic" as everyone recessed. (Sorry about that; that is how political conventions used to be in those days.) The band sat on the stage and played vigorously for each song, and of course much flag waving by the room full of delegates. The first row of seats and the area in front of the stage were reserved for the most important people there: the stenographers, the telegraph operators and the telephone operator. The delegates got to sit behind the ladies and gentlemen who communicated the whole thing to the rest of the world. In those long ago days before tape recording equipment, etc it was up to stenographers to copy it all down. *They* of course got priority since they had to hear it all correctly. Speeches were made, Roosevelt was nominated, and made his acceptance speech. Then the master of ceremonies declared that "as we close our convention, Mr. Zundel will lead us as we rise to sing 'Battle Hymn of the Republic' then following our dismissal, Mr. Roosevelt will linger at the steps leading from the stage so that delegates who wish to do so may personally greet him or ask questions." Mr. Zundel began to lead the singing and Mr. Roosevelt studied his program through the owl-shaped style eye glasses he wore. Then something must have crossed his mind, because he looked over his glasses at the stenographers and telegraphers who filled the first row of seats, and decided to visit with them and made his way down the stairs from the stage. He approached the ladies, sort of courteously acknowleged them and began greeting them. The stenographers as a group stood to acknowledge him also and shook hands with him. They represented various newspapers and magazines, etc which would print his entire acceptance speech in their next issues, etc. Then his attention went to the nearby telephone operator with a switchboard and he must have been curious about how telephones worked or what they did, because the operator explained that the overflow crowd of people who had not been able to get in the coleseum to hear him speak were all at the Central Music Hall downtown where his voice could be heard over loudspeakers "at the very same time you are speaking here, Mr. Roosevelt, citizens at the Music Hall, about two miles away are hearing you." Then the telegraph operators rose to greet him, and he apparently asked them something about their work and how their devices operated also, which they demonstrated for him. By this point, the singing of 'Battle Hymn' was concluding and the master of ceremonies walked over to him and motioned for him to stand in a certain place where the delegates and members of the public fortunate enough to get a seat could come by and speak to him as they filed out. Mr. Roosevelt must have been suitably impressed by all the 'fancy' equipment there that history states he was the first president to install a switchboard in the White House, and he insisted that it be located right outside his office, where the 'girl' could bring him any messages received promptly. Earlier telephones in the White House had been single line magneto crank instruments. 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 #339 ******************************